3 ms·

> the most sensible solution is dissolving nuclear waste in the ocean. yep, lets destroy cod fisheries for no reason, what could be wrong? We don't need food t

> the most sensible solution is dissolving nuclear waste in the ocean. yep, lets destroy cod fisheries for no reason, what could be wrong? We don't need food to survive... That big plan was a 70's solution. It was brain-dead level stupid in 70's and it was still stupid today. Would be ruinous for our economy (And the currents and hurricanes would end returning all of it to the coast).

avar 3y ago
Take all the nuclear waste the world produces in a year, now dissolve it in a swimming pool. Would you drink from that pool? No, and neither would I. I suspect the difference between our positions is that I'm willing to define how big that pool would have to be before I'd be comfortable drinking from it. Do you have any particular size in mind? > And the currents and hurricanes would end returning all of it to the coast) We as a species have already dumped on the order of how much nuclear waste we produce in a year now into the world's oceans. See the Wikipedia reference in a side-thread. Presumably you'll be able to point out at what coast that material has all coalesced at?
- pvaldes 3y ago
  The ocean dynamics are much more complicated than a swimming pool. This kind of plans avoid carefully to include our modern knowledge about how ecosystems work. They are doomed from the start for this reason. A few people, maybe nostalgic about 60's or 70's, still lie to themselves and dream of cheap, tunnel vision, simple solutions that will not work. > Presumably you'll be able to point out at what coast that material has all coalesced at? Saint Onofre Beach. San Diego. California, for example All beaches within a radius of 100Km at the south of Fukushima had trapped Cesium sticked in the sand Just because you don't look for it, does not mean that is not there.

3 ms·

> the most sensible solution is dissolving nuclear waste in the ocean. yep, lets destroy cod fisheries for no reason, what could be wrong? We don't need food t

by pvaldes 3y ago

avar 3y ago
Take all the nuclear waste the world produces in a year, now dissolve it in a swimming pool. Would you drink from that pool? No, and neither would I. I suspect the difference between our positions is that I'm willing to define how big that pool would have to be before I'd be comfortable drinking from it. Do you have any particular size in mind? > And the currents and hurricanes would end returning all of it to the coast) We as a species have already dumped on the order of how much nuclear waste we produce in a year now into the world's oceans. See the Wikipedia reference in a side-thread. Presumably you'll be able to point out at what coast that material has all coalesced at?
- pvaldes 3y ago
  The ocean dynamics are much more complicated than a swimming pool. This kind of plans avoid carefully to include our modern knowledge about how ecosystems work. They are doomed from the start for this reason. A few people, maybe nostalgic about 60's or 70's, still lie to themselves and dream of cheap, tunnel vision, simple solutions that will not work. > Presumably you'll be able to point out at what coast that material has all coalesced at? Saint Onofre Beach. San Diego. California, for example All beaches within a radius of 100Km at the south of Fukushima had trapped Cesium sticked in the sand Just because you don't look for it, does not mean that is not there.