ᓚᘏᗢ

  • 4 Posts
  • 16 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle

  • A study measuring the aerosols from two vape users and comparing it with secondhand cigarette smoke found vapes produced a much lower level of ultrafine particles, but a much higher level of nanoparticles. It is not clear what risk these pose. Another study found vape use increased fine particles in a room’s air.

    From SMH: Is secondhand vaping a growing threat or ‘fake news’?

    It would seem the science is still not in on just how dangerous it is, but further in the article it says:

    The question, says Demaio, is whether we should wait for conclusive evidence before taking action.

    “We don’t have any long-term studies on the safety of these products, or on the safety of secondhand exposure. It took us 20 years to realise it [tobacco] was causing damage in the next generation of kids who were living with others who smoked.

    “My worry is we take another two or three decades to realise the same thing.”






  • The overall expense of this endevour seems to be the biggest factor against nuclear, especially for a relatively small population separated across a vast landmass.

    Recycling is incredibly expensive as well, and still requires extensive storage pools for the waste to cool for several years before it can be recycled - granted not for thousands of years, but a lot of short-term storage space would still be required.

    Not all the used fuel is suitable for recycling either. And I’m of the understanding that thus far, only about 30% of spent nuclear fuel has been recycled in countries that do it (though I believe this is a capacity issue, not a suitability of waste fuel issue).

    I’m not yet convinced on the safety of modern nuclear plants in natural disaster/apocalyptic scenarios, but I agree that an Australia of the future could benefit from being OP.


  • Indeed. To me there is no debate: renewables are the only immediate way to bring us to net zero by 2050. The LNP are presenting this alternative as though we have time ahead of us - as if the planet is not already retaliating against our existence.

    As an aside, the only somewhat valid argument I’ve heard is that nuclear would make future Australia an energy powerhouse for the region and allow for exponential growth, which is not something to dismiss flippantly. But in that I would think we would only need one, not seven! However, trying to put my paranoia aside about nuclear power plant meltdowns, that tech would need to be absolutely foolproof - and from my understanding, that is apparently true of modern nuclear generation tech available today. Yet, a solution for long-term storage of waste is still another huge and costly hurdle, let alone how you communicate the toxic danger of the area thousands of years into the future.