Why the Nevada nuclear disposal site is a GOOD idea

[Kuciwalker]

- and people who say otherwise are complete morons


Look at it this way - there is already a whole bunch of nuclear waste. It's got to go SOMEWHERE. Are those who argue against the site saying that the current storage facilities are somehow safer?

Well, if so, they are morons.

There is no way that a simple building that houses nuclear waste is safer than a mountain. Yes, in 100 years some may leak into the water supply. Well, I've got news for you - it can do that from where it is too. And the current storage facilities are MUCH more likely to leak than the Nevada site.

[chequita guevara]

Yeah, let's put it on a fault, where the ground has lots of cracks right down to the aquafers. What a great idea. Next, we could start distrubiting guns to crackheads so they could sell them for food money.

[Kuciwalker]

Yeah, lets keep it in modified industrial WAREHOUSES near the nuclear facility, what a wonderful idea. IT HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE, and if stored in a nice lead box, the chance of anything happening is minimal. Yes, 100 years from now it may break, but by then we can do something different with it.

I just had an even better idea, though why don't we give it to Canada? Let them deal with it

[MRT144]

i agree skywalker. too bad the left has too many ****ing morons and misinformation mongers to allow anything related remotely to nuclear power to get through the government.

[chequita guevara]

Obviously we need a permanent storage site, at least until we get a space elevator and can fling the stuff into the sun. I just think there are better places to put it than a techtonically active part of the US which sits over an aquifer. It's just stupid.

[Kuciwalker]

Active in geological terms doesn't mean active in human terms. The time scale is completely different.

[GePap]

Yes, but nuclear waste has a half-life that runs long enough to see geological.

I don;t particularly care, and I have heard about some experiments to resuse nuclear waste..more reaserch into this would be nice.

[Pekka]

Just ship it in Iraq and put it on Polands quarter .

j/k

[Felch]

How about we drop it into a volcano?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Obviously we need a permanent storage site, at least until we get a space elevator and can fling the stuff into the sun. I just think there are better places to put it than a techtonically active part of the US which sits over an aquifer. It's just stupid.

here here, put that ****e on a rocket to the sun. That way you destroy the waste and create an archvillian. Or put it on a rocket to Russia, with Saddam's ass.

[MRT144]

maybe we can shoot it into the core of the planet

[Geronimo]

Dumping it into a volcano would very efficiently create a big messy chernobyl II come next eruption methinks.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Actually, a completely feasible case was made some years ago for burial in deep ocean sediments @ > 12,000 feet depth. There are a large number of geologically stable, fundamentally lifeless areas of the ocean floor where sediment layers are hundreds of feet thick and sediment migration in virtually none.

Between the left whining about "ocean dumping" and the lessened pork barrel revenue for right-connected contractors, the idea was stillborn, even though it's demonstrably the most sound idea both technically and economically.

[DRoseDARs]

Active in geological terms doesn't mean active in human terms. The time scale is completely different.

Yeah, the difference being we can keep the promises made on the Human time scale. We can't do that with the Geological time scale, but the half-wits pushing this malarky down Nevada's throat seem to think they can... "It'll NEVER leak even ONCE in 10,000 years. Our promise to you: Money Back Garuntee. "

If you can launch space probes near the sun, you can launch nuclear waste INTO the sun and be done with it. And you could do the smart thing and ABANDON nuclear power production all together and focus on less risky technologies. Then you'd only have to worry about what you've got, not what you'll have.



First of all, the government has cut corners trying to make the Yucca Mountain site a reality and have only done a half-assed job on doing environment studies of the site. The simple fact is they can't POSSIBLY make a seismically active location safe for 10,000 years (the time they believe the radioactivity of the waste will decay below lethal levels). All the putt-putting about "Oh, we can't keep it where it's made because it'll be a target for terrorists" and "Oh, we've already begun construction of the repository" and "Oh, we can make these SUPER-ULTRA-EXTRA special concrete canisters to keep it sealed for a REALLY SUPER-DUPER LONG TIME!!!" won't change the fact that the Yucca Mountain site will never be a safe storage place for a period of time LONGER than written Human history thus far.

[orange]

- and people who say otherwise are complete morons

Look at it this way - there is already a whole bunch of nuclear waste. It's got to go SOMEWHERE. Are those who argue against the site saying that the current storage facilities are somehow safer?

Well, if so, they are morons.

There is no way that a simple building that houses nuclear waste is safer than a mountain. Yes, in 100 years some may leak into the water supply. Well, I've got news for you - it can do that from where it is too. And the current storage facilities are MUCH more likely to leak than the Nevada site.

airtight logic