this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2024
39 points (95.3% liked)

Canada

8159 readers
2110 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


πŸ’΅ Finance, Shopping, Sales


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

A big concern here is ground water. If a tectonic plate movement damages the underground storage, the waste could contaminate ground water and it would be pretty much impossible to clean it up. One of the hardest challenges in my opinion of nuclear waste storage is the generational responsibility to keep it stored safely, although you could argue the same responsibility exists for landfills already.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'd assume that "geologically stable" was one of the requirements when they first made a list of potential locations.

Fortunately, all of the heavy-water CANDU reactors currently in commercial service in Ontario are fueled by unenriched uranium, so the worst possible outcome shouldn't result in much more contamination being released into the environment than we would see with a natural uranium deposit of comparable size nearby. Which isn't nothing, but the result would be a smallish statistical increase in cancers, not people dropping dead from Acute Radiation Syndrome. Many industrial sites do more damage and are less scrutinized, but we get all weird about radiation the moment the word "nuclear" comes up, and have a hard time putting the risks in perspective.

[–] gramie 1 points 3 months ago

A couple of issues with that. For one thing, the uranium coming out of the CANDU reactors has been purified, unlike uranium ore which is mixed in with huge amounts of stone and other materials and it's natural state.

Also, as I understand it the reactors convert about 1% of the uranium into plutonium, which is much more toxic and emits more radiation.

So while there may not be as great a danger as some people fear, there is definitely more than an equivalent amount of natural uranium.

[–] FlareHeart 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

These aren't bins of glowing green ooze like in the cartoons. Most waste products are solid and are stored in heavy duty, shielded bins. Kyle Hill on YouTube created a really good video that demonstrated walking through a storage facility and literally hugging one of the bins. His rad meter was perfectly normal the whole time. He also examines other risks as well as the risks of other methods of power generation.

Video for reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aUODXeAM-k

Here's the one where he hugs the waste casks:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhHHbgIy9jU