7000 Generations Walk Against Nuclear Waste in Saskatchewan

[TheOnlyCanadian25]

Does anyone know actually how much nuclear waste is in Saskatchewan?

[tKuruk]

@TheOnlyCanadian25 I don't know that one, but there is already lots of waste released into the environment by the uranium mines in the north.

[milkypirate99]

I really hope this doesn't go through.

[tKuruk]

put some more links and information within the description section for everybody (see more information on uranium).

[TheNdoki]

Since when did supporting future generations include taking away their power? I sure don't want to tell my children they can't eat because there's no power for their fridge.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki thanks for your comment & question. Its not taking away their power, as there are many other energy sources: hydro-electric, wind, solar, bio gas (from compost or perennials), even coal and gas are much better.

Not to mention all energy wasted on things like airconditioning in summer (open windows in night), pumping water around (front lane irrigation), and cloth triers.

The only reason atomic energy is used, is because its good for centralization and therefore riping of customers.

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk 14% of power in Canada is already nuclear, and the only power source that can keep up with our growing population. Hydro-electric causes flooding and requires specific sites to build, limiting it's use, wind already accounts for an estimated 75,000 dead birds a year (and would take thousands of kilometers of space to equal 1 nuclear plant) solar is the most inefficient, especially in Canada where this walk was held, and bio gas works off landfills, something Sask. is trying to prevent.

[TheNdoki]

(continued) and how is coal and gas better? They're non-renewable fossil fuels that pollute the air. Are you really suggesting it's better to poison our air, instead of building a few nuclear plants that, with modern technology, produce barely any waste, and in 40 years might not produce any?

It's not used because it's good for centralization, it's used because it's reliable, and not as bad as eco spin doctors would have us believe. Look up lead-bismuth cooled fast reactors.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki how is it reliable considering Fukushima and Tschernobyl?

There is still no good or safe solution on what to do with nuclear waste. I assume in the end the tax payer has to pay for dealing with it. Who said that they won't produce any waste in 40 years? People, especially politicians and marketing experts of companies, promise all kind of funny stuff for the future. Also do an image search on "Iraq birth defects depleted uranium ammunition" (e.g. on google, ecosia) if you have time.

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk If you're honestly worried about the taxpayer you wouldn't be trying to get them to sink all their money into "green" alternatives, which would end up costing far more since they're much less efficient. Again, look up gen. V reactors, you might learn something, and who said it was from politicians? Nice try to spin. Also, if you looked you'd find that there are natural nuclear reactions going on deep in the earth for as long as 1.7 billion years ago that have barely moved at all since.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki lets agree to disagree then. And don't worry the survival of you children won't depend on whether they have a fridge or not.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki And please do not claim you have the science without citing some studies. Another point, the real cost of atomic energy is much higher than what you pay for the electricity. As usually the nations pay most the research, large amounts on the waste disposal, nuclear plants are heavily under-insured (the taxpayer will pay most for the clean up in case of reactor meltdown,..), .. . At least the electric companies can get rich with it, isn't it? sorry for many replies there's a char limit.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki also I am convinced that if all countries would put large parts of their military budget into renewable energies and into the development of live enhancing technologies instead of weapon research, we already would be 100% renewable. Check "grunch of giants" by buckminster fuller

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk Wow, even when you're protesting something you don't really do any research do you? Chernobyl was an antique that wasn't maintained, and the Fukushima I reactor actually withstood the strongest earthquake ever recorded in Japan (which would decimate any solar or wind farms) and never would have happened if it were one of the reactors I mentioned earlier. If you actually looked up the info I handed you, you might have learned that. Also, we don't get tsunami's in Saskatchewan. ;)

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki who is making invalid points? Fukushima did not withstood anything, just check up the footage of the explosion and spend fuel roads being blown into the air. We can't predict the weather longer than 7 days, but you are telling me what the technology in 30-40 years will look like? Checked the MYRRHA-reactor and I think its a great project. But that project does not in any way legitimate using unsafe reactors and the production of more waste we don't know how to deal with.

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk "Fukushima did not withstood anything" invalid point right there. Fukushima DID with stand the earthquake. If you do your research you'd find that it was the following tsunami that knocked out the power used to cool the reactor, leading to the disaster. Something that wouldn't happen with a lead cooled reactor, and something that wouldn't happen in Saskatchewan. When was the last time we had a tsunami? And we DO know how to deal with it, underground storage is a safe alternative.

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk Wow, now you're using hippy ideology to support your invalid points? Alright, I'm convinced that if all countries would put large parts of their military budget into nuclear power, we would already be 100% waste free.

Even though that will never happen, nuclear power is already getting really close, even with people like you trying to stop it. I know you won't, but look up the MYRRHA reactor. It's still only gen. IV and it's already revolutionizing nuclear power.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki also checked generation 4 reactors. Why didn't you state that its only theoretical reactors. I could not find any guarantee that core meltdown can't happen, did you? But I found following statement "However, Li emphasizes that no nuclear power unit is one hundred percent safe. Even fourth generation technology cannot fully guarantee the plant will never suffer a leak." Funny how you say I make invalid points, while basing your arguments on theoretical ideas, assumptions, ... .

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk No power at all is 100% safe. If we stopped using everything that had a chance of being dangerous we wouldn't have electricity, we couldn't heat our houses, we wouldn't have running water, we wouldn't drive cars, or ride bikes, most people wouldn't have jobs, we couldn't cook food, and the whole world practically wouldn't be able to get out of bed. The point is we shouldn't be trying to stop something just because it isn't 100%, we should be working on making it better.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki "From a design standpoint, the fourth generation will not allow a core meltdown. Theoretically, it should avoid these sorts of problems, but during actual operation, all kinds of unexpected risks exist. For example, take this Japanese power plant explosion. The core should have closed down and prevented a leak of nuclear material. Unfortunately, the reactor core's meltdown produced a chemical reaction causing an explosion."

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk again, because of a tsunami knocking out the generators. Something that wouldn't happen with a lead cooled reactor, or in Saskatchewan where these protests are being held.

No technology has ever started off 100%, all technology is constantly being improved. If hippies stopped everything just because it wasn't instantly perfect, we would still be throwing spears at animals.

Wait, we wouldn't even do that since that was undeveloped technology.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki Lets be assured that not only hippies are worried being radiated and being killed by cancer, or worse their children being radiated or receiving birth defects. Conservatively 200.000 people got killed by Tschernobyl, and more will be killed by Fukushima, but I guess only Hippies care about that.

"The half-life of uranium-235 is 713,000,000 years. The half life for

uranium-238 is 4500,000,000 years." eachingcriticalwill eachingcriticalwill

[TheNdoki]

@tKuruk You keep citing Chernobyl as a reason to stop nuclear power. Chernobyl was a decaying, experimental nuclear plant. If we ban everything that was at one time dangerous, we wouldn't have anything. We've come a long way since then. Believe it or not, technology becomes more efficient and safe over time, and it's been a long time since Chernobyl. Also, it's nice you looked up nuclear half-lives, but what's your point? Or are you just using big numbers as a scare tactic?

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki if you can not figure out the relation between half-life and storage of nuclear waste, you have more important things to do than debating me here. Some Chernobyl reactors were used until December of 2000, how is that an experimental plant.

[tKuruk]

@TheNdoki "As uranium-235 atoms split more and more neutrons are released until a chain reaction starts. Some fission products and their halflife are: RADIONUCLIDE HALF-LIFE Radon-222 4 days Iodine-131 8 days Krypton-85 10 years Tritium (Hydrogen-3) 12 years Strontium-90 29 years Cesium-137 30 years Americium-241 433 years Radium-226 1,622 years Plutonium-239 24,000 years" eachingcriticalwill 22urakey.pdf

[thebigstir]

You're so right this is really important.

We stand behind you as well.

Informative video!

[tKuruk]

thanks a lot for all the comments, likes, and sharing the video as I think it has an important message.

[SaniyaCanada]

BRAVO! This is REALLLY important!! Wish the main stream media had cover you guys FAR more!! Thank you for all your walking! We're behind you 100%!!

[MsBeautifulRed]

Happy Trails.