3 ms·
Imagine the following hypothetical solution: We just mix nuclear waste with a lot of dirt. Let's say, millions and millions of tons of dirt. Now we have much
by yongjik 5y ago
Imagine the following hypothetical solution:
We just mix nuclear waste with a lot of dirt. Let's say, millions and millions of tons of dirt. Now we have much lower concentration, but of course that's still a public health hazard.
But! Since there is so much waste now, and since each individual kilogram is not that dangerous, let's just dump it somewhere - in a garbage dump, along the beach, or just dump it straight to the sea. The sea is big, after all.
Horrified enough?
Now realize this is exactly what we are doing with fossil fuels. By the way, Germany is still using as much fossil fuels as renewables, and is in talks with Russia to import even more.
So, we can just throw radioactive waste somewhere deep underground. That's already miles better than fossil fuels. That's miles better than what Germany (and every other nations in the world) are doing right now.
- anoncake 5y agoThe question was about nuclear, not fossils.
- yongjik 5y ago"It's better than fossil fuels" is a valid answer for any country that's still using fossil fuels. When Germany achieves 0% fossil fuels and figure out how to undo the damage already done by fossil fuels, feel free to complain about nuclear waste.
- anoncake 5y agoNo, it really isn't. We are on the way to replacing fossils.
- bromuro 5y agoThrowing nuclear waste somewhere underground doesn’t sound cool either.