Home›WORLD›Nuclear Waste and the Myth of Settled Science on Climate Change

Nuclear Waste and the Myth of Settled Science on Climate Change

October 22, 2018

18974

Let’s consider, shall we, a scientific parallel between high level radioactive waste disposal and global warming. Oh, yes, forgive….Climate Change.

Since the advent of nuclear power generation, a comparatively infantile concept in human scientific terms dating only to the 1950’s, storage of high level radioactive waste that is the byproduct of modern fission reactors remains in interim phase, with spent fuel rods and other highly radioactive components largely warehoused in heavy water cooling towers at nuclear power facilities, ala, Fukushima, Japan. (Clearly, based on that single example, a dubious arrangement fraught with limitless danger.)

Despite obvious and tremendous risk, this practice continues because by and large, the scientific community is not yet confident and certainly not in unanimity on the long term accuracy of their data regarding the design of ‘safe’ disposal facilities, the materials best used, locations most suitable, or even of the long term predictions regarding the stable decay of nuclide elements with half-life decay parameters in the million year range.

Some physicists suggest deep underground caverns of solid granite bedrock would be best. Others argue that inherent cracks and fissures make granite prone to water infiltration and hence, a poor choice for radioactive disposal. Others believe lining disposal chambers with a soft, pliable material like copper, bentonite clay or even salt crystals would create a more stable and less water permeable alternative.

Most agree that predicting anything about high level radioactive storage integrity 250 or 500,000 years into the future is a fool’s errand, given that humans living on the surface can’t even seem to keep track of conventional landfills, graveyards, or toxic waste dump sites lurking just feet beneath the topsoil.

Nothing is settled, debate continues and so, no one has rushed to do anything regarding the disposal issue until they are absolutely sure of the accuracy of their conclusions. The argument as they state it, is, (and quite reasonably, I might add:) Humanity simply cannot afford to be wrong.

And yet, on a topic we know even less about and have workable datasets of even shorter duration leaving us unable to even begin in a quest to adequately isolate and control myriad variables, contributing vectors, etc., i.e., Anthropogenic Climate Change, there has been a headlong rush to judgment by large numbers of vocal scientists and an even larger number of politicians who are very eager to call ‘science,’ settled on the issue and denounce anyone who does not agree as a ‘denier,’ of science. Policies are proposed nationally and globally that will push energy and ancillary consumer prices beyond affordability for millions on the planet, resulting in discomfort, entrenched poverty and increased starvation, guaranteed. In fact, in all of science, there cannot be found another single topic where a theory of such short postulation is hammered home with such unequivocal brute force and awkwardness and upon which, natural debate is so similarly, summarily suppressed.

The connotations of such a silly and non-scientific rush to judgment should be flatly obvious because they point to a single, unavoidable conclusion regarding the entire affair: Anthropogenic Climate Change has nothing whatever to do with sound science.

It is social engineering, pure and simple. And despite tremendous costs for much of humanity, the only thing our leaders and elites cannot afford in the scenario is for you and I to awaken to the manipulation before it is rammed through to completion, revealing their tyrannical evil for what it is: Global control of human behavior from government cradle to early grave.