@Elina Charatsidou I think you have misconceptions about everything that revolves around nuclear. It's very plain to see you have a predetermined bias for the use of nuclear materials. Burying it has never been a good answer and exaclty why it hasn't been a global answer to nuclear waste of any level. Sending it to space now is a viable option with rocket capsules that have been built to protect the astronauts riding inside them. What makes you think that nuclear waste wouldn't be protected in that capsule? With the returning boosters that we have now this is a much more viable option and is only going to get better and safer. Anyone that believes we should bury it all has never researched how radioactivity travels through an aquifer and thus makes it to the surface. Let's not forget the WIPP explosion just because the wrong kitty litter was used.

The only people unwilling to handle nuclear "waste" are people who think "nuclear is bad" to such an extent that Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (NMRI) was renamed MRI without the nucleus part because people are literally scared of anything the is central to an atom.

@punk Monkey It's very plain to see you have a predetermined bias against anything nuclear. Sending waste into space is the dumbest idea you ever came up with.

The problem is that it is only Finland and Sweden actually building a long term storage right now? Even after 65+ years of nuclear power plants. The sweeping of the waste under the carpets seems like an apt analogy.

@@paulmobleyscience Do you understand the difference between a bias and a conclusion based on evidence? And what makes you think that a small capsule designed to house a few astronauts will also be able to completely contain several tens of tons of radioactive waste? And what "WIPP explosion". It is clear to me that "you have misconceptions about everything that revolves around nuclear."

Don't forget about uranium glass. It's green and glows under UV.

@@Gerov9 I have a whole cupboard of those dishes, because my dad thought it was interesting. He even installed UV lights in the cupboard

@@Gerov9 Uranium glass has very low radioactivity compared to radium.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Aye, however uranium glass’ green shade and glow also contributed to the popularity of “nuclear green” in the zeitgeist

@7piecebucket Also Uranium glass had a green glow under UV light. Many of those clock dial painters received tongue cancer after licking the brush to keep it with a usable tip.

Ahaha this is hilarious and adorable ! Thanks for the context ☢️👩🏽‍🔬

Are you okay with 2 replies? I mean im not comparing if you have lots of replies im just asking sooo?

Thats a birb

I must get a bird killed 🐦 🦜 🦚 🪶 🦢

@@arleneramos2186 huh？

I was thinking sci-fi with this video as well. Imagine a future civilisation visiting the moon and it's just full of radioactive junk

Apply some mutant evolution too.

@@Roozyj If it had an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere introduced the title would write itself based on Cerenkov radiation; "Blue Moon"

Keyword being sick lol

Oh me a idea for a game some experiment gone wrong causes radioactive material to go flying in to the atmosphere and only few humans survive you the protagonist wake up after a 1000 years of cryogenic sleep trying to figure out what happened and how to rebuild humanity to it's former glory butt beware some machines still lurk around waiting (note: sorry if the story doesn't make sense I kinda just made it up along the way)

The US government is doing essentially the same thing. It's always been a political problem, never a technological one. Burying it is the least attractive of the many options we have at our disposal in any event.

@Klopfer Pay no attention to the account Dana Durnford and Kevin Blanch debunked because his name is Craig Douglas and he sells antique Civil Defense monitors and has been his niche at trade and gun shows....since he's the only one selling this junk at those type of shows. You can find this information at Paratus Business News A Real Road Warrior. He has a bias and would like you to visit his website he has in his description on his other channel AKA ForbiddTV. It's not about politics which is all every pronuclear person ever says. They also said MSRs were political and that isn't true because it was due to the Tellurium embrittlement of the Hasteloy-n issue, not political. Germany made the right choice and it may take a bit longer to understand why, but it is the right choice to move away from nuclear power as all countries are doing down to 9% globally now down from 13% a few years ago.

Yeah you would love to have anyone that tells the truth ignored: From Michelle Matthews Wakeup channel: "I was with Paul Mobley for a few years, and in them years, Paul Mobley on his comments to me slipped up a few times and was answering his own comments where the trolls should of answered but every slip up he managed convince me it was all in my head. I lost all trust in him and also the net. And where there were trolls there also was Paul. Don't trust him don't like him but I can see the power they have for I nearly took my life through it all in fact I still feel he as some kind of grip on my stuff. He made so many mistakes and he would look me in the eye creepy he is. Wish he gets it all back ten fold x"

@Punk Monkey Show where the US Government Accountability Office hasn't said on their website; The DOE is responsible for disposing of this high-level waste in a permanent geologic repository, but has yet to build such a facility because policymakers have been at an impasse over what to do with this spent fuel since 2010. Meanwhile, the federal government has paid billions of dollars in damages to utilities for failing to dispose of this waste and may potentially have to pay tens of billions of dollars more in coming decades."

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Yes thank you for showing that once again. Why don't you tell them the truth Craig Douglas that I show on my channel in the troll Playlist? You harassed her along with your Metabunk friends that trolled her so hard and told her every lie possible to try to make her mad at me and make me stop debating you. They will know the truth if they would just look.

It's the point of the channel

but she kinda criticism on the cartoon idea like the green goo.

@@Duijnkiller shes boring id fight her old ass

Hehe thanks for the comment ☢️👩🏽‍🔬 I’ll try to include some pics in future relevant videos so you guys can take a look ☢️👩🏽‍🔬

@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist yes I would love to see actual nuclear waste

@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist I think I've heard that when stored mixed with glass, it can glow blue due to cherenkov radiation

@@lorriecarrel9962 I don't think you can see nuclear waste ☠

@@-_deploy_- You could hook a camera up to a robot and send it in, that's what they did when they sent a robot into Fukushima to photograph the melted fuel.

Sounds right.

Which said political issues are just propaganda being deliberately made by some people that are mad about how their precious coal and gas will no longer make them so much money

@@swordzanderson5352 I think it's an intentional move by Greenies to get people to demonize nuclear energy so they can lead us to the destructive renewables pathway.

@@ForbiddTV Which are supported or could even have been started by the same old coal and gas huggers sitting in their rocking chair drinking their wine while we choke to death

@@swordzanderson5352 Renewables without nuclear as the Greenies are forcing upon us will guarantee a grim future of exorbitant electricity rates, energy rationing and massive rolling blackouts.

That's just how it often gets represented and the cartoon style in general makes it more appealing for, younger people as well wich is a good thing ^^

I don't think "what it looks like" matters to anti nuclear people. The physical appearance is honestly pointless to even discuss for this topic.

@@bigquazz3955 If you think all nuclear waste is all glowing green sludge instead of mostly slightly radioactive suits and such will impact your opinion on nuclear

@@robuxyyyyyyyyyy4708 "if it's dangerous, it's dangerous no matter what it looks like" will impact opinions more

​@@noimnotakpoppfpsheacy2526 If people see the actual nuclear baths, and people just casually standing around and not dying, that's different than imagining cartoons with glowing green sludge that is mutating fish and blowing up cities. I believe it genuinely impacts people's feelings, with feelings being the main driver of anti-nuclear sentiment, not actual facts and statistics. People think Hiroshima and Chernobyl, that anything nuclear is going to kill us all. People think uranium is deadly even before refinement. The anti-nuclear lobbies rely on feelings, not facts.

Every single German I know is vehemently anti nuclear (my company is based in Germany and I have spent time there). Kurzgesagt also happens to be based in Germany. I love their work, but they do seem to be a bit biased when it comes to topics related to nuclear energy.

This is what I wanted to say. The general fearmongering and people protesting and holding up signs and the mistaken ideas that other forms of energy production are "safer" than Nuclear all comes down to people being unwilling to contemplate handling nuclear waste in the long term. Experts and well read laymen tend to understand that while it does carry risks, they are controllable, but most general people think it's this huge boogeyman.

@Octo can you blame them tho, negative nuclear effects do pretty much guarantee a gruesome and painful death and it is part of being human (asian to be super specific) to look at the worst of the situation and rarely at the good even if it's the .1%

@@ClorxxKage But the issue is that it's all about PR management from other sources creating that specific fear and minimizing the other very real and much, much more pressing dangers from things like landfills, coal plants, etc. My mother grew up in an area saturated with the evidence of a very old coal plant, and there's an entire generation of men who worked in and around that plant who are totally missing from the population now- they all died from resulting health complications far too young. The people who live in these areas suffer still today. Nobody ever protested that coal plant- they knew the risks, of course, but there wasn't some big oil company feeding people anti-coal propaganda and encouraging them to get up and arms about it. It's less "blaming" people for their fears and more asking them to be critical of what they're actually scared of, why they're scared of that, and this is the most important bit- getting them to realize that they're being manipulated into feeling that way by people who do not have their best interests at heart.

It's not even common people, it's politicians and their "not in my backyard" politics.

@@ClorxxKage Yes. I absolutely can blame them. Fossil fuels are killing significantly more people. It's like if you had the choice between torturing one child or if you don't a thousand get murdered a quick and painless death. I frankly don't care how bad the torture looks if it means saving a thousand others you are a monster for not picking that option.

Yeah like she was so quick to try and get a jab at them for saying something wrong even though that wasn’t the case 😅

@@fjz.julian It sounds like you two actually disagree.

Dispersing the waste over big enough area would leave it so low in radioactivity youd find more radiation in Argentinas black beach.

​@@StrazdasLT surely...

I was literally saying just make a separate video on it lol

Bill Gates approves this comment

@@why_so_serious Yes, as he should, being a brilliant guy. That was your point, wasn't it?

@@lightyagami1752 please get vaccinated. Thank you!

@@why_so_serious I already am. You're welcome!

@@lightyagami1752 nice 👍

Please rephrase that, it is too sis.

Yeah that was a cash grab startup with the diamonds.

@@nnnik3595 there are a few nuclear batteries on the market which are successful. They just don't have a high enough power output for anything much larger than a calculator.

@@warrensteel9954 the startup promised a bit more than that though

@@nnnik3595 Startups overpromise and underdeliver, it is the nature of startups

@@diablo.the.cheater Most do yeah. But they delivered basically nothing and promised to revolutionize the world. So yeah I guess the average cash grab tech startup.

yes, I understand there are processes that either reduce the volume of high level waste generated, or can "burn" existing high level waste . I'd also like to know more about this from a nuclear physicists perspective!

Thorium pebble bed reactors were mooted years ago as a good alternative... Trouble was, they didn't produce the products that military needed so oddly they never got built. Funny that? Haha

Thank you!!☢️👩🏽‍🔬

Best of luck ☢️👩🏽‍🔬

If the climate alarmists don't close them all down in favour of retarded 'wind and solar will power the world' projects.

They do that but it’s expensive

@@cinnamon4ada7 I see, but why it is expensive? Too dangerous? Low yield?

@@benjamintan2733 low yeild, once it's been spent it's way less reactive so it's way harder to get a chain reaction going and even if we do it dies out pretty fast. So not much energy but still a ton of security measures.

Essentially fission works by splitting unstable nuceli into two stable nucli to release energy. These stable nuceli are what make up the nuclear waste we are worried about. Problem is, it's still very radioactive but the nuceli are way to stable now to make ideal nuclear fuel. That's a very basic explanation I'm not an expert

Considering it’s not a huge concern for normal space missions, I don’t think it was a main problem that either videos would see worth delveing into. Security for rockets are top-tier and terrorist groups would find it a huge waste of money to target one. It’s easier to shoot up a city and would give the same level of impact if they did. If another country sabotaged a rocket, that would be a war crime. It’s illegal to target a civilian object in outer space. And would sabotaging a nuclear waste rocket be worth the UN on your back? National intelligence agencies probably could figure out if something fishy was going on. But bypassing them would cost even more to do.

@@kyayi1230 "Shagaru is supposed to look like a false angel because again, black aura makes something evil, do to the color black symbolizing negativity." As if people in power are afraid of committing war crimes. Not to mention the UN is a useless organisation, they would hardly have any impact.

Jimmy Carter stopped the US from reprocessing its nuclear waste. Other countries are doing it.

T. Folse Nuclear I'm glad you made that a question at the end because it's absolutely in question. To believe that an area will stay the same anywhere on this planet with plate tectonics and a history we can't always use Carbon -13....I mean Carbon-14 dating....Carbon 13 is always getting in the way of dating things. I seen last time you made money from nuclear materials in her comment section and I asked you a question that you never answered. What do you know about organically bound tritium?

You could easily consider dry cask storage to be a permanent solution even without burial. The two billion year old nuclear fission waste site of Oklo Gabon proves this absolutley.

The Oklo "natural" reactor does not have the same chain as what's in our reactors because it's concentration in nature is much different than our fuel. That's why most actinides are not found in any measurable quantities in nature and only found from the concentrated fuel in our reactors. U238 neutron captures the very small amounts of U235 and thus is unlike our reactors.

@Punk Monkey Of course no one was taking to you, but the fission reactor at Oklo Gabon has many of the same radioactive byproducts that you continually scream about. One could live right next to a field of dry storage casks and never have any issue with radiation poisoning.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Really? People could live next to dry casks? Ok, well what about when the waste outlasts the concrete, metal, negative pressure gas and the 2 different seals? What then genius? Oh they will have to transfer it into another dry casks for the next generation to deal with. Yes great plan, just kick it down the road. Craig Douglas.....you are by here under citizens arrest for your decade long illegal activity on KZfaq. I'll be coming soon to see that your handcuffed properly

I feel like the "problem" is somewhat of self-fulfilling prophecy: It shouldn't be a problem, but it is a problem because politicians thought it would be a problem

Idk if you know the job of a nuclear physicist but it isn't knowing trivia hahaha

Just because a builder knows how to build a building doesn't mean that the builder knows the history of buildings A painter knows how to paint but that doesn't automatically make them knowledgeable about lead and it's side effects Also Just remember that green wasn't the only kind of radioactive paint Their were plant of other colors (though the colors were still namley green and orange) were used

@BakeMeSumCake Let me guess, she isn't an expert because she doesn't demonise nuclear power??

they werent highly radioactive. Only moderately so. Youd need to collect thousands of items that used those paints to have any effect on humans. Btw its still questionable how many of those worker deaths are actually related to the paint. They had to been drinking it for some of the claims to be true.

Yay! Thank you!☢️👩🏽‍🔬

Getting hit at relativistic speed by some piece of junk some alien spacecraft ejected long ago would be as devastating as being hit by a low-ish yield nuclear bomb. As that famous quote from Mass Effect goes "Sir Isaac Newton is the deadliest son of a b**** in space"

@@killman369547 a sand particle would do a planet in at that speed...

you do realize that if this would ever happen we would just aim it into a star and let the constant thermonuclear explosions of the star surface deal with i t?

Kurgasack lol 😂 nice try mate. Kurzgesagt is how ya spell if ya wanna know.

@@Trigorastronomology kurzgesagt

@@byMNedits oh shit whoops that letter t slipped it. Lol

@@byMNedits thank you bro

Kurzegasgas

Well, energy production should be a mixture, so that you aren't 100% reliant on something that could have problems if the fuel supply has issues. Geothermal gets energy from the source, you don't have to mine it and ship it. It probably shouldn't be our main energy source though, and it isn't feasible for many places, but it definitely has its place for smaller scale implementation in countries with readily accessible geothermal vents. I wonder what would happen if we used so much energy from the core heat of the Earth that it cooled enough to contract the crust? If that's actually something that could happen? 🤷🏻

With gusto

They apparently put at least a thousand hours of reasrch into each project working with scientists before a video is released. They don't claim to be scientists themselves.

@@AhmedIshaqmv They don't have to be scientists to understand words. I don't much like that channel either but if they spend that amount of time on a video, you can be rest assured it's more than anyone else will out into one single video.

They do a ton of research into all subjects they do videos about. And the best part if they get something wrong they go back and amend it! The amount of people in the world that are willing to stop and say sorry we made a mistake are far to few.

@@RageQvist They even made a video called "We lied to you, and we will do it again" That goes a bit more into detail on the matter. And as always, it was a very good video as well, even if a bit different.

@@TheAzynder I was thinking about that video when i wrote my comment. 😁👍

Holy shit this is a bad idea. No, that would not affect half life at all, we would just have radioactive magma contaminating the ground water for Basically Forever.

Why do we set ourselves on fire over used nuclear fuel and used nuclear fuel only? Most of the industrial waste we manage never gets less toxic over time. Not in a million years. Not even in a billion. Mercury, lead, cadmium, arsenic, etc. are all dangerous and remain so forever. There’s nothing special about radiation that prevents us from storing it as we do with this other waste. Unlike the other dangerous waste, the toxicity of used nuclear fuel drops sharply, most is gone within 40 yrs. long term storage is certainly as appropriate for used nuclear fuel as it is for the other high level industrial waste we manage. It's not uniquely dangerous. Unfortunately the nuclear industry has tried to respond to anti NP propaganda with costly technological “solutions” that because of the sheer cost and effort involved, those fears are *confirmed*, not diffused. Think of seeing a bear in a cage, with another cage around the first cage, then another and another. You're going to think just how dangerous is that bear? The problem is failing to differentiate between a communication problem and a science problem.

Uh. No. You dont mess with a star that has potential to release large CME at earth or potential to throw (another) micronova.

The solar winds will bring it back, it will seep through the poles around Northern and Southern polar lights

You still need to cancel out all of the orbital velocity. A cannon will not be able to do that.

Would you offer any alternative better suggestions ?

@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist Yeah, reprocessing it like is done in many countries, or use in Fast Breeder reactors when we finally can do so. In the meantime, no one in world history has ever been harmed by stored 'nuclear waste'.

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk That is incorrect because many of the tank farmers in Hanford have been injured by nuclear waste.

@Punk Monkey Not incorrect at all, no one at Hanford has been injured by stored 'nuclear waste'.

Don't forget they fill those holes afterwards with a kitty litter ;)

Or when radium and whatever they mixed it with was (and still is for some speciality applications) used for glowing toothpaste, clock and gauge dials, and so on. That was green and glowy.

Thank you!!☢️👩🏽‍🔬I appreciate the support

Glad you enjoy the video ☢️👩🏽‍🔬

Glad you like them!☢️👩🏽‍🔬

What % of the current and growing waste pile could be used for that (if at all anything)? 0.000000001% ?

I sincerely hope that nobody wasted tax money on studying the feasibility of this idea. I suddenly get a bit worried about that 😃

@@effedrien Not economical or safe used to be an issue but no longer is. They make capsules now that keep astronauts safe during a rocket explosion and with the returning boosters this dramatically reduces the cost and will continue to get cheaper as time goes on. So no I do not agree with that old sentiment that it's not safe or too expensive as it's no longer the case. This is absolutely a more viable option than burying it and giving it a chance to enter our aquifers.

@@effedrien A lot of times stuff that seems "obvious" isn't, and unless you want government to fall prey to charlatans a _lot_ more, you want them spending a little on feasibility studies. If nothing else, it's another set of data that shows it's BS, or it could lead to new discoveries.

We do need to seriously entertain even ridiculous ideas from time to time, so we can be sure they don’t just sound ridiculous, but actually genius. Also, many times when exploring ridiculous ideas, people happen upon other ideas that are not a joke.

@@lynx655 Until we devise a way to have launches without so many failures, the idea was ridiculous from the start.

Mainly-cost.

@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist Ah, I see. According to the top part of Google, reprocessing one kg of spent nuclear fuel costs $585, while mining one kg of uranium costs $130 - at least in the US - and one kg of thorium costs $30.

I’m planning of filming one soon ☢️👩🏽‍🔬 stay tuned

@@YourFriendlyNuclearPhysicist That would be wonderful, much appreciated :-)

Eight Soviet/Russian rockets with nuclear material aboard failed and sent their radioactive contents back to earth uncontrollably. The USA had three such incidents.

Are you kidding? Try getting 20,000 subscribers in 5 months. She's doing real well.