https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1782714342003118273
Satellite images appeared showing the flood in Kurgan region of Russia.
— Anton Gerashchenko (@Gerashchenko_en) April 23, 2024
Radio Svoboda published a comparison between satellite images of September 2023 and April 2024.
The journalists note that, according to environmentalists, in the area of the Russian villages of Trud,… https://t.co/vBxD9ilWX4 pic.twitter.com/qSw4WyLTGQ
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Ah, I see another game-changer just dropped.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Glowziggers
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
I thought pro nuclear people said you can just put nuclear waste back in the mines?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Slavs were simply meant to be radioactive.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
used
fuel 
in massive concrete 
casks sitting at the bottom of salt 
mines, not open uranium ore in mismanaged 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Salt mines? People on this very website told me you just put it back in the uranium mines.
And everything I'm reading puts a max lifespan on concrete of only a few hundred years. You nuclear people are a bit silly.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
It just has to be somewhere deep and geologicially stable. Also its depends on the type of waste, but with used fuel (SNF) the risk isn't so much the uranium as the short-lived (gamma-emitting) fission products getting into groundwater (cesium-137, cobalt-60). There's usually some corrosion-resistant metal inner cask, and even then the fuel is usually stored with the zircalloy cladding. So in a couple hundred years you pretty much just end up with uranium deep underground. but it would be better if we could recycle the fuel, it would make it so that here are less fission products and we could reuse most of that uranium (and thus have to mine less as well).
If you have like a surface mine that is kind of a problem on its own. They tend to get filled with rain and then all of a sudden you have a ton of arsenic or something in the drinking water. In this situation, Uranium pretty much acts like a heavy metal with the added bonus of being an alpha emitter.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Concentrated at high levels, with unnatural isotopes, and chemically/ mechanically separated from its ores.
Are you dumb or a liar to say these two things are comparable
We can't and don't. So bringing this up makes me again wonder if you're stupid or a liar.
Every single release of uranium slightly raises our lifetime exposure. It's like saying some burnt coal just acts as a little extra exhaled breath. It's only once we burn the coal en masse for a century that its a problem.
So are you stupid or a liar?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Snapshots:
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1782714342003118273:
ghostarchive.org
archive.org
archive.ph (click to archive)
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I don't think it is Snappy.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context