Hacker News Reader

Comment by Lutzb | Hacker News Reader

Don't change the topic. We are talking about nuclear power, not rare earth.

When did dang die and who elected you the moderator?

The topic I replied to was nuclear waste (check your very own comment) and it's relevant to nuclear power that dealing with radioactive waste is a persistent issue regardless of whether nuclear power exists or not.

The thread was about nuclear power and the accompanying issue with nuclear waste types. You brought up mining for rare earth and naturally occurring radioactive waste in the process.

I don't see how this relates to nuclear power and it's waste issue.

I'm not responsible for your inability to see a connection, FWiW I do have a few decades in global scale geophysics and environmental background radiation maping, but what would I know.

WRT your self annointed command and control of thread comments, have you read:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ?

Best read cephalic sans rectum.

defrost, I assume you meant that most mining for rare earth also produces LLW. I don't see any other connection to nuclear power/nuclear waste besides that. So I assume your argument is that nuclear waste is not bad (or equally bad), since rare earth mining is also a source of LLW?

> I'm not responsible for your inability to see a connection ...

> WRT your self annointed command and control of thread comments ...

> When did dang die and who elected you the moderator?

> Best read cephalic sans rectum.

Be kind. Don't be snarky, Edit out swipes.

Rare earths are used in the production of solar panels and wind turbines and the associated electronics and storage batteries. The point is that if you're concerned about "low-level waste" then you can't propose these things as an alternative since they generate even more of it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com