Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Nuclear waste disposal

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-08 21:56

Wouldn't it be less hazardous (unless there's a Columbia-like situation) to fly nuclear waste to Mercury? Just set it and forget it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-08 22:17

1) That Columbia-like situation is a pretty big if. 

2) Space flight is very expensive.  A government or energy company that started launching waste into space would likely go broke after a short period.

3) The moon would make a much better landfill.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-08 22:24

I suppose the moon would make a good place, as it's a much shorter flight, and it's always closeby.

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-09 1:02

But then the moonists would be in an uproar

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-13 18:02

he said set and forget, not - lets actually care where it goes

Name: Anonymous 2007-10-13 22:55

We'll we could just recycle nuclear waste, which would reduce it's overall volume 90%.  But the government is reluctant to do that because that's how you get plutonium. 

I've read that we could just throw it into the Marianas Trench.  It wouldn't dissolve and the water would act as a radiation barrier.  Plus, Earth's plate tectonics would sublimate it into the mantle, where it would disperse into natural levels.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List