3 ms·
My comments weren't taken as I meant. The issue is that the assumption is that it will take 100k years to get back in there, not that it's a bad idea to store
by calrain 3y ago
My comments weren't taken as I meant.
The issue is that the assumption is that it will take 100k years to get back in there, not that it's a bad idea to store nuclear waste.
Storing it is critical for safety, but I'm sure that within 100k years we will have a way to process it that is more intelligent than just putting it in a hole.
And then we can get into that storage system well before 100k years are up.
- Mutjake 3y agoIn 100k years there’s much less need to process it anycase, the waste is very front-heavy in its radioactive harmfulness. Of course it’s still chemically harmful later on, but it does not differ from other heavy metals and is leagues better disposed of than all the lead, cadmium, arsenic, and other such stuff we have laying around (which does not decay at all).