posted on Jun, 25 2020 @ 07:25 PM
a reply to: Bluntone22
Honestly, it's a bit disappointing. It would present less risk buried deep underground than it would in the current storage on site. The biggest
complaint everyone had was not wanting nuclear waste so close to such a large body of freshwater. It's completely understandable, at face value,
however, most of the opponents to it don't understand that there is already nuclear waste on every shore of the Great Lakes, except maybe Superior.
a reply to: 38181
A very solid idea!
However, as stated, the spent nuclear rods are very dense. On top of that, if the rocket were to undergo rapid unplanned disassembly on launch or in
orbit it could present a much worse scenario. Special precautions are taken for launching nuclear fuels into space (in the form of RTGs). Thirdly, not
only the rods would have to be launched into space, but also a water filled sarcophagus (lined with boron) to keep the rods from reaching critical
mass and creating a meltdown. But, wait! It gets worse! It is also incredibly difficult (ie expensive!) to achieve the velocities needed to
effectively slow a rocket down so that it could crash into the Sun.
a reply to: RazorV66
And, if you're Downriver or closer to Toledo, you're within fifty miles of Davis Besse too!
a reply to: Mandroid7
Luckily there's no drilling for oil around there. Also, we have much better maps and surveying tools now. Not that accidents don't happen. Curse you,
edit on 6/25/2020 by cmdrkeenkid because: Fixing typos.