12 ms·
"...and are now in a much better position to decide what to do next." ...if you deliberately ignore the small "issue" of accumulated nuclear waste, that someho
by AlphaGeekZulu 7y ago
"...and are now in a much better position to decide what to do next."
...if you deliberately ignore the small "issue" of accumulated nuclear waste, that somehow has to be handled for the next couple of hundred years. For many people, this seems to be neglectable compared to the ugly sights of wind turbines.
- magduf 7y agoSo you think it's better to have massive quantities of CO2 and various pollutants (including radioactive ones) pumped into the atmosphere? How exactly is that better than a few buckets of nuclear waste?
- UncleEntity 7y agoWell, presumably, you don't have to design signage that will be understandable in 10,000 years...
- magduf 7y agoWhy is that a problem? We can still understand all the writings on ancient Roman buildings without any trouble. And it isn't too hard to make pictograms showing that something is dangerous and radioactive. We put some effort into universal pictograms understandable by actual aliens for the Voyager probes; making pictographs understandable by humans is much simpler. Finally, why are you so determined to believe that no one will have a solution for radioactive waste in a few hundred years? How hard will it be to launch it off the planet if necessary? With the cost/kg of rocket launches coming down, it shouldn't be too hard to dispose of it that way. But for some reason, people like you just insist on sticking with coal power and breathing in all the pollution that creates. I will never understand it.
- sigstoat 7y agothat was pretty clearly a joke you responded to. (because you can't put a sign on a gas distributed throughout the upper atmosphere even if you wanted to.)