3 ms·
> It's not tricky. There are already disposal sites that have enough capacity to accommodate nuclear waste for centuries. It's ironic how the "centuries" menti
by pizza234 7y ago
> It's not tricky. There are already disposal sites that have enough capacity to accommodate nuclear waste for centuries.
It's ironic how the "centuries" mentioned are in fact not enough (by a long shot) for 100% of the waste to decade.
If the more accurate "millennia" was used, it would be unrealistic in a very obvious way (at least, to prudent engineers/managers) to talk about maintenance.
---
Software project, 20 years after: "This project sucks. Nobody knows it. It's undocumented. There are bugs unfixed for years. There are no tools to work with it. We can't work on it without breaking something. It's a disaster."
Nuclear waste disposal project, 10.000 years after: "EVERYTHING IS PERFECTLY FINE".
Sure. /sarcasm