4 ms·

> Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. No it is not. There is no place on Earth that we know is geologically stable for the t

by worik 4y ago

> Scientifically, nuclear waste disposal is very much solvable problem. No it is not. There is no place on Earth that we know is geologically stable for the time periods required We have no way of knowing what society will be like ten thousand years from now, let alone 100,000 years. How do we communicate with those people bout the danger of what we left behind? Greed. Hubris.

Manuel_D 4y ago
Tectonic plates don't move nearly quick enough to be a concern in the span of 100k years. A spot square in the middle of a plate is going to be safe from earthquakes for millions of years. And not to mention, how does ground vibration bring sometimes buried under 500 meters of solid rock back onto the surface? Earthquakes shake the ground, they don't dig deep boreholes.
- oezi 4y ago
  Yet, all the attempts to store nuclear fuel underground in Germany proved so catastrophic that they had to scrap all of them and restart the selection process.
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    And this was because of earthquakes? Germany foolishly stored it in an abandoned mine, rather than impermeable bedrock.
- elgenie 4y ago
  You’re incorrect about the middle of tectonic plates being safe from earthquakes by definition. Locating naively built skyscrapers in New Madrid, MO, for example, would be a bad idea. [1] On a geological timescale, tectonic plates occasionally rift down the middle, both successfully (East Africa) and unsuccessfully (a failed plate rift produced the Great Lakes). With that said, identifying strata that are going to remain seismically stable for a looooong time is a solved problem, and earthquakes generally damage only those things not attached to the (moving) earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake
Galaxeblaffer 4y ago
If we continue on the current path there will be no society at all. This argument is seriously f'ed up for so many reasons
MorrisMinor 4y ago
Nuclear waste disposal has already been solved at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant
WalterBright 4y ago
The flora and fauna in the Chernobyl exclusion zone appear to be thriving.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  In some cases, yes, in other it seems that they are sink areas that are simply constantly being nurtured with migrant animals from the surroundings (Some birds for example). Is complex. And we need to remember that some people was poisoned just a few months ago for digging trenches in Chernobyl in the middle of a war. The danger is still there forty years later.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Poisoned is a relative term. The rates of cancers and deaths from the Chernobyl disaster varies by an incredible amount depending on what source you look at.
belorn 4y ago
There are water around mines that will be toxic to human life until the sun collapse and the earth burns up. People will have to be aware of those dangers for as long human exist, unless humans mutate enough to tolerate lead and sulfur in their fresh water. How should we communicate to those people of those dangers?
- pyuser583 4y ago
  In the very long run we don’t. We simply trust that people in the future check their water for safety, or avoid drinking from water sources that correlate with illness. We do this now, and humans have done it for millennia.
- pvaldes 4y ago
  We need a banner that says "Don't drink the water full of dead deer" (Hum, I hope that they will not have tiktok)
- freshpots 4y ago
  Lead and sulfur are relatively easy to remove from water. Wildlife, however, will be affected by that. We have bigger issues.
  - belorn 4y ago
    We can filter it out, but unless people know that the water is toxic then they might still be harmed. How do we inform the people of the future of the dangers that contaminated fresh water has, and how do we do that for billions of years into the future?
freshpots 4y ago
https://globalnews.ca/news/5329835/canadas-nuclear-waste-to-be-buried-in-deep-underground-repository/ https://globalnews.ca/news/5329835/canadas-nuclear-waste-to-...

by worik 4y ago

Manuel_D 4y ago

Tectonic plates don't move nearly quick enough to be a concern in the span of 100k years. A spot square in the middle of a plate is going to be safe from earthquakes for millions of years. And not to mention, how does ground vibration bring sometimes buried under 500 meters of solid rock back onto the surface? Earthquakes shake the ground, they don't dig deep boreholes.

oezi 4y ago
Yet, all the attempts to store nuclear fuel underground in Germany proved so catastrophic that they had to scrap all of them and restart the selection process.
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  And this was because of earthquakes? Germany foolishly stored it in an abandoned mine, rather than impermeable bedrock.
elgenie 4y ago
You’re incorrect about the middle of tectonic plates being safe from earthquakes by definition. Locating naively built skyscrapers in New Madrid, MO, for example, would be a bad idea. [1] On a geological timescale, tectonic plates occasionally rift down the middle, both successfully (East Africa) and unsuccessfully (a failed plate rift produced the Great Lakes). With that said, identifying strata that are going to remain seismically stable for a looooong time is a solved problem, and earthquakes generally damage only those things not attached to the (moving) earth. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intraplate_earthquake

Galaxeblaffer 4y ago

If we continue on the current path there will be no society at all. This argument is seriously f'ed up for so many reasons

MorrisMinor 4y ago

Nuclear waste disposal has already been solved at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant

WalterBright 4y ago

The flora and fauna in the Chernobyl exclusion zone appear to be thriving.

pvaldes 4y ago
In some cases, yes, in other it seems that they are sink areas that are simply constantly being nurtured with migrant animals from the surroundings (Some birds for example). Is complex. And we need to remember that some people was poisoned just a few months ago for digging trenches in Chernobyl in the middle of a war. The danger is still there forty years later.
- WalterBright 4y ago
  Poisoned is a relative term. The rates of cancers and deaths from the Chernobyl disaster varies by an incredible amount depending on what source you look at.

belorn 4y ago

There are water around mines that will be toxic to human life until the sun collapse and the earth burns up. People will have to be aware of those dangers for as long human exist, unless humans mutate enough to tolerate lead and sulfur in their fresh water. How should we communicate to those people of those dangers?

pyuser583 4y ago
In the very long run we don’t. We simply trust that people in the future check their water for safety, or avoid drinking from water sources that correlate with illness. We do this now, and humans have done it for millennia.
pvaldes 4y ago
We need a banner that says "Don't drink the water full of dead deer" (Hum, I hope that they will not have tiktok)
freshpots 4y ago
Lead and sulfur are relatively easy to remove from water. Wildlife, however, will be affected by that. We have bigger issues.
- belorn 4y ago
  We can filter it out, but unless people know that the water is toxic then they might still be harmed. How do we inform the people of the future of the dangers that contaminated fresh water has, and how do we do that for billions of years into the future?

freshpots 4y ago

https://globalnews.ca/news/5329835/canadas-nuclear-waste-to-be-buried-in-deep-underground-repository/ https://globalnews.ca/news/5329835/canadas-nuclear-waste-to-...