A disposal site for nuclear waste would've to be uninhabitated if it's possible?

[harlock 0]

Why don't world govs decide to move all of their nuclear waste in Antarctica?

 

 

 

 

[StringJunky 2293]

2 hours ago, harlock said:

Why don't world govs decide to move all of their nuclear waste in Antarctica?

 

 

 

 

Because they want to try and keep it as pristine as possible. The principle there is that: whatever you go in with, you come back with; there is no long-term waste allowed.

[harlock 0]

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Because they want to try and keep it as pristine as possible.

A no-living-being environment as healthy as possible while people're exposed to radiation or have this risk: is it logical? 

 

 

[Sensei 1037]

6 hours ago, harlock said:

Why don't world govs decide to move all of their nuclear waste in Antarctica? 

Uninhabited by human doesn't mean it is uninhabited by other life forms such as microorganisms..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_microorganism

 

Additionally elevation altitude of Antarctica reaches even 2 km. And it's ice. Where would you like to put waste? To reach the real ground it would require digging 2km + through ice, then some more through the ground..

 

[Raider5678 51]

1 hour ago, harlock said:

A no-living-being environment as healthy as possible while people're exposed to radiation or have this risk: is it logical? 

1

The proposition here is that the radiation is harming people here.

It's not. The nuclear waste is actually secured quite well and poses little risk.

It'd be a much bigger risk transporting the nuclear waste to Antarctica then simply burying it as we do now.

[harlock 0]

Uninhabited by human doesn't mean it is uninhabited by other life forms such as microorganisms..

 

Antarctica(Surface: 14e6 kmq) is almost completely uninhabitated.

Only liquid water can give some kind of life. Surely we can find a location

without life where to free living beings from nuclear waste!

 

 

Edited January 23, 2019 by harlock

[Nod2003 4]

Nuclear waste disposal tends to be more a political issue then scientific.  NIMBY means that any suggestion is going to be strongly opposed.  

[Olivia_charles 1]

yeah but there are so many things we could do with nuclear waste, a few months ago Physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have found a way to convert nuclear waste into a synthetic diamond which could generate a small electrical current for longer times even longer than the whole history of human civilization.

https://graptechpedia.com/905/science/diamond-batteries-made-nuclear-waste-can-generate-power/

[swansont 7443]

2 hours ago, Olivia_charles said:

yeah but there are so many things we could do with nuclear waste, a few months ago Physicists and chemists from the University of Bristol have found a way to convert nuclear waste into a synthetic diamond which could generate a small electrical current for longer times even longer than the whole history of human civilization.

https://graptechpedia.com/905/science/diamond-batteries-made-nuclear-waste-can-generate-power/

While this is interesting, it's not the kind of nuclear waste most people are talking about. They typically mean the fission products left in fuel assemblies, rather than the activated carbon moderator (which are used in some designs, but no others)