Tupcek t1_irv7drx wrote on October 11, 2022 at 8:19 AM

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

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

LarryGumball t1_irw90jd wrote on October 11, 2022 at 2:48 PM

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.

Tupcek t1_irwg8ue wrote on October 11, 2022 at 3:37 PM

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

LarryGumball t1_irwns6o wrote on October 11, 2022 at 4:27 PM

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.