4 ms·
...and damage some preserved ecosystem in the process. Great idea!
by bitL 7y ago
...and damage some preserved ecosystem in the process. Great idea!
- adrianN 7y agoThe article made it sound like the water is mostly harmless and Sellafield dumps orders of magnitude more into the sea without dramatic effects.
- gnode 7y agoThe same release from a vessel in open water is less likely to damage an ecosystem than release from the shoreline. That said, if it's diluted enough and released over a long enough period of time, it's unlikely to make much difference.
- pvaldes 7y agoNot!. Is just the opposite. Coastal ecosystems are much more resilient than deep water ecosystems! They evolved to stand changes. We must stop thinking in the ocean as just a lot of water. This way of thinking is suicidal.
- tru3_power 7y agoThat brings up a good point. There are a few nuclear zones that no one lives in right (Chernobyl came to mind after watching that hbo show)? Why don’t we at-least get some value out of of these sad situations and convert one to a nuclear disposal site?
- m4rtink 7y agoIIRC this is already happening in Chernobyl - other than all the wildlife preservation & tourism there is a big solar power plant being built: https://phys.org/news/2018-10-chernobyl-life-solar-power.html https://phys.org/news/2018-10-chernobyl-life-solar-power.htm... The article says they aim for up to 100 MWe capacity in the future, which would be nice, yet still illustrates how very powerful nuclear reactors are, with each of the 4 now inactive Chernobyl blocks producing 1000 MWe (and 3x times as much heat!).
- pvaldes 7y agoLife beings migrate. What situation would you prefer: radioactive water waiting safely in a tank in fukushima for 24 years to save your family from cancer, or Chernobyl's birds soaked in Fukushima's water, pooping and molting in your backyard to save TEPCO some money and allow them to circumvent their responsabilities?