259
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024
259 points (96.8% liked)
Technology
58429 readers
3903 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There has been a lot of ridiculous back and forth here, but this particular question seems worth answering, to me.
I remember watching some of the documentaries back when Three Mile Island was going on and if I recall the half-life of the radioactive waste was like 10,000 years. So, yeah, the cost for the handling of the waste seems relevant to the conversation.
Edit: I misremembered it, the waste in question was Plutonium-239 and the half-life was 24,000 years, not 10,000. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-level_radioactive_waste_management
Nah, as pointed out by the other commenter here I am just a bigot against nuclear. Thinking a power source isn't the best option right now is equivalent to being a hateful person, you see.