It should be dumped in israel.
In bomb form
I can live with that.
Literally was thinking the same exact line when I saw the title. Damn.
The ocean is naturally full of tiny radioactive particulate. It's really about radioactivity, area and time allowed for dilution.
Back when this first happened a lot of Jews pushed "radiation reaching out shores", to further war against the safest, cheapest source of energy commonly available to humans. But bananas are more radioactive and we ingest those.
If done correctly, it's really no big deal. If done poorly, it can be very dangerous.
You’re correct, sir.
When I was a kid in the 80s we were taught 'the solution to pollution is dilution'. I am sure it does work for soem things. I agree with you about being done right. There is way too much fear mongering around nuclear and this isn't helping.
I don't think it's possible to do it correctly. Dilution does not remove the elements. And once they start, when do you suppose they will stop? The elements in nuclear waste cannot be compared to that of a banana. I'm not sure people are aware of how much nuclear waste is on this earth waiting for a permanent disposal solution. There are none. All the dumped waste that already exists in the oceans is leaking. And there are elevated levels of activity at nearly all the sites tested. Some of the isotopes take hundreds of years to break down. It will only compile as time goes on thereby making the "dilution" argument moot. It's just another way to pass it on to future generations just like they have been doing for decades. Vitrification is another way to pass on the problem. Just like cancer cures, there has been many ideas put forth that could actually work, but unfortunately those ideas along with the people who came up with them are silenced or dead.
You're mixing many things. This is radioactive water. It can be done safely.
97%-98% of all radioactive "waste" is actually nuclear fuel.
We don't have a nuclear waste problem. Nor don't we have a gun problem. Those concepts only exist because of propaganda.
97%-98% of all radioactive "waste" is actually nuclear fuel
Spent nuclear fuel is called "high level" toxic waste and is the worst kind. Thank you for proving my pojnt further. There is >90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive waste in the US alone. >200 million liters of radioactive waste in underground storage tanks in Hanford, Washington alone.
This is radiative water. It can be done safely.
Can it? There is zero evidence to suggest that. Zero studies conclude it is safe to put radio active waste in the oceans. Find one that definitively states that putting nuclear waste in the ocean is safe.
Spray it over the middle east and Africa.
No - Godzilla
No. Send it into space.
Yeup. Send it on a one way ticket towards the sun and never think about it again. I don't know how to do this without removing the chance of a boom along the way though.
Oh geez yeah. That would be super bad.
I think they dump waste that's only mildly radioactive, e.g. water that's been contaminated. It's of too much volume to shoot into space or bury in the ground.
No, the oceans are polluted enough as they are. Large underground long-term waste storage and reprocessing fuel for reuse in reactors seem like the best options to me.
I am against nuclear waste being dumped into any place where it can affect human or natural life. Corporate greed and political motivations always seem to favor allowing it to cause a worst case scenario. It will only get worse and worse in my eyes.
If I had to describe a ideal situation it would be to dump it down a oil well that does not have any chance of contaminating the water supply out in the middle of a desert. 5 kms underground straight shot, not a well that has a curve to it. specifically done for the purpose of removing it from the presence of all life.
unfortunately though, even if white folks did this, china and many other shit holes around the globe will cut costs and contaminate the ocean as they don't give a fuck.
I think it's a false problem since 4th gen nuclear power plants can be powered by nuclear waste...
Generation IV reactors (Gen IV) are nuclear reactor design technologies that are envisioned as successors of generation III reactors. The Generation IV International Forum (GIF) - an international organization that coordinates the development of generation IV reactors - specifically selected six reactor technologies as candidates for generation IV reactors.[1][2] The designs target improved safety, sustainability, efficiency, and cost. The first commercial Gen IV plants are not expected before 2040–2050,[3] although the World Nuclear Association in 2015 suggested that some might enter commercial operation before 2030.[4]
Assessment
The GEN IV Forum reframes the reactor safety paradigm, from accepting that nuclear accidents can occur and should be mastered, to eliminating the physical possibility of an accident. Active and passive safety systems would be at least as effective as those of Generation III systems and render the most severe accidents physically impossible.[42]
Relative to Gen II-III, advantages of Gen IV reactors include:
Nuclear waste that remains radioactive for a few centuries instead of millennia[43] 100–300x energy yield from the same amount of nuclear fuel[44] Broader range of fuels, including unencapsulated raw fuels (non-pebble MSR, LFTR). Potential to burn existing nuclear waste and produce electricity: a closed fuel cycle. Improved safety via features such as ambient pressure operation, automatic passive reactor shutdown, and alternate coolants.
A specific risk of the SFR is related to using metallic sodium as a coolant. In case of a breach, sodium explosively reacts with water. Argon is used to prevent sodium oxidation. Argon can displace oxygen in the air and can pose hypoxia concerns for workers. This was a factor at the loop type Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor Monju at Tsuruga, Japan.[45] Using lead or molten salt coolants mitigates this problem as they are less reactive and have a high freezing temperature and ambient pressure. Lead has much higher viscosity, much higher density, lower heat capacity, and more radioactive neutron activation products than sodium.
Multiple proof of concept Gen IV designs have been built. For example, the reactors at Fort St. Vrain Generating Station and HTR-10 are similar to the proposed Gen IV VHTR designs, and the pool type EBR-II, Phénix, BN-600 and BN-800 reactor are similar to the proposed pool type Gen IV SFR designs.
Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum cautions, "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".[46] As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not".[46]
If it's on top of the Titanic I guess it's alright.
I saw this movie, it does not end well for mankind.
(post is archived)