Editing Talk:1786: Trash
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
If we dumped radioactive waste into Narnia, wouldn't Narnia receive much less waste per unit time, than we are inserting? Therefore the nuclear waste problem would be much less severe than on Earth? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.70|162.158.59.70]] 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | If we dumped radioactive waste into Narnia, wouldn't Narnia receive much less waste per unit time, than we are inserting? Therefore the nuclear waste problem would be much less severe than on Earth? --[[Special:Contributions/162.158.59.70|162.158.59.70]] 23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | ||
β | + | ||
Actually, subduction zone tectonic deposition of nuclear waste is a very promising form of nuclear waste disposal that would be considered oceanic disposal, which is why no one's been able to try it yet. Additionally, I'd like to point out that oceanic disposal of nuclear waste isn't really a current issue, since it's been banned by a number of treaties, and nuclear power plants are monitored closely enough that it doesn't really happen anymore. {{unsigned ip|162.158.122.108}} | Actually, subduction zone tectonic deposition of nuclear waste is a very promising form of nuclear waste disposal that would be considered oceanic disposal, which is why no one's been able to try it yet. Additionally, I'd like to point out that oceanic disposal of nuclear waste isn't really a current issue, since it's been banned by a number of treaties, and nuclear power plants are monitored closely enough that it doesn't really happen anymore. {{unsigned ip|162.158.122.108}} |