It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear Waste and how (I think) we should dispose of it

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Good evening fellow ATS-ers I have been pondering some recent world problems that we have been having lately and i just wanted to share what i came up with. This is also my first thread so go easy on me!

These are some of the main topic points that seem to be problematic for our planet at the moment.

~energy shortage
~food shortage
~slumping economies world-wide
~over population
~possible extinction of our species due to natural disaster or ELE
~climate change from CO2 emissions and the burning of fossil fuels

and thats just scratching the surface of our problems as a society

Now here I offer 2 possible solutions to that problem:
Why couldnt we build some insanely large concrete and lead bunkers on the moon, and simply ship it up there and drop it off? That addresses a host of our problems that we have right now, and I am sure someone will jump out with negative reasons, but I bet we could collectively figure out any negative issues that may arise. Look at what that one solution could provide (just a list off the top of my head):

-immediate jobs for a slumping economy
-a new boom industry for waste disposal
-continuing positive growth in technology to solve problems such as more efficient space travel, and keeping on top of the aeronautical industry
-spread the use of nuclear energy to address growing world energy crisis
-start the process of terraforming the moon, leading to mars, and expanding from there
-getting some use out of a close terrestrial body
-implementing better and safer methods of space travel due to containment of radioactive waste
-reason to continue space program for indefinite future and most likely make the space agency more of a factor
-find other resources to use while we are on the moon, such as bringing back Helium-3, making He-3 cheaper
-jobs in creating new nuclear facilities extending all the way down to simple concrete workers
-creating new, safer, natural disaster resistant reactors (fukushima?)
-starts the much needed ignition to actually putting humans to working and living in space environments
-nearby in cosmic terms
-address population issue by increasing cheap and efficient energy
-address economy issues by providing cheap energy, cheaper cost to make products, etc
-waste off planet in case of catastrophic natural disaster (possible asteroid strike not quite ELE, but destructive enough to release stored nuclear waste here on earth)
-less reliance on burning fossil fuels for energy
-less pollution


and thats just after a couple minutes of me thinking on this, imagine schools and universities addressing this?

Think about how we could immediately reignite our space program and actually make it relevant. Think about how we could actually start the process of terraforming another celestial body and ensuring the survival of our species, at first we would just be building temporary places to monitor and work from on the moon, expanding out to semi-permanent bases for long term work, eventually reaching a point where we could have permanent artificial habitats, then move out even further to other planets using a similar process. Think about how much would be involved in transporting all the materials needed and the jobs that would create. Think about the jobs needed to make the shuttles, the habitat structures, the holding cells for the waste, etc. Think about the improvement in technology based around our need for cheaper and safer space travel. Think about nuclear energy becoming relatively cheap to produce since you can use more safely without fear of contamination from nuclear waste. Think about what cheaper energy would create for us, cheaper food, cheaper operational costs (possibly able to increase our work wages, or overall quality of life), cheaper transportation. Think about this sparking the need for safer more protected reactors (no more Fukushimas!) Think about the jobs created to man more reactors, to make more reactors, and think of the boom it could create for waste disposal.

I know some people will think of negative things to say about this, but we are by far smart enough to work around those. Heck we could even just send our waste directly into 'hot' celestial bodies like Mercury or the Sun and vaporize it on impact. Shoot we could load up storage ships in the upper atmosphere and just launch them off full of plastic, nuclear waste, batteries, etc to completely vaporize the garbage. This option is just as viable and productive as the moon storage idea, except without starting a much needed colonization effort. Thats my favorite part about using the moon, although just shooting off on a crash course seems safer and less dangerous to earth.

What say you ATS?


edit on 15-6-2012 by phishfriar47 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I say just eject it into space. Put it on something like the voyager I that can escape the gravity of our solar system and keep traveling. I know, not a great thing to make outer space a toxic wasteland, but space is so vast the probability of it impacting other planets is so slim. And by the time we have advanced technology enough for interstellar travel, we will probably have found a way to clean up nuclear waste in a breeze so we can just clean it up if it's a problem.
edit on 15-6-2012 by WP4YT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
Not the moon. Just send it into the sun. Lets keep the moon safe.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I say we ship it to the elites houses and make them bury it in their yards. After all, we wouldn't have nearly the amount of toxic waste we have now if not for them.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by phishfriar47
 


And what happens if the rocket carrying it explodes on takeoff or during the journey?

..The end of all life on the planet!

This is why its not been ejected into space.



edit on 15-6-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


Or....
........we could build that space elevator, and ship it to a carrier already in orbit.
More jobs, less chance of the difficulty you speak of.
Just another thought.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 08:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Cynic
 


Better , but still a risk to the entire life on the planet if something goes wrong. radio active waste spread out in the atmosphere would be utterly devastating ,its just to much of a risk to try.

Plus that technology is a long way off in the future.





edit on 15-6-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Like someone else mentioned, if just one of these rockets blows up in the atmosphere, which is likely due to the extremely high number of rockets we would have to send, then the effects would be far worse than just dumping all of the nuclear waste in a big pile in the middle of the desert.

Then there is the issue of cost. Nuclear works so well because it's fairly cheap. Add in the price of launching all the waste into space, and not a single nuclear reactor could continue functioning. Either that, or you start paying 1000x the price for electricity 100,000 electric bill every month sound good?

It just won't work. It's too expensive, and not worth the cost.

What would be a good idea is those nuclear reactors, I forget what they are called. They use nuclear waste from normal power plants as fuel, they can't suffer a meltdown, and the waste they produce is much less radioactive and only dangerous for a few hundred years or something like that.
edit on 15-6-2012 by James1982 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
It's too dangerous to shoot it into space , the only practical way to deal with it is to entomb it. It's not an elegant solution but it's all we've got at the moment.



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   
I think that we should get rid of Nuclear waste by passing a law that states if you are a SELL-OUT TRAITOR politician who doesnt keep his/her campaign promises and caters to BIG MONEY rather than the PEOPLE, than you must be force-fed a diet of nuclear waste. When their ROTTEN CORRUPT body dies out from such a diet, they can then all be loaded into a rocket and sent ONE-WAY-TICKET into outer-space.

If such a law were passed TODAY, there are ENOUGH DESERVING MOUTHS in politics to consume ALL of the worlds current nuclear waste...



edit on 15-6-2012 by HangTheTraitors because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
The current inhabitants, bullies that have controlled earth for some time, wouldn't allow it.

There is technology, frequencies, that can neutralize it, reverse SINE.

www.cheniere.org...



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:49 PM
link   
Same reason why we never made nuclear aircraft or rockets, if they crash you have a big mess on your hands. Besides this, the environmentalists go bat-shoot insane whenever someone even mentions this possibility. Now add to that it costs between $3000 and $13000 (depends on the bulk size and required rocket) per pound to put something into space, and you'll see that its rather an impractical way to dispose of our garbage.
edit on 6/15/2012 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2012 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Here is some more:

www.scribd.com...

Interference (wave motion)

encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com...

Its why the radiation can be neutralized in space.

Everything they have is from Tesla type, scalar wave physics basially. The philadelphia project was a part of this, and they can phase things too, ie, take them out of frequency channel, dimension, shield places from radiation and neutralize it, all toxins, not to mention cure diseases. And there are other holographic methods with the cells that can restore health as well.

They're not bringing it out because they are bought off criminals.
edit on 15-6-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
ahh but see i already addressed both of the negatives mentioned in my opening post. By us committing to disposing of our waste in such a way, we are making a conscious effort to do this as safely and efficiently as possible, and thats the point. If we build craft with such precision, care, and safe guards to guarantee there are no accidents thats benefits the whole space flight industry. How else do you convince people that casual space travel would be safe? You show a track record of perfection with the craft that have taken successful trips up with nuclear waste, it then becomes much easier to convince people to do the same. I would definitely sign up if I knew 50+ missions had previously been successfully launched with no accidents of any type. And I can say with confidence that the people working on this project should know the safety implications involved in ensuring that this becomes an accident free industry.

I realize its expensive, for now, but with all things it becomes cheaper the more people work on it and make it more efficient, thats another point, more nuclear energy, means cheaper energy overall. So production of the parts is cheaper, thus making entire processes cheaper, etc.

We could also short term store the waste in the outer atmosphere in orbit, and launch of massive amounts at one time. What if we could launch all of the trash in the Pacific Ocean to the Sun with all batteries, glass, metal, and nuclear waste? Sure cleans this planet up ALOT!

Just saying we have tremendous technology at our finger tips, its about time we used it for some good! And this idea isnt far fetched. What if we launched over remote areas to minimize the risk of exposure in the event of an accident? Lots to think about



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   
90% of it could be burned up in a accelerator driven reactor.( Subcritical reactor)
en.wikipedia.org...
www.world-nuclear-news.org...
nextbigfuture.com...
www.freerepublic.com...

i like the idea of only having to get rid of 10% radioactive waste instead of 100% of the old spent fuel rods we have stored around the US and making power from it safely at the same time.

the best part of this system is we would have fuel for 1000 years of power if they started with the spent fuel rods first then went to DU and thorum

with wind, solar, hydro, and geothermal plus synthetic fuels we would no longer need middle east oil. and be energy independent.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by phroziac
Not the moon. Just send it into the sun. Lets keep the moon safe.


nnnnNOOOOOOO! Thou shalt NOT mess with the sun!

Besides, anything we send to the sun wouldn't reach it. The containers would melt and the radiation would come back at us in the solar winds and flares.

Also, how many spent fuel rods would you shoot into space at one time - a ton worth, five tones? And what if that ship or missile broke up before leaving our atmosphere? Where would the spent fuel rods land? In the OCEAN! No thank you.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by James1982
 


I've heard this argument over and over.

I'd like to introduce you to the concept of increasing proficiency leading to reduced risk.

This idea is NEVER explored in this discussion, but is proven in the oil and gas industry. Any "that can't be done" has been proven over and over to not be true. The original concept is expensive, and then quickly diminishes in expense to much more reasonable costs after the development phase.

This argument is promoted mainly because people who hate nuclear also hate the space programs, and the nuclear industry doesn't want to have to any excess cost it can fob off unless it can't get away with it.

The track record of doing ANYTHING except be sensible is getting long. Japan building most of their's at sea level being a FANTASTIC example of immense stupidity being preferable to long term planning and sensible use of technology.

In the meantime, I'd like to see this industry consider sub sea drilling into subduction zones with deviation drilling and then injecting the nuclear cores into the subduction zone. With a long term goal to launch them towards the Sun.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Not the sun? The sun IS a reactor. What exactly do you think will happen if a few tiny motes of spent nuclear fuel get there? Do you really think that a tiny mote of uranium is going to do something to the Sun?

You could launch our PLANET into the Sun, and it would probably only burp.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
It will have to go into space at sometime unless we cease to use technology which produces nuclear waste. We can't just keep piling it up here on earth, eventually we will run out of space.



posted on Jun, 16 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by SibylofErythrae
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Not the sun? The sun IS a reactor. What exactly do you think will happen if a few tiny motes of spent nuclear fuel get there? Do you really think that a tiny mote of uranium is going to do something to the Sun?

You could launch our PLANET into the Sun, and it would probably only burp.


No, it just makes sense to not mess with what keeps us alive. Look at how many times things have gone wrong with what we've done. I call it the 'Who Knew' disease. Who Knew that Japan would have an earthquake that would take our their nuclear plants? Who Knew that an oil company would screw up while digging for oil in the ocean? It's late, so I can't think of any more right now. But, it sure seems like human nature to think we have all bets covered, when we don't. And, once we start screwing with something, we never stop.




top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join