NUCLEAR WASTE: OUT OF CONTROL...ON PURPOSE - Diane D'Ariggo

[ImMichaelTaylor]

The sincerity, scripting and delivery of this interview is very effective.

To someone not familiar enough with nuclear physics to realise she doesn't have even a rudimentary understanding of what she's talking about, I bet she's very convincing.

[simeric2]

Is this intended to be comedy? Converting spent nuclear fuel into toys for children? realize this fact: All the spent nuclear fuel the US has ever produced fits on a standard football field 5 yards deep, and its not waste! Essentially all of it is reusable and recyclable as new nuclear fuel. Notice how she never answers the question of how much so called waste exists? Get educated on the truth about the safety and sense of nuclear power. Nuclear is the friend of environmentalism not the enemy!

[cmonconan]

@simeric2 Watch "into eternity" just watch. not waste? come again? So what you gonna do with that WASTE?

Ammunition? bomb fuel? what? energy? i rather harnass something that is not deadly, like water wind and magma, the fools still playing with Rads are retarded, not trying to create a CLEAN energy.

And clean energy is around since tesla.

Nuke energy is for fools with tools, free energy is for real scientist. (check nikola tesla, free wireless energy pulled out of THIN AIR!)

[gearlockT]

I hope someday that you pro nuclear retards have to deal with fallout. Keep promoting the unsafe energy while it poisons the land and people. Until it is totally safe leave that shit alone.

[NewsCry]

geothermal,Mayak recycling,possible storage Chernobyl,Belarus area

[believersunderground]

nuclear fallout. why ice melts. Scott (BUG)

[HYNRG]

On the nuclear waste issue I think a viable solution would be transmutation; This involves bombarding the waste with fast neutrons and allowing them to decay to minor actinides with a low half life and put them into the mines the urainium was taken from or even use Tc-99 and I-129 as fuel. Nuclear waste is not a technical issue, it's a political issue.

[hotFusionReaction]

You know, myself I've always thought that the waste itself could be useful in it's own right.

I mean, the big hurdle now is that even after it comes out of the reactor, it still produced enough heat to necessitate the need for it to be cooled, right?

You can't convince me that something putting off that much heat can not be used for some useful purpose (the first thing coming to my mind is some type of Stirling Engine setup).

That would mean the "waste" would simply add too the plants output.

[ingodidoubt]

Nuclear Power's legacy will be the waste that comes from the plants. Even if there is never another single event at a Nuclear Power Plant, the burden of waste, the length of time it takes to build plants, not to mention the costs involved, are too burdensome. We need to learn to live with a little less energy and to manage our world with a little discomfort. We need cleaner Forms like Wind and Solar to be developed. Nuclear does not eliminate environmental hazards, it simple postpones it.

[hotFusionReaction]

Oh grow up.

We're not going to "learn to live with less energy", the world's energy demands are only going o keep rising because the world's population is going to keep rising.

We need to learn how to make more energy cleaner, not less energy more simply.

[ingodidoubt]

You must work for the nuclear industry. You keep making excuses for more nuclear power when it is quite obvious that there is indeed very real risks involved. You simply want to cloud the facts with your own agenda. If you think Nuclear Waste is so fine and wonderful, then we can bury it in your own backyard! How would you like that? It is obvious that there is a lack of confidence in containing when they want to bury under a mountain in the middle of the desert!

[nucflashevent]

You think that if I worked or the Nuclear Industry I would waste one SECOND on the ignorant losers here?!

I'm so tired of your groups acting as though they have a patent on Progressive thinking and anyone who disagrees "must be one of 'them'".

I'm a liberal Democrat who happily voted for Barack Obama because I believe him to be more intelligent than those who came before and who might FINALLY break this ludicrous deadlock over what is the most import source of energy in play today, Nuclear.

[tbaarr1]

@nucflashevent . my only question is why we even need to get rid of the waste and use new rods..the waste material though highly radioactive is still putting off about 400 degrees.. so why not just encase the waste inside leadlined vaults with an isolated water supply that goes thru the vault. with a little pressure applied at input.. the output should be steam.. have that steam go thru pipes that contain cone shaped turbines that the passing steam would turn..on its way to a condensor

[tbaarr1]

@nucflashevent the condensed water simply returns to the supply pool to be reforced into the vault to be reheated.. the turbines would be turning a a constant rate so they should be the power for a small generator that powers the motor for a larger generator bank. so my question is why store this crud.. implement its productive use

[cmonconan]

@nucflashevent Think a little further than your own miserable existence, there are many way to generate electricity FOR FREE, ever heard of harnassing the motion of the ocean? Its basicly the same as a dynamo on a bicycle. (probably to easy to monopolize)

Nuclear is a strange way to make more money nothing else.

[nucflashevent]

@cmonconan Capital Letters and a hateful disposition do not change the fact that "free energy" doesn't exist. Everything has to be paid for at some point.

[cmonconan]

@nucflashevent Yes but not with human LIFE.

[nucflashevent]

@cmonconan Everything is ultimately paid for "with LIFE" as you like to scream. The world as you know it -- regardless of where you happen to live -- exists because at some point someone said it was worth a human life (even if it was theirs) for it to exists. Countries/Nations/Factions -- use whatever words you like young man/woman, it all equals the same thing in the end.

[StaticWhistle]

@hotFusionReaction

The population only keeps rising because ignorant tools like you keep breeding.

[hotFusionReaction]

@StaticWhistle Shouldn't you be off watching Glenn Beck?

[threerandot]

In watching many documentaries on Chernobyl, there are very real and long term risks associated Nuclear power. I feel there is too high a price to pay for this kind of energy. Sadly, the legacy of Chernobyl and indeed nuclear waste are with us. I propose that we minimize the possibility of any further catastrophes or health risks by building no further plants and by shutting down the ones we have now. We must develop newer cleaner and more efficient forms of energy.

[hotFusionReaction]

The problem is that Chernobyl was the result of a sh_tty design with no room for error (hence when the inevitable human error occurred, it produced a tragedy).

Reactors in the West (especially the United States, but really in the west in general) are built with stupid operators in mind. It is VERY difficult to drive a Nuclear Reactor in the West into a situation of meltdown. Now, the operators at 3 Mile Island manged it, but I still think it is telling that the Containment protected the public.

[threerandot]

We need newer cleaner forms of energy. As for nuclear, I do not see it as an option. The risks are just too high. Nuclear waste or coal waste, we need to move on!

[hotFusionReaction]

Lovely idea, but wholly impractical.

I know people like D'Ariggo here just love to believe that the only thing between us and a cleaner world is greedy old business owners, but that is just self-fulfilling, pass-the-buck, delusion.

Consumers need cheap electricity. They can't afford the cost that would have to be charged if every coal and nuclear plant were destroyed and replaced with tens of thousands of square miles of wind and solar farms.

[threerandot]

I would like to know what scientific credentials you have to provide an unbiased and factual representation of nuclear technology? As well, I think I would prefer a much more credible source like AAAS or NAS to do a study and report their findings on nuclear waste, its decay rates and so forth... wouldn't you?

[hotFusionReaction]

So we are both agreed that Diane D'Ariggo is not a credible source and that a TRULY independent study should be conducted?

[threerandot]

Depends on what you mean by credible. Some are more credible than others. There are differing levels of credibility on the scale of scientists and those in the scientific community. As for Diane, you really seem out to discredit her. I will reserve judgment on her comments. Suffice it to say that I am very skeptical of the nuclear industry.

[hotFusionReaction]

Saying I'm out to "discredit her" implies that she is in fact correct and I am simply trying to slander her so people do not believe her.

I do not believe her to be correct, so I am not out to discredit her. I am simply attempting to point out my belief that she is incorrect and biased in her opinions.

I'm not going to look you in the eye and say the Nuclear Industry doesn't have drawbacks, but they are inline (and no greater) than other forms of mass electrical generation.

[threerandot]

Watch this video:

"The Convenient Solution" by greenpeace UK.

[tuttt99]

Just curious. What ARE her credentials?

She has a nice impressive sounding title but I want to know what her educational background is

[hotFusionReaction]

I'm curious of that myself.

It sounds a whole lot (speaking of televangelists) *like* these evangelicals who slap the letters "Dr." in front of their name, only to discover they have a "doctorate" from Pat Roberts University,...or some such nonsense, etc.

[threerandot]

Nuclear waste may be the thing that destroys us in the future and not climate change. Both are real threats and dumping time money and energy into nuclear power is truly one of makinds greatest follies. Look at Chernobyl. That is an example of what the future may bring as a result of waste.

[hotFusionReaction]

Chernobyl was a catastrophe created by shoddy engineering and a cutting corner mentality.

I would like to draw your attention to Three Mile Island. A perfectly safe design, outdone by simple human error. HOWEVER, even with the human operators working against it, not ONE person outside the plant has ever been shown to have been hurt in anyway by it.

The accident was completely contained within the containment dome, the the Second Reactor continues producing clean energy to this day.

[threerandot]

What has your comment to do with the nuclear waste? How about the cost of monitoring and containing waster? Even without accidents, there is a very heavy burden financially. Why not develop more enviro-friendly forms of energy, rather than the burden of nuclear power?

[hotFusionReaction]

No more so than mining and supporting the current Coal fired Power Industry.

You all talk like EVERY SINGLE Nuclear Power Plant has a 5,000 acre uranium mine feeding it. They don't.

In fact, the amount of Uranium that would fuel a conventional American Nuclear Power Plant for two years could be hauled in a couple of Dually, 1-ton Pickup Trucks.

Compared to coal, Nuclear Energy requires a FRACTION of the amount of money and supervision to maintain it.

[threerandot]

Coal does not remain radioactive for thousands of years. How much waste is going to be generated over the next century? What will this mean for your great-great grandchildren?

[hotFusionReaction]

Coal fired plants have released more radiation into the atmosphere than all the Three Mile Island's, Chernobyl's, and Uranium mines combined.

The difference between the two is that the pollution from Coal is sent into the the atmosphere immediately, never to return. The waste from a Nuclear Power Plant is safely stored on site and is monitored.

We're going to have waste one way or the other, the difference is rather we do it responsibly (Nuclear) or haphazardly (Coal).

[threerandot]

If Coal is worse than Nuclear, then neither coal nor nuclear is an option. We need cleaner forms of energy like Wind and Solar power.

[hotFusionReaction]

Because Wind and Solar will not meet base load demand. If they did, they would already have supplanted both Nuclear and Coal.

Nuclear and Coal are our only options for base load and Nuclear is more efficient and more environmentally conscience.

[yaduke]

That woman is barking mad. Renewables, if MAXIMISED, can only contribute up to 15% of our energy needs at best. Efforts should be focused into disposing radioactive wastes. I admit she makes some valid points about waste concerns BUT like it or not...nuclear is the way forward. After all, our sun is run by nuclear fusion.

[FancyPantsElitist]

@yaduke you have no idea what you're talking about.

[yaduke]

@FancyPantsElitist You're just dumb.

[yaduke]

You're clearly dumb. 

[samiheyy]

that's my aunt

[hotFusionReaction]

I think I speak for everyone when I say:

"I'll recognize a question, not a speech."

[scrumptiousvittles]

they will argue for a nuclear future by appealing to "freedom" of energy. there were free humans before electricity. there were free humans before oil, coal, industrial agriculture, the whole lot. we were collectively told that industry was good and necessary with the sole objective that the people who controlled the machines and inventions could make a profit. native americans, prehistoric europeans, EVERY human's ancestors were able to live full, free, meaningful lives without all this shit.

[scrumptiousvittles]

we live in a brave new fucking world. our governments tell us that all that matters is their version of happiness.long, healthy, easy life is now "free" life. but real freedom has nothing to do with how comfortable you are. fair enough if you say that all you want is comfort, but don't disgrace and pervert the word "freedom" by ascribing it to the life of a contented sheep. to hell with nukes. i would never have made them if i had had the choice.now it's too late. frankenstein has been created

[scrumptiousvittles]

what is disturbing is not the fact that high level waste could be released into the environment. it doesn't seem likely that that will happen within the next few millenia. what is disturbing is that the average individual is under the control of a technology that only a relative few completely understand and control. the man who designs the deep repository is deciding my future for me, and I am nearly powerless to do anything about it. my natural place on earth has been taken out of my hands.

[tuttt99]

You worry about the small volume of solid waste (1800m^3)  that has is produced in a year from nuclear power being put into a hole in an uninhabited remote location somewhere.

But you care nothing about the coal plant that dumps cubic miles of CO2, and Sulphur Dioxide (along with radioisotopes naturally found in coal) directly into the atmosphere near populated areas??

hmmm.

methinks you are straining the gnat and swallowing the proverbial camel.

[irun25strate01]

@scrumptiousvittles. I know that this is an old thread, but I have to ask...why is it that you feel that so many don't completely understand and control? They have classes on this subject at the community college level, like "Nuclear Power for Dummies". Or, just go to Barnes and Noble, or amazon.com, and order several books on th subject. If you feel powerless, it is probably because of your own ignorance, that you aren't educated enough to understand it. Just a thought.

[scrumptiousvittles]

@irun25strate01

i don't have a degree in nuclear physics, but i wouldn't consider myself ignorant in the subject.

my opinions have more to do with human freedom and our place in nature. we could all understand the science of nuclear power, but i think you wrongly assume that we would all therefore be in favor of it.

and even if we all understood, there would still only be a few people in power who controlled the handling of the waste and the operation of the plants.

it's all about power!

[scrumptiousvittles]

i know too much about what humans have done to be optimistic about the future. the times when man was in a struggle and under the control of nature, and only nature are over. no one has this freedom anymore. our future depends on the expertise of people who control the disposal of our toxic waste. we have made the choice to exchange natural hardship for the caged luxury of human industry. "freedom" has been inverted. we who call ourselves "free" are in fact desperately dependent sheep.

[ChrisPCrunchy]

You tell these morons Diane. Your 100% right.

[hotFusionReaction]

What is she right about?

"Wait long enough and you'll see, something bad's going to happen?"

What kind of prediction is that! It's like saying, "Wait long enough and it will rain!"

Hell, even a stopped clock is right twice a day!

[ChrisPCrunchy]

She's right about everything she is saying on this video.

Something has already happened or have you forgot about Chernobyl?

Something is happening everyday, just look at India's track record with nuclear energy.

It's only that people are not informed by a bought and paid for media industry.

A stopped clock will not irreversibly mutate your DNA resulting in cancers, sterility or birth defects and inherited DNA damage in the next and every generation to come.

[hotFusionReaction]

You know damn well that Chernobyl was caused by bad design.

And what about India's Nuclear Energy record.  They have had Nuclear Energy (and Nuclear Weapons) for over 40 years and have been shining examples of NON-PROLIFERATION. This is precisely why the U.S. is trying to form a Nuclear Partnership with them.

You will get more radiation walking by an X-Ray machine than you will EVER get from a Nuclear Power Plant or waste from said plant.

This whole video is nothing by a conspiracy theory.

[threerandot]

So if it is a conspiracy theory, what has she to gain by coming out like this against a very powerful body like the Nuclear Industry?

[hotFusionReaction]

First and foremost the admiration of like-minded anti-nuclear NUTS who know nothing of Nuclear Energy other that what people like her tell them.

Don't dismiss the power of "being liked" people like this feed on it.  Have you ever watched a televangelist?

[threerandot]

Seems to me that you are on a smear campaign. What have your comments proven? Furthermore, you haven't really addressed that she is confronting a big cartel like the nuclear industry. Whereas the organization she represents is quite small. What has the nuclear industry to fear?

[hotFusionReaction]

Nothing more than her's. Everyone has an opinion and everyone thinks everyone else's sucks.

She has nothing but MOUNTAINS of speeches and books. NO SCIENCE whatsoever.

My claims of Nuclear Energy's benefits can be proven with simple math. No speeaches, no Conspiracy Theories, simple math.

A Nuclear Power Plant requires the energy it takes to build it within three months of steady operation, that is when it isn't bogged down in pseudo-science law suits like she has backed in the past.

[threerandot]

Oh... and resorting to name calling says more about your character than hers.

[hotFusionReaction]

Sorry.  I didn't mean to link her name with Televangelists.

[tuttt99]

Yeah, that's an insult to televangelists... :^)

[hotFusionReaction]

BTW, I just caught this. She says, among other things, that Nuclear Energy produces Depleted Uranium.

She says Depleted Uranium is bad.

The M1 A1 Abrahams tank uses Depleted Uranium in its armor and weapons.

Out Troops use the M1 A1 Abrahams tank.

SHE IS SAYING OUR TROOPS ARE BAD! SHE HATES AMERICA!

-- The former is a form of sarcasm. This warning placed for dullards who do not know the meaning of sarcasm --

[hotFusionReaction]

Speaking about losing New York to Radioactive Waste...

First, we must buy all new Globes and Maps. Other than that, I don't think we need to jump into anything serious here.

-- The former is a form of sarcasm. This warning placed for dullards who do not know the meaning of sarcasm --

[hotFusionReaction]

"At one point in our history"

Yes, 50 YEARS AGO. ALL enrichment now is done using NUCLEAR ENERGY ITSELF. This removes one of the CO2 sources of Nuclear Power.

As for the NRC, they dictate what is safe and, since NO ONE HAS EVER been able to prove damage by these, so called "Random and constant releases of Poisons" it seems the NRC knows what it is talking about.

Unlike others I could mention.

[hotFusionReaction]

Standing over the smoke stack of a coal or gas fired power plant, unshielded, will kill you in a lot less than 20 minutes.

If we built 400 NEW Nuclear Power Plants, we could shutdown every Coal Power Plant in the United States. That would cut our CO2 emissions by half, bringing us UNDER what the Kyoto Treaty would require for a country our size.

Not that they would agree with that.

[fredomwarrior]

It's clear after watching numerous video's on the subject that Diane know's what she is talking about. Clearly lordomicron works for the Nuclear industry in one capacity or another or he's just ignorant(probably the later)! The statement made - the stuff doesen't spread or anything proves that! If anyone shouldn't be talking about stuff they don't know about it is lordomicron!

[deenie1219]

Dianne knows what she's talking about. The government is just an agent of moneyed interests and cares not a whit for the common good. Listen to her! Write your congress critters and let them know that we want sustainable and environmentally safe energy solutions, not costly diversions into nuclear or fossil fuels. We have not much time to get it right!

[lordomicron]

She talks about nuclear waste as if it's a selfproducing terrible poison. The stuff doesn't spread or anything. She says the world is destroyed by depleted fuel. I'd say the world is dieing because of all the lies told by people that have no knowledge about various subjects. Modern democracy has it's flaws

[lordomicron]

She shouldn't be talking about stuff she doesn't know about. Saying that ionising waves are released is a bullshit story. She is referring to stoneage like Soviet reactors. She should just stop talking terrifying nonsense about nuclear fuel. Unshielded, wtf is that supposed to mean? She thinks we dump it into our kids sandbank? I seriously hope she goes back to class and stops telling people that don't know much about nuclear energy this terrifying story.

[maurieer]

Yes, i agree with your conclusions as to nuclear waste.

The amount of petro products used to produce

the fuel to run a reactor is hidden.

This is the same for corn and it`s conversion to a usable fuel. Coal is the main fuel used in the refinery to convert corn. Not to mention the amount of petro fuel used to grow

it. The whole idea defeats itself.