Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Tupcek t1_iruwihm wrote

Reply to comment by LarryGumball in Solar Rollout Rouses Resistance in Europe’s Countryside: Regulations meant to protect green space block the installation of solar panels despite soaring energy prices by CannoliIntoPussy

it is even in your source,, though conveniently skipped:
“Mill tailings and raffinates are stored in specially designed ponds called impoundments. The tailings remain radioactive and contain hazardous chemicals from the recovery process.”
we have one of the largest untapped uranium deposits in Europe about 20km out of my city - while it would pose no danger to the city, thanks to modern containment methods; we could no longer go hiking to the nature anywhere near the site, since there will be radioactive ponds that remains radioactive for a long time. That’s why no mining started and it won’t start. We are luckily from EU country, where corporations can’t waste human lives and nature absolutely disregarding any human or nature needs, but it’s not like that everywhere and in many places, when there is an ore, that location gets closed off and people just won’t go there for hundreds of years. It’s an electricity for rich (poor countries don’t have nuclear reactors) in exchange for poor man’s land.
After mining other types of ore, country can be revitalized, since it’s not radioactive. That’s not true for uranium.

3

LarryGumball t1_irv5er4 wrote

Since I'm still awake failuring to sleep. Here's the big question. Are the ponds radioactive enough to be significant (ie produce enough to radiation to be dangerous to the wildlife). As I have yet to locate documentation on it but I also haven't dove for it yet. I will say I have indeed been able to source others on radioactivity been a boon for the environment due to the exact reason your upset. And that's humans avoid the area causing nature to thrive. As humans especially young, or disrespectful (ie yes the trashy type of person American or not who litters) is ultimately more toxic than a little pile of radioactive material. As again this is naturally occurring substances that have been brought to the surface and concentred with the primary radioactive material being taken away.

And to counter your Eu country statement, that only applies to within your county as I can talk about the European Ewaste that is shipped and processed in Africa including children burning the plastic off of copper wires for recycling. But I'm sure it's ok because it's not happening in Europe. It's ok for poor countries to suffer both the mining processing and recycling of Europe's waste and for it to not count as damaging the environment because it's not happening in European land? Let's drop the bull and point out Europe uses processed materials that are mined and artificial materials that are made via complex chemical chains. All we can do worldwide is reduce the harm and I agree Europe does a good job at producing a good standard of living.

If we wanted to get into the negatives of American I can spend all day as well. But on the topic of radioactive materials unless you can provide proof that it's scaring the land for hundreds of years. I can say it technically is protecting it. Ofc I'll try and see if I can find anything about if it is truelly negative or not tomorrow but would gladly love a article providing proof of it being bad. Instead of saying anything radioactive means hundreds of years of damage. As it depends on the levels of radiation for it to be bad.

0

Tupcek t1_irv7drx wrote

well, by your logic, Chernobyl was great, because radioactive deaths of animals doesn’t matter (because more gets born) and it’s positive environment because there are no people.
By that logic, let’s start nuclear war, it would be best for environment.

And who said it’s OK to send waste to poor countries? I didn’t for sure. I am against uranium mining and against open burning toxic waste.

Mining of minerals can be done environmentally friendly and without any abuse or long term damage. Of course, many times it isn’t. But that’s political and economical problem, not something that can’t be overcome. You can mine those and you can do it sustainably. You can’t mine uranium without radioactive lakes

−2

LarryGumball t1_irw90jd wrote

Love the comparing of piles of inert stone that is naturally occurring and my statement if they are within non damaging limits of radioactive being fine to the worst known nuclear issue in human history. Cell towers, Cell phones, Radios, etc are all using radio waves which is propagation that can basically be considered radioactive. all of these may be a issue but the value is deemed worth it and the added radioactive effect is considered negligible in the long term.

I pointed it out as your smug self, pointed out your glad no mining is being done in your country that has the ability to mine the material within regulations and ensure the regulations are upheld in a way that the materials would not be negative to the environment , but Don't so you can hike. However European society is still using materials that are mined, and companies from Europe still ship waste elsewhere (I will point out Europe has laws against the exports but reality is it still happens). So it is mocking of lessers to be smug about it. That most of that waste isn't even radioactive but that we as a global society all have issues, and not to pretend that just because one isn't directly involved that they better than another who is.

My ultimate point is every human takes in 5-6 SV of radiation a year, animals as well, are these radioactive lakes harmful or not? If they are can they be rendered non-harmful? if so regulation should be required to make them non-harmful. After all the substances the make these lakes are still naturally occurring materials and not the same materials being used as fuel as they still need to be "enriched" to a level where they would be toxic to life, which is a whole other part of the debate.

Hell early fire detectors use a sensor and radioactive material to detect smoke between them. Hospitals use materials as well. Heck one of the INES T5 issues of nuclear was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident . We use radioactive materials in day to day life that still need sources. Why demonize a material that can be less harmful than coal and oil? That we will likely still need in the future if we ever go to space?

On the Wildlife https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife Yes, Wildlife is safer in radioactive wastelands, compared to being near humans. IF the radiation is below the threshold to be negative to life. This isn't a comment talking about the goods of radioactivity, just that of humanity being more toxic to nature than literal toxic materials.

1

Tupcek t1_irwg8ue wrote

well, if you want radioactive lakes, we can start mining and export it to your backyard. It’s OK, right?
And no, it’s not piles of inert stone that is naturally occurring. It’s heavily radioactive waste lakes that occur by processing uranium and it emits orders of magnitude more radiation. Comparing it to cell phones is just a joke - go ahead and take a walk near any of that lake, it’s just a radiation, right? no big deal. It’s like comparing someone bumping into you while walking to car going 300km/h hitting you. It’s the same, right? Both is just a touch.
And why do you thing I am smug? I am grateful that mining of uranium didn’t happen here and I wish everybody had a government like this. I do not support toxic mining and toxic waste anywhere, nor do I support exporting our shit elsewhere. Just because there are some problem (waste export) I should be OK with any other problem (radioactive lakes)?
and to your last question: yes, this radiation is much higher and are harmful to anyone getting close. It’s not nearly levels of anything naturally occuring. It is considered safe because it is contained within area and do not leak to places where people live. But it remains radioactive and is closed to public basically forever.
edit: I can’t comment about all types of mining - depending on where the ore is located different processes are used. In here, company that asked for permits stated that the area will be closed even long after they stop mining. There were protests and city didn’t grant the permission

1

LarryGumball t1_irwns6o wrote

Honestly depending I would be fine with it as I already live near a fertilizer byproduct site (https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-material-fertilizer-production) which also produces radioactive radon, and yes it is piles of inert rock that is naturally occurring otherwise we wouldn't be mining it.... That data shows 85% radioactivity of the natural uranium, unknown on the halflife due to it not being the direct material. the chemicals are that of removing the uranium from the stone that it is in and then leaving it in a giant pile aka lake.

*correction (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653646/) this shows the halflife will be 76000 years however modern methods are to cover the lake with clay and soil and plant trees atop it. Along with https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/toxzine/uranium_toxzine.html pointing out the material is already pretty much everywhere, it's just the question of dosage, which the mines on record (which were produced prior to current methods of containment) are massive issues due to improper storage are mainly a issue due to increased radon gas generation due to the fine milling but are countered by the clay burial which reduces the amount of radon gas released to a more natural level. These materials also are potential sources for reprocessing in order to be used as fuel for newer generation reactors designed to take these long term wastes and generate shorter term wastes with half-lifes that are a hundred to a decade long. So you can use millennia instead, with the radon gas issue being questionable unless modern methods are confirmed functional solution. This does not mean that radon gas would not have formed without the mine, just that it's more exposed due to being on the surface instead of underground*

Overall if your vision of these lakes is that of instant death. I think you fail to understand how radioactive materials work. It's better comparison is sunlight because, sunlight is a product of a nuclear reaction and is the radiation from the sun...

Too much of it is bad for you, however it's not going to instantly kill you, unless you use concave reflection and build a lazer.

And the comparison to cell towers is not a joke, they literally work by radio frequency, and the full spectrum of frequency is radiating the entire population almost nonstop. Point being is your willing to accept a certain tolerance level of radiation and if the lakes of material matched that then you in theory shouldn't have a issue with it.

Again the material MINED FROM THE EARTH IE FROM NATURE is different then the material being used IN ENERGY GENERATION. and the left over lake is the lesser radioactive material.

Not mining it means it's still in the ground. The Left over material is not more radioactive, but less. it's a issue because it's no longer underground, but now on the surface meaning there's less of a barrier. BUT IS IT STILL NATURALLY OCCURRING.

If your willing to argue something found in nature is not natural.I don't know what to say.

And again the smugness is being happy and proud at having "nontainted" land. The materials for modern technology have to be obtained from somewhere so if you benefit from it, be it Medical or otherform, but refuse for the mining to be in your backyard, but instead others then I have say how you state it gives off smug vibes unless your stating it with no pride.

Overall I assume you've already made up your mind as at this point your ignoring science and going off what you feel. I am just trying to state with science and math we can do calculations to show exactly how harmful these lakes are. Which when first produced are harmful (but i have yet to locate a source by how much short of the 85% of natural uranium ), and I would love to see data on how harmful and for how long. As you have yet to bring ANY DATA to this argument. So I bid you a good day, unless you can bring said evidence that it from mining toxic to all life for hundreds of years as your initial statement was. preferred a government site European or American, or a scientific paper with stats.

1

Optix334 t1_irv28km wrote

Now google the same thing for Lithium, needed for batteries.

And cobalt, needed for solar panels.

Maybe we can power the world with wind for a little bit before we run out of neodymium.

−2

Tupcek t1_irv3oro wrote

yeah, for Lithium, main concern is water usage.
Seems like excessive water usage is better than radioactive pond for decades, or is it not?
and as for the cobalt, there does not seems to be any environmental problems mining cobalt at all?
Yes, workers are treated poorly, but that has nothing to do with what type of mineral is mined. That’s more of an political issue, rather than destroying nature for centuries, which is clearly an environmental issue

6

Optix334 t1_irzuucf wrote

> yeah, for Lithium, main concern is water usage. > Seems like excessive water usage is better than radioactive pond for decades, or is it not?

See my other reply to you. Bad faith "research" doesn't make you correct.

> and as for the cobalt, there does not seems to be any environmental problems mining cobalt at all?

You know next to nothing about solar power if you think mining cobalt was the concern here. You're sitting here worried about radiation leaking into the environment, but not a very toxic and virtually un-cleanable substance used in every PV solar panel? Mining it is fine. When one of the hundreds of thousands of panels has a leak and kill off all living things in the surrounding area, or at least makes them unable to reproduce, induces neuropathy, makes you randomly lose your hearing and vision, spikes your cognitive decline, or any one of the other crazy side effects associated with cobalt poisoning, then you start to worry. Its literally more lethal than radiation poisoning, and most of the time more painful. Keeping in mind the studies here were originally conducted with the amount of cobalt used in hip implants. How much do you think this scales with those hundreds of thousands of solar panels, each containing some?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7842236/

> Yes, workers are treated poorly, but that has nothing to do with what type of mineral is mined. That’s more of an political issue, rather than destroying nature for centuries, which is clearly an environmental issue

I wasn't even talking about this, but its a good point to bring up. Workers being treated like shit is horrible. Destroying the environment is horrible. Cobalt will do that permanently.

Nuclear meltdowns however? Well I suggest you look into how life in what I'll call "The scary zone" of Chernobyl is doing. Hint: Creature for creature, plant for plant, they are all doing way better than their cousins outside of the region. Studies are ongoing to see if its just the absence of humans or if the radiation has any part to play in that. IMO its obviously the former, but its an interesting topic nonetheless.

Still I have to ask, given the link below (and assuming you will actually look into the issue with a genuine interest in being accurate rather than just playing politics cause its reddit), exactly what permanent damage has any nuclear power plant caused? I'll wait.

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

Now can we stop with the bad faith arguments that are demonstrably incorrect? Renewables are more toxic and harmful to the environment by far. People just pretend they aren't because most of the harmful parts come in the manufacturing step of making these things. People ignore the rest, and we haven't had a big enough PV farm where just a few of the panels leeching cobalt into the environment has caused large amounts of human suffering.

0