Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Nuclear waste has never once impacted my outdoor activities, can't say the same for fossil fuel waste. The total of my lifetime radiation exposure probably increases my chances of cancer by less than .01%. How do think that compares with the crap we all breath all day? California being on fire, continuously, is the biggest problem right now for outdoor activities though. They should get their **** together or move down wind.

But what would you feel if your government was going to deposit all the waste of the US nuclear power facilities and store it in the earth in your local nature reserve or park where you go hunt.

 

Yes the air we breathe is crap in metropolitan areas (but that's largely due to traffic pollution not anything to do with power plants) and I'm sure fossil fuels from coal plants make the local air unpleasant. But is that worse than ecological risk of storing radioactive waste in the earth under a park??

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really care where they bury it so long as it stays contained. If a national park had the ideal geological conditions to serve as a repository I see no problem. If the only argument in favor is "we got this land here" then I would be opposed.

 

Yes, air pollution is a far greater ecological risk IMO. Airline pilots are exposed to more ionizing radiation than nuclear plant operators. Most of the fear of radioactive material stems from a lack of understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...