Editing Talk:1786: Trash

Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox notice.png 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)
βˆ’
:Well for some isotopes the half life is billions of year (Uranium for instance) so that kind of waste would not wither away in Narnia which only reaches an age of a few thousand years... So they would sum up even though they came in over a longer period. And most importantly, it was not their problem but ours. Just like 1st world problems are exported to 3rd world countries... --[[User:Kynde|Kynde]] ([[User talk:Kynde|talk]]) 14:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
+
 
  
 
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}}

Please note that all contributions to explain xkcd may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see explain xkcd:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

To protect the wiki against automated edit spam, we kindly ask you to solve the following CAPTCHA:

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)

Templates used on this page: