12 ms·
> ... we get a nuclear meltdown that shuts off an area the size of a small city for a century. Not necessarily. Instead we could just have disposal containers
by justinclift 2y ago
> ... we get a nuclear meltdown that shuts off an area the size of a small city for a century.
Not necessarily. Instead we could just have disposal containers that leak sooner rather than expected.
The storage and disposal side of the nuclear waste is still an unsolved problem, other than "just bury it and hope there's no contamination problems later on".
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- DrBazza 2y agoIt depends what your definition of 'unsolved' is. Sticking it at the bottom of a 5000ft mine shaft in a geologically stable region, with pictograms, is a solution. If we lose the ability to decipher pictograms on the containers, we're probably back to being apes and have also lost the ability to mechanically dig 5000ft straight down, or 1000ft straight forward through rock, so we'd never encounter it ever again.
- justinclift 2y ago> Sticking it at the bottom of a 5000ft mine shaft in a geologically stable region, with pictograms, is a solution. That's probably where our definition of "unsolved" differs. To me, the concept of leaving something super toxic hanging around for the next several thousand years - more than double the entire existence of recorded western civilization so far - is "unsolved". It's handing the (huge) problem to future generations to deal with. And doing so when there are alternatives already in existence that don't have the problem? That's (to me) not a rational approach. This kind of proposal is not the direction to take for making the world better for our descendants, which should always be the goal of big decisions (and the goal of our descendants too). :)