Hacker News Reader

Comment by viraptor | Hacker News Reader

> we have extremely safe storage solutions

This doesn't mean "we don't have unsafe storage solutions".

Humans are simply terrible at long-term safety. How often do we have to experience that until we say: while it might be theoretically possible to store this stuff securely for thousands of years, apparently, we are just unable to do it, be it because of incompetence, greed, or both.

>Humans are simply terrible at long-term safety

He says while we carbon swaths of our planet out of habitability at current technological/economic levels because the available solutions are good and not perfect.

Surely you see the irony.

Do you see the irony in trying to fix a problem caused by persistent, universal short term and selfish thinking with a solution which relies on no one thinking like this in the future anymore?

Sometimes it is good to tradeoff solving a known short term problem, by taking on a solution with a uncertain long term issue.

If the world had continued to adopt nuclear power unabated, it is likely that climate change would not be a problem, and millions of cases of cancer not occurred.

This is not to say it is now time to adopt nuclear carte blanche, but to demonstrate that your way of thinking is not without issue either.

We better get good at it. There are many dangerous chemicals used in all kinds of industry that we need to store forever because they will always be harmful to human health. Lead, mercury, cadmium, and other toxic elements will never break down.

> There are many dangerous chemicals used in all kinds of industry that we need to store forever

Or better yet, reuse.

I’d rather us try and almost always successful store harmful waste than spew all of it directly into the air, killing millions of people. Over a million people die every year from carbon emissions from things like gas and coal power plants and vehicles

You'd think if that were the case, you'd at least know someone who knows someone who knows someone who knows someone who's cause of death was coal fired power plant emissions.

You're characterising it wrong. Epidemiologists estimate the days of lost life across a population due to environmental exposures.

If you add all those up they aren't equivalent to number of lives lost.

People who are exposed to radiation typically do not die of acute radiation poisoning. They die of cancers years later. People who are exposed to coal plant pollution also die of cancers and all sorts of pulmonary diseases.

You do probably know someone, and almost definitely know someone who knows someone, whose death was due to chronic coal fired power plant emissions. The fact that that's not what's on the death certificate doesn't mean it's not what happened.

respiratory disease kills over 8 million people a year, and that disease is very often largely attributable to air pollution

I think people also heavily underestimate what 1000s of years means. This type of storage has to survive 3x as long as the Egyptian pyramids. The problem is not just technological. At those timespans you can’t assume the country you live in - or the language you speak - to still exist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com