4 ms·

> ... Egyptian civilization is measured in millennia. It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for ti

> ... Egyptian civilization is measured in millennia. It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. Perhaps they should, and also put some fake tomb stuff inside them. Then they can have real curse stuff happening along the lines of "anyone who goes in there dies with a few weeks" or "their kids are born with severe deformities" (etc). What a gift to future generations. o_O </rant>

wslh 2y ago
> It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. I imagine that someone will discover a better way to dispose or "recycle" nuclear material before that.
- FraterSKM 2y ago
  I'm basically a troglodyte so this could very well be a dumb question, but... couldn't we just launch that shit into space? The only limiting factors I can think of would be the weight of the waste and the fuel cost to get it up to escape velocity.
  - fred_is_fred 2y ago
    Ignoring the fact that launching stuff into space is quite expensive, the failure mode of a rocket full of nuclear waste blowing up is also rather bad.
  - loudmax 2y ago
    The fuel cost to launch is significant here, as you'd want to put this into quite a high orbit. You absolutely don't want this stuff in low orbit where it will be taken down eventually by atmospheric drag, or by slamming into some other spacecraft. Another issue is the reliability of your launch vehicle. Sometimes these things blow up on launch, which you really don't want happening when it's loaded with radioactive waste. Developments made by SpaceX might contribute positively to both of these, by lowering the cost and increasing the reliability. A third issue is that this stuff might turn out to be valuable after all. Hopefully not for making bombs, but future technology might come up with socially positive uses for material that's currently considered dangerous waste.
- justinclift 2y ago
  > I imagine that ... Sure. Lots of people can imagine all kinds of things. It's all wishful thinking though, where they're hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. We need actual solutions in order for it to be feasible, not wishful thinking.
  - wslh 2y ago
    It sounds like a pessimistic answer in the XXI century when we can see that science and engineering are really advancing in many directions. There is a context on this [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_reprocessing_of_spent_nuclear_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_reprocessing_of_spent... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=reprocessing+nuclear&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=repr...
    - justinclift 2y ago
      Again, we need actual solutions not wishful thinking. It's good that science is developing potential solutions to the problem. When (and if) they do come up with a good solution, then it will be the right time to consider the pro-nuclear approach.

wslh 2y ago

> It's kind of funny that the pro-nuclear crowd generally seem to want to bury extremely toxic waste for time periods multiple times as long as that. I imagine that someone will discover a better way to dispose or "recycle" nuclear material before that.

FraterSKM 2y ago
I'm basically a troglodyte so this could very well be a dumb question, but... couldn't we just launch that shit into space? The only limiting factors I can think of would be the weight of the waste and the fuel cost to get it up to escape velocity.
- fred_is_fred 2y ago
  Ignoring the fact that launching stuff into space is quite expensive, the failure mode of a rocket full of nuclear waste blowing up is also rather bad.
- loudmax 2y ago
  The fuel cost to launch is significant here, as you'd want to put this into quite a high orbit. You absolutely don't want this stuff in low orbit where it will be taken down eventually by atmospheric drag, or by slamming into some other spacecraft. Another issue is the reliability of your launch vehicle. Sometimes these things blow up on launch, which you really don't want happening when it's loaded with radioactive waste. Developments made by SpaceX might contribute positively to both of these, by lowering the cost and increasing the reliability. A third issue is that this stuff might turn out to be valuable after all. Hopefully not for making bombs, but future technology might come up with socially positive uses for material that's currently considered dangerous waste.
justinclift 2y ago
> I imagine that ... Sure. Lots of people can imagine all kinds of things. It's all wishful thinking though, where they're hoping someone else will solve the problem for them. We need actual solutions in order for it to be feasible, not wishful thinking.
- wslh 2y ago
  It sounds like a pessimistic answer in the XXI century when we can see that science and engineering are really advancing in many directions. There is a context on this [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_reprocessing_of_spent_nuclear_fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_reprocessing_of_spent... [2] https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=reprocessing+nuclear&btnG= https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=repr...
  - justinclift 2y ago
    Again, we need actual solutions not wishful thinking. It's good that science is developing potential solutions to the problem. When (and if) they do come up with a good solution, then it will be the right time to consider the pro-nuclear approach.