these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been
Comment on Anon questions our energy sector
moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com [bot] 5 weeks agoNa it’s dumb. The issue with the magic rocks isn’t the direct consequences like with the fire. The issue with these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
these rocks are long terms with the consequences on humans and the environment thousands of years later.
You bury them in concrete, done. Nuclear waste isn’t an issue and hasn’t ever been
Yeah, just bury it and make it someone else’s problem in the future.
I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.
someone else’s problem in the future
Nope, if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again unless society somehow completely collapsed and all knowledge of nuclear waste is lost
I’ve seen this train of thinking somewhere. Spoiler alert, it was a bad idea.
I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you
I’ve seen this level of confidence from people who don’t know what they’re talking about before. Spoiler alert, it’s embarrassing for you
Ahahahahahah! Oh the irony! Drop the smugness.
Dude, you don’t know as much about nuclear energy as you think. But you know even less about concrete.
if you bury it in a few inches of concrete it’s literally never a problem again
I’m putting this one on Facebook for my civil engineers to laugh at. It’s going to be a riot. Concrete is pourous as hell and doesn’t last much on a grand scale. And on top of that you think a few inches is enough? This is nuclear waste, it’s not Emma Dorothy from Sunday school!
Stop embarrassing yourself.
What consequences?
There are no consequences for animals in Chernobyl, not even to mammals living underground.
People that didn’t leave the exclusion zone died of old age there.
Life on Earth had to deal with all sorts of radiation.
What caused mass extinction was ecosystem change, eg via global climate change.
dev_null@lemmy.ml 5 weeks ago
Yeah, the environmental issues that are orders of magnitude less problematic than literally pumping the toxic chemicals into the atmosphere like with fossil fuels, vs comparatively miniscule amount of solid waste to store inert.
T156@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
Coal smoke is more radioactive than the outside of a fission reactor anyhow.
moitoi@lemmy.dbzer0.com [bot] 5 weeks ago
The comparison is dumb. The subject was the comparaison, and not what type of energy is better for the environment.
You’re interpreting.