Technology
Which posts fit here?
Anything that is at least tangentially connected to the technology, social media platforms, informational technologies and tech policy.
Post guidelines
[Opinion] prefix
Opinion (op-ed) articles must use [Opinion] prefix before the title.
Rules
1. English only
Title and associated content has to be in English.
2. Use original link
Post URL should be the original link to the article (even if paywalled) and archived copies left in the body. It allows avoiding duplicate posts when cross-posting.
3. Respectful communication
All communication has to be respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences.
4. Inclusivity
Everyone is welcome here regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, caste, color, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.
5. Ad hominem attacks
Any kind of personal attacks are expressly forbidden. If you can't argue your position without attacking a person's character, you already lost the argument.
6. Off-topic tangents
Stay on topic. Keep it relevant.
7. Instance rules may apply
If something is not covered by community rules, but are against lemmy.zip instance rules, they will be enforced.
Companion communities
!globalnews@lemmy.zip
!interestingshare@lemmy.zip
Icon attribution | Banner attribution
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
view the rest of the comments
IIRC isn't a good source
Here you go in french it's actually 96%. I don't know if you can re-recycle it at that level the second time.
No! That's not what it fucking says. High activity waste is 0.2% of waste volume but has 96% of radioactivity.
This is a quote from the translated article:
The IV generation reactors don't really exist yet. According to this source, maybe one or two do exist. So no, 96% of spent fuel is not being recycled. Stop spreading misinformation, you're as useless as chatgpt.
You have to read further, there are several "96%" in the article. Search for:
Which means: they can be recycled at 96%, talking about 96% of the radioactive waste, so around 92%.
What is it about having to be insulting? People are sometimes wrong but that doesn't give you the right to act like an asshole. Chill out man.
I'm acting like an asshole because you're spreading missinfo and you keep doing it.
Here's the entire section you're citing. They're reprocessing 96% of 0.2%. Now, in that same paragraph, nearly 80% of that reprocessed spent fuel is not used. It's right there. I'm telling you again, with the information you're providing.
Okay so I remember the numbers from a duvunent about the Hague storage and recycling facility in france and dug up a closer paper:
Here is another link and for your tired ass I copied interesting parts but please check it out yourself;
This can be used in nuclear weapons, so way beyond what's needed for a nuclear power station.
I'm all for fighting misinformation but you can't just scream and insult, that doesn't work even if you're right.
I dunno, you finally got a reasonable source.
We've always been able to reuse uranium, but it was outlawed in the 70s to prevent the eventual production of plutonium.