3 ms·

France stopped disposing of nuclear waste in the ocean in 1969[1], at the time it was not a solved problem, but now it is. The reason why it is "filling up" is

France stopped disposing of nuclear waste in the ocean in 1969[1], at the time it was not a solved problem, but now it is. The reason why it is "filling up" is because the waste need too cool down at the surface for a few decades before being buried. But that's not a problem because there is not so much of it in volume [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactiv...

AshamedCaptain 5y ago
> The reason why it is "filling up" is because the waste need too cool down at the surface for a few decades before being buried. The reason it is filling up is because no one has the political capital to build or develop any of the longer term storage sites. Otherwise, for just storing during cool down periods, it would not be filling up, since they would be at exactly the capacity they were designed for (the overflow being dumped to the ocean^W^W^W being moved to long-term storage). > But that's not a problem because there is not so much of it in volume I'm tired of this argument. It doesn't matter if it is "not so much of it in volume" as long as literally a couple grams of leak within the next 10k+ years will lead to big $$$ in damages (think: permeability and water supply), and therefore no village wants to hear about it. It is still quite premature to claim it is a solved problem when the mess due to the long-term storage (e.g. Cigéo) sites is still regularly on TV.