General Discussions

[ElwoodBlues1]

The reality is that the bulk of harmful emissions from these events are very short lived and the bulk of it is contained to the immediate vicinity, the long lived stuff the anti-nuclear lobby continually harp on about remains contained. Three Mile Island for example emitted no radiation at all.

The real risk for long term dispersed contamination is the way waste is stored, handled and dispersed, not the threat of the power plant or it's reactors. Even the recent case in the Ukraine held very little risk of a major event, however if the same bombs had targeted the waste facilities then it would be a different matter. This is why I'm an advocate for Australia and other similar geographies to be global repositories for waste, and actually profit enormously from it. I realise the anti-nuclear / pro-renewables brigade rally against this idea, but in the same breath they demand Australia be held to account for it's waste from coal exports which seems hypocritical.

By volume more radioactive particulates are emitted from a normally operated coal fired plant over it's lifetime than will ever comes out of a normally operated nuclear plant over it's lifetime.

The best solution, in terms for having an immediate short term impact that can be sustained long term, seems to be a balanced approach using a diverse array of low carbon energy sources.

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/109139629...oactive-zo
A few old locals still residing around those danger areas too, be interesting to test those Russian troops and those locals and see what levels they have. As you say I dont see a waste dump for profit being a popular idea in Aus, didnt that idea get brought up years ago with the French wanting to dump uranium waste in Aus?