3 ms·
Rivers are a bad idea because they change course, get dredged, dammed, etc. Into the ocean is best, preferably somewhere deep and remote (simply to reduce the
by lupusreal 2y ago
Rivers are a bad idea because they change course, get dredged, dammed, etc. Into the ocean is best, preferably somewhere deep and remote (simply to reduce the risk of people messing with it.) Deep trenches that would fuck with fish nets anyway are a good place for it.
- troyvit 2y agoSure, but who defines "remote"? We've explored a small percentage of the ocean [1] and most of the places we have explored we've been surprised to find life. In fact NOAA estimates that 91% of species in the ocean have yet to be classified [2]. We'd be dumping what is basically a forever chemical into places that we don't understand. If we can't responsibly keep track of the waste we're producing then we shouldn't produce it. I'm pro-nuclear, and I think we can do it, but we need to be the kind of civilization that can plan beyond the next quarter first. [1] https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/ocean-exploration/ https://oceanliteracy.unesco.org/ocean-exploration/, https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/exploration.html [2] https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-species.html https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/ocean-species.html
- rbanffy 2y agoAlso, there’s the Godzilla factor you’d need to consider. It’s cheap to dump radioactive material near a deep-ocean vent until something decides to grow and destroys Tokyo. Again. Now, seriously, screwing with ecosystems we know nothing about is a very bad idea, even if for no other reason than we being unable to study them after we turn them into radioactive deserts.