3 ms·
It's pretty benign as waste goes. It just sits there and gets less dangerous as time goes on. You could just keep it in a bunker and pay a crew to dust it off
by Luc 7y ago
It's pretty benign as waste goes. It just sits there and gets less dangerous as time goes on.
You could just keep it in a bunker and pay a crew to dust it off and repackage it when needed for the next 1000 years. But no, for some reason it needs to be taken out of the environment, like in the famous Australian sketch...
- pizza234 7y agoI'll be convinced when I'll start to see people campaigning for building storage facilities in their neighbourhoods, rather than generic claims that storage facilities are as safe as it can be.
- semi-extrinsic 7y agoThat's a pretty strange statement. Lots of industrial facilities meet very high standards of safety, say for instance battery and electric vehicle factories, yet we still place them out in the desert? Nobody is campaigning to build those in their neighbourhoods?
- pizza234 7y agoThat was a semi-sarcastic reference to NIMBY. Specifically, I believe that the same people who state that nuclear waste sites are Perfectly Safe™ would actually reject that idea if the potential problems would affect them personally (figuratively, if the site was in their neighbourhood).
- C14L 7y agoAnd, if technology keeps improving, at some point there will be tech to easily recycle all that "waste". Because it still contains energy.
- hef19898 7y agoThey are doing that at Sellafield in the UK. Which is in itself pretty ugly business. EDIT: The business is ugly, not the fact that it is in the UK.
- redwall_hp 7y agoIf coal emissions were a nice convenient solid that could be stashed in a box somewhere, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.