"They are obedient and love unconditionally" that's like well normal dogs.

I think most people get dogs to have a LIVING being that loves them, ya know with the warm and fur and fun and weird quirks you hate but come to miss.

They already tried robot dogs for kids, it didn't really work, and at that point you can just play youtube videos of other peoples dogs... not like there's any of those out there would be a novel idea I'm sure.

Niche product and market, unlikely to effect dogs to any high degree.

I would argue that's more your fault for not setting it up. I have a media computer I can access pretty much anywhere to watch or game. Only con being the network speed. I could do the same without the computer by having it on a cloud server but choose not to. And with the method of connecting to said device being done via https it can pretty much be logged into from any device that has a browser.

Most computer towers and laptops I've worked with also allow booting from network.

I could go on but you can already do this if your willing to set it up there's just been no consumer demand for this yet. As I have seen this in corporate networks with thin clients and vms (thou you could launch the connection to the vm via software on a thick tower).

Edit: also Chromebooks and their kin are this to a lesser degree

Point I'm making is fully possible now just why would everyone want this instead of having a personal device?

Already possible via web browsers and passwords. And as you said aws and cloud environments.

Honestly depending I would be fine with it as I already live near a fertilizer byproduct site (https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-material-fertilizer-production) which also produces radioactive radon, and yes it is piles of inert rock that is naturally occurring otherwise we wouldn't be mining it.... That data shows 85% radioactivity of the natural uranium, unknown on the halflife due to it not being the direct material. the chemicals are that of removing the uranium from the stone that it is in and then leaving it in a giant pile aka lake.

*correction (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3653646/) this shows the halflife will be 76000 years however modern methods are to cover the lake with clay and soil and plant trees atop it. Along with https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/sites/toxzine/uranium_toxzine.html pointing out the material is already pretty much everywhere, it's just the question of dosage, which the mines on record (which were produced prior to current methods of containment) are massive issues due to improper storage are mainly a issue due to increased radon gas generation due to the fine milling but are countered by the clay burial which reduces the amount of radon gas released to a more natural level. These materials also are potential sources for reprocessing in order to be used as fuel for newer generation reactors designed to take these long term wastes and generate shorter term wastes with half-lifes that are a hundred to a decade long. So you can use millennia instead, with the radon gas issue being questionable unless modern methods are confirmed functional solution. This does not mean that radon gas would not have formed without the mine, just that it's more exposed due to being on the surface instead of underground*

Overall if your vision of these lakes is that of instant death. I think you fail to understand how radioactive materials work. It's better comparison is sunlight because, sunlight is a product of a nuclear reaction and is the radiation from the sun...

Too much of it is bad for you, however it's not going to instantly kill you, unless you use concave reflection and build a lazer.

And the comparison to cell towers is not a joke, they literally work by radio frequency, and the full spectrum of frequency is radiating the entire population almost nonstop. Point being is your willing to accept a certain tolerance level of radiation and if the lakes of material matched that then you in theory shouldn't have a issue with it.

Again the material MINED FROM THE EARTH IE FROM NATURE is different then the material being used IN ENERGY GENERATION. and the left over lake is the lesser radioactive material.

Not mining it means it's still in the ground. The Left over material is not more radioactive, but less. it's a issue because it's no longer underground, but now on the surface meaning there's less of a barrier. BUT IS IT STILL NATURALLY OCCURRING.

If your willing to argue something found in nature is not natural.I don't know what to say.

And again the smugness is being happy and proud at having "nontainted" land. The materials for modern technology have to be obtained from somewhere so if you benefit from it, be it Medical or otherform, but refuse for the mining to be in your backyard, but instead others then I have say how you state it gives off smug vibes unless your stating it with no pride.

Overall I assume you've already made up your mind as at this point your ignoring science and going off what you feel. I am just trying to state with science and math we can do calculations to show exactly how harmful these lakes are. Which when first produced are harmful (but i have yet to locate a source by how much short of the 85% of natural uranium ), and I would love to see data on how harmful and for how long. As you have yet to bring ANY DATA to this argument. So I bid you a good day, unless you can bring said evidence that it from mining toxic to all life for hundreds of years as your initial statement was. preferred a government site European or American, or a scientific paper with stats.

Love the comparing of piles of inert stone that is naturally occurring and my statement if they are within non damaging limits of radioactive being fine to the worst known nuclear issue in human history. Cell towers, Cell phones, Radios, etc are all using radio waves which is propagation that can basically be considered radioactive. all of these may be a issue but the value is deemed worth it and the added radioactive effect is considered negligible in the long term.

I pointed it out as your smug self, pointed out your glad no mining is being done in your country that has the ability to mine the material within regulations and ensure the regulations are upheld in a way that the materials would not be negative to the environment , but Don't so you can hike. However European society is still using materials that are mined, and companies from Europe still ship waste elsewhere (I will point out Europe has laws against the exports but reality is it still happens). So it is mocking of lessers to be smug about it. That most of that waste isn't even radioactive but that we as a global society all have issues, and not to pretend that just because one isn't directly involved that they better than another who is.

My ultimate point is every human takes in 5-6 SV of radiation a year, animals as well, are these radioactive lakes harmful or not? If they are can they be rendered non-harmful? if so regulation should be required to make them non-harmful. After all the substances the make these lakes are still naturally occurring materials and not the same materials being used as fuel as they still need to be "enriched" to a level where they would be toxic to life, which is a whole other part of the debate.

Hell early fire detectors use a sensor and radioactive material to detect smoke between them. Hospitals use materials as well. Heck one of the INES T5 issues of nuclear was the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goi%C3%A2nia_accident . We use radioactive materials in day to day life that still need sources. Why demonize a material that can be less harmful than coal and oil? That we will likely still need in the future if we ever go to space?

On the Wildlife https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife Yes, Wildlife is safer in radioactive wastelands, compared to being near humans. IF the radiation is below the threshold to be negative to life. This isn't a comment talking about the goods of radioactivity, just that of humanity being more toxic to nature than literal toxic materials.

Since I'm still awake failuring to sleep. Here's the big question. Are the ponds radioactive enough to be significant (ie produce enough to radiation to be dangerous to the wildlife). As I have yet to locate documentation on it but I also haven't dove for it yet. I will say I have indeed been able to source others on radioactivity been a boon for the environment due to the exact reason your upset. And that's humans avoid the area causing nature to thrive. As humans especially young, or disrespectful (ie yes the trashy type of person American or not who litters) is ultimately more toxic than a little pile of radioactive material. As again this is naturally occurring substances that have been brought to the surface and concentred with the primary radioactive material being taken away.

And to counter your Eu country statement, that only applies to within your county as I can talk about the European Ewaste that is shipped and processed in Africa including children burning the plastic off of copper wires for recycling. But I'm sure it's ok because it's not happening in Europe. It's ok for poor countries to suffer both the mining processing and recycling of Europe's waste and for it to not count as damaging the environment because it's not happening in European land? Let's drop the bull and point out Europe uses processed materials that are mined and artificial materials that are made via complex chemical chains. All we can do worldwide is reduce the harm and I agree Europe does a good job at producing a good standard of living.

If we wanted to get into the negatives of American I can spend all day as well. But on the topic of radioactive materials unless you can provide proof that it's scaring the land for hundreds of years. I can say it technically is protecting it. Ofc I'll try and see if I can find anything about if it is truelly negative or not tomorrow but would gladly love a article providing proof of it being bad. Instead of saying anything radioactive means hundreds of years of damage. As it depends on the levels of radiation for it to be bad.

Data please? https://www.epa.gov/radtown/radioactive-waste-uranium-mining-and-milling per this information there is almost no long term issues if done properly, as the material is well naturally occurring and will produce radon gas, which is a issue anywhere you build underground. the main issue I see is improper storage/disposal that was stated in the article, that causes it to be more concentrated. which OFC we now have laws and regulations for these after learning about them.

Overall these are issues that should be fixed still, but I see nothing about destruction for hundreds of years, that also wouldn't apply to ANY mined substance, Which includes those that are for Renewable energies.

I like nuclear, but let's be clear it too is also subsidized, pretty much any energy generation is heavily subsidized. Renewable energy is worth focusing on, it's just they are willing to ignore nuclear benefits while reopening coal and oil plants to shut down nuclear. That boggles me, Renewable is cheaper long run, but nuclear is better than the others till we have a good renewable way to store energy.

​

For the person who down-voted me. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41534 this is ofc only for the USA, but I have another for Japan and sure I can find others. All Energy is subsidized. it's just by how much.

I see your statement on some news sites, however is there anything with the math/science to back it up as that looks like the numbers during the explosions, and Most of radioactive materials are short-lived ones, which there was indeed a chance of massive danger for Europe, mostly the ones closer to the explosion depending on the winds due to a second explosion, the rest of Europe would've encountered a increase similar to a X-ray/Cat-scan. Overall even including that disaster, Nuclear counts to 1/5 of coal and natural gas for radiation per UNSCEAR .

I would also like to add the pollution generated by coal and factories in china, has been recorded to reach California and is thought to contribute 65% more smog ~35% of it being from coal burning. Which again contains radioactive isotopes. Worldwide I would love to see total radiation increases due to various activity's and naturally.

Ah yes, the basically a bathtub with nuclear materials with almost no good design by the same people who gave them detectors that didn't even go to the level of the radiation, and the disaster of a 1960's tech reactor built in 1970's with a 9.0 that happens globally maybe 1-3 times ~ a century. Which was partly caused by generators running out of fuel, due to flooding.

Honestly a massive issue, however just like solar, nuclear has had massive improvements in both design efficiency and safety, which isn't surprising seeing as the designs being from nearly only 15 years from the first use of nuclear in the form of a bomb.. it's negative effects are indeed horrid but have caused less radioactive side effects than coal which contain radioactive isotopes.

People point to these and three mile island yet even so, the amount of death caused by them which again is using rather old designs is lower than that of the coal mining and burning that happens throughout the world.

Let alone the newer designs that are molten salt based and smaller scale, people maybe scared of them from the past, but still drive cars and use pressure cookers, one which is technically using small explosions to propel itself forward and the other a cooking device that if improperly handled/built is basically a bomb. But consistent design lessons have made both safe.

Only issue is you can't redesign a nuclear facility quickly, partly from design, and partly due to people being so against them.

Please have a open mind to technology that is still a great way to augment Solar/Wind/Geo/Dam based energies, since modern reactors can also bring energy generation up and down faster than before. They can be used when the winds not flowing and the suns hiding.