3 ms·
> Basically we just bury it and hope for the best, it will be someone else's problem anyway. It's rather more involved than that. The short version is that we
by Tuna-Fish 6y ago
> Basically we just bury it and hope for the best, it will be someone else's problem anyway.
It's rather more involved than that. The short version is that we find a place where the rock has remained undisturbed for more than a billion years, and bury them deep enough that they should remain undisturbed for the next billion years.
Then it's no-one's problem.
- winrid 6y agoThe idea that we can build something that will last a billion years is mind boggling, and I'll admit I have my doubts. https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/International/current-model-storing-nuclear-waste-sufficiently-safe-study/story%3fid=68584067 https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Internationa... They don't seem to define "specific conditions" in this article. Also, tried to get a non-amp link and failed...
- 1_player 6y agoA recent article about Finland's long term nuclear waste storage: https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-100-000-year-tomb-for-finlands-nuclear-waste-1485253831 https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-100-000-year-tomb-for-finland...
- manfredo 6y agoIt doesn't need to last a billion years. Within 10-50 thousand years the uranium is no more radioactive that uranium that was never used in fuel. Sure, uranium is still a toxic heavy metal. But you do understand where this uranium came from before it was used as fuel?
- winrid 6y agoGood clarification, thanks!