4 ms·
It's only a major cost due to the need to manage media headlines, NIMBYism and an uninformed public. You actually could just dump it into the ocean to join the
by concordDance 3y ago
It's only a major cost due to the need to manage media headlines, NIMBYism and an uninformed public. You actually could just dump it into the ocean to join the billion tons of Uranium already there...
- fhennig 3y agoYour comment comes of as a bit dismissive, but I'm trying to take your word here. A quick google search shows that the there have been policies [0] to prevent ocean dumping of nuclear waste due to adverse effects on the environment. It doesn't seem like something we should do. Also it seems like you are implying that spent fuel and raw, unenriched uranium are somehow the same, which is also not true. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste#Policies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_...
- concordDance 3y ago> A quick google search shows that the there have been policies [0] to prevent ocean dumping of nuclear waste due to adverse effects on the environment. Check the citations. The wikipedia article is conflating general oceanic waste dumping with nuclear waste dumping. Things like oil float(!), come in huge quantities and react both physically (coating) and chemically with wildlife. As best I can tell dumping solid dense nuclear waste onto the abyssal plane has no known or theoretical environmental effects. > Also it seems like you are implying that spent fuel and raw, unenriched uranium are somehow the same, which is also not true. You're correct here. However the moderating effects of water mean that if you did glass solid nuclear waste and dump it in the abyss you'd get no detectable increase in ocean radioactivity.