According to your article, "Why Not Dispose of Waste in Ocean Trenches?", it would be disasterous to dispose of nuclear material in trenches; but according to the authors , it is not feasible to send it to space and not desirable to plant it under Yucca Mountain, Nevada. You are head of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Since you can't please everyone all the time and few people most of the time, what is your solution to the disposal of our toxic waste , which remains dangerous for thousands of years?
Please post all replies on the blog site.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article says that there was speculation that we could send the waste into space when the space program was new. If we tried it then and it didn't work it could have possibly been only because of the immature techniques being used. Today we may be able to do it more efficiently. Also, why not just throw it out into space rather than try to aim it as a projectile towards the sun? Given investigation into this theory, with today's knowledge, this method may actually be more feasible than the ocean trench technique. It just seems better to me that we get it as far away from us as possible: the far reaches of space, or miles below water?
ReplyDeleteWell the way I see it neither solution is really a solution, just a temporary fix that also has problems of its own. The trench idea is okay but incredibly slow and not efficient enough to keep up with our increasing amount of waste. Also, the risk of the barrels becoming breached is too great, because once the toxins are in the water they would be dispersed all over the world by the vast system of underwater currents. This would destroy the majority of life in the oceans along with polluting human water sources which would in turn have global reprocussions. The space idea also has its flaws in the fact that there is the potential for a shuttle explosion which would contaminate the area in which it exploded. This though would only have regional impact as opposed to global impact. I have to agree with Billy though on the fact that we have greatly advanced in our space program and believe explosions to be a minut problem. Plus, space offers a greater area to use for disposal without the worry of future civilizations retreiving it. Both solutions are expensive but, I believe that when comparing the two, launching the waste into space is more practical and efficient.
ReplyDeleteI am really interested in the fact that in the article it bodly says, "The concept is sound: just put your barrels of waste in a trench we'll dig a hole first, just to be tidy about it and down they inexorably go, never to bring harm to HUMANITY again." Seems to me that whoever this is, is not concerned about any impacts it could possibly have on the ocean life. Both of the suggested soulutions are not the best. Each has its' own different reprocussions like Matt had explained. Like Billy and Matt I do say that the best solution is to launching it into space.
ReplyDeleteWith proper procedure and technological advances in the near future space disposal seems safest. Maybe a team of remote controlled robots could run the disposal missions to cut down risk of human losses or exposure to contaminants. Putting poison into our earth just doesn't seem practical even if it is considered "sound". Do we really want to risk any evolutionary mutations due to toxic or nuclear waste in our marine community.Since all choices are timely and rather expensive maybe even planning a wide scale project to deliver as much as we can to be jettisoned towards the sun might be a consideration even if it seems far fetched. But lets not forget all great ideas seem far fetched at first.
ReplyDeleteI believe allowing pernicious wastes into the deepest seas will harm sea creatures. I agree with Sarah S that they are not concerned about the ocean life or even it's future.
ReplyDelete"In a hundred years it will move 25 meters. Is that anyone's idea of efficient"--Over time those meters will double and will cause danger to the Chile Trench. -10,000 years will move 2.5 kilo meters IT WILL ADD UP!!!!
I agree with Billy that today with our new tech. I believe we can launch the waste into space. Therefore it will not harm us. Jake also made a good point by using Robots.
The main thing though is we need to CONSERVE!
--Plus, space offers a greater area to use for disposal without the worry of future civilizations retreiving it.--I agree with Matt good point
You all are doing an outstanding job. Keep up the good work, get your classmates involved and get some debate going here!! Bravo to you all!!!
ReplyDeleteHowever, is space our personal dumping ground? Who owns space? what happens to the waste in zero gravity or the extreme cold of space? How does it react to a vaccum? Just something to think about......
I agree that it should be launched into space. To me putting the waste into the ocean just seems too risky. What if a complication occurs and a leak ends up in one of the barrels. Yes there is less life in the trenches in the ocean but types of eubacteria still live near the oceanic vents. Along with some breeds of fish that feed off of them. On small problem could begin to case the collapse of an entire ecosystem.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time I think the ultimate solution would to find different forms of energy that will no produce toxic waste. Every way seems to have its risks in my mind at least. We just have to decide which risks are lesser and that is the disposal method to use.
It should be begin to cause not begin to case
ReplyDeleteAriel.....interesting thoughts. Comments from anyone on the " commons" of space and space usage?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking to the concerns of Mrs. Bosiak, space does not become our dumping grounds if the waste is shot into the sun to be incinerated. Space is the Final Frontier so ownership is governed by a first come first served system. Zero gravity will actually help in the fact that due to Newtons laws of motion an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by another force and therefore the waste would make a beeline for the sun if jettisoned correctly. Also the extreme cold should have minor effects on the waste that shouldn't result in a problem. As far as the effect of a vacuum goes, matter inside a vacuum speeds up so the waste would only reach its destination sooner which in turn eliminate it faster.
ReplyDeletePlus have you never seen Star Wars...They jettison their trash into space all the time. :)
There is no quick fix to nuclear waste that takes 10,000 years to decay. Unless some type of enzyme is created that can considerably cut this time span down then the waste will always be a problem. The sea trench idea to me is a ill conceived plan designed to make it look like the waste disappears and does not affect society but in reality it will. The possibility of breaching, container spills, human carelessness, and cutting corners is a risk that could possibly like Matt said containment the ocean that is a greater portion of our planet. The ocean supplies food and resources and with this toxic material or any waste product polluting the waters then the biological stability of the ocean is killed. Space disposal offers no alternative solution because of the sheer amount of waste produced, the amount of money, man power, and time would be inefficient and wasteful. It would take rocket launch after rocket launch to get the waste into space and companies are not going to be willing to pay for this disposal and they will secretly dump it. Space travel has greatly advanced in our time but not to the point of massive waste shipments to space and still be cost effective and plausible. Both the sea trench and space disposal programs are to me, ideas that should be scraped and a new more realistic approach be investigated.
ReplyDeleteOk Chris.....what might those be? I definitely agree that there would be secret dumping and the expense and amount of rocket launches would be astronomical.......so what might a new approach be? Jake said that new ideas are always far fetched at the onset, so are we counting space out because it is farfetched? Should we discount all the ideas? I see nothing new on the horizon!
ReplyDeleteWe do not need to launch trash into space because it could possibly endanger future space colonies (my dream). A new, greener alternative that is some type of chemical solution that erodes at and decays the nuclear waste or any type of waste into a safe green product that can be naturally disposed of into the earth. Far fetched I know but would it not be a great day when everyone's trash could safely become part of the earth and not be a danger to animals, plants, or the environment.
ReplyDeleteNice use of Star Wars Matt and everybody has great ideas and comments
I think that putting the waste into the ocean trenches isnt a very bright idea. Many years from now, the barrels could get a leak and go right into the oceans. This would kill off a number of the fish and bacteria that live in the ocean. But how about launching it into space? I can see how it could be beneficial and how it couldnt be. It's great to think that we just launch it off and never see it again, but you have to look at how expensive this practice would become. You also have to think about that the amount of waste humans produce is growing. It would take a countless number of launches (assuming that all of them dont explode) to even make a dent in getting rid of the amount of garbage we have. Still, I believe that putting the trash into space would be a better chance to take when we are talking about the risk of poisoning our oceans.
ReplyDeleteI agree that there may be nothing new on the horizon, but i dont believe that means we should begin throwing our trash into space just because we have run out of other ideas. Besides who gave humans the right to throw our trash in space. Also, if we believe ther are other life forms in space will this not damage their environment. I just dont beleve humans should begin ruining another environment, for the basis of helping ours. Im not sure what the best plan would be, but i dont think either of these are feasible.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people say there is nothing new on the horizon? We live in the Information Age where new technology is discovered everyday, computers get cheaper due to new technological breakthroughs in electronics especially microchips. My belief is that we have not hit the peak of our technological advancements and anything is possible with new scientific discoveries around every corner. Life is not gonna be how everyone pictures it and technology will become evermore a more crucial part of our daily life.
ReplyDeleteAs a good Republican, my first question is how much money does this "waste disposal" program cost? I'm sure the Space Program would be outrageous. Also, where does this toxic waste come from? Nuclear Power or Weaponry? Rather than concentrating on the disposal, I'd like to consider the primary use. Conservation, like Natalie mentioned. I also agree with Matt, that no matter answer seems to be a full-flegged answer.
ReplyDeletehi
ReplyDeleteThe entire thing sounds like a bad idea to me.
ReplyDeletehey i figured out how to use this thing! sweet
ReplyDeleteAnyway, both "solutions" have consequences we can not afford to pay. Even if we could just throw away or bury our waste, we would still lose. If we shoot it into space, we lose all of the materials sent with it, including the water from the nuclear waste. Continued use of this as a solution, would leave earth with even fewer raw materials than we already have. Who nows, maybe we can find a way to take materials like water and metal off other planets. O wait, we would have to find them first! However, the trench burrying idea seems even more proposterous. Lets take the largest source of food on earth, and throw our trash in it. One big accident, could dramatically drop the human population. Haven't scientist ever heard the expression "dont poop where you eat"?
ReplyDeleteNatalies definately right. Conservations got to be the key. And as stupid as it sounds, leaving the waste on earth seems like the best solution. NOT in the trenches though. IN fact, not in the ocean at all. Maybe the desert, nothing really matters out there on a world scale. At least then, future, hopefully smarter, generations will be able to retrieve it and possibly purify it.
ReplyDeleteNeither idea is a good idea, but there is really no way to avoid some change. It would hurt space, which we really shouldn't pollute like we have polluted earth. It would also hurt the Ocean, which is home to more organisms than we can possible imagine. I agree with Natalie in that the best thing we can do is leave the waste on earth and try to eliminate creating more, since we are already having a huge problem with what we do have. As far, as what to do with it, well, there is a reason I am not a scientist.
ReplyDeleteLogan,
ReplyDeleteThat is a very interesting comment about the loss of the raw materials...good for you!
Mollie,
Very insightful because we do need to slow down somehow!
justin says.....I promise I will comment soon.
ReplyDeletei think that the whole trench idea is a joke,
ReplyDeletei mean,
the waste disposal containers will probably collaspes or if nothing else deteriate and get holes in them thus a leakege. Sooo why cant we just mass produce some hungry nucular waste eater bacteria and get rid of all this crud. Space is kinda a good idea buuuut i might wanna live on venus cuz i like hot weather...
we might us space later on soo lets keep it a clean as posible soo that we can use it later. i dont want no trash-eroids (got from matmat hehe)
Wolfies 1st nugget of wisdom
Justin says:
ReplyDelete"Radioactive waste is a common by-product of things like mining, nuclear power, medicine and even scientific research. The proposal of the idea that we should 'ship and package' our nuclear waste to the deepest of ocean depths shows a disregard for the potential hazards that could occur if something goes wrong down below. Many governmental regulatory agencies are involved with radioactive waste management, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departmenty of Energy, the Department of Transportation as well as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. These agencies are fighting a complex issue, however in trying to find a way to dispose of radioactive waste that will not affect humans or the atmosphere we so depend on. I think Ashton was the first to bring this up: 'What kind of nuclear waste is this?' The waste they are talking about, is it from nuclear power plants, defense programs, the mining/milling of ore? Is it low-level waste? High-level waste? What about some low-level wastes which have the same level of radioactivity as some high-level wastes? Before moving on, let me clarify what low-level and high-level waste is. Low-level waste includes items that have been contaminated with radioactive material or exposure to neutron radiation. This low-level waste typically consists of mops, filters, medical tubes, swabs and injection needles. High-level waste are highly radioactive materials produced as a by-product of the reactions that occur inside nuclear reactors. High-level wastes usually take one of two forms: used reactor fuel when it is accepted for disposal and waste materials remaining after spent fuel is reprocessed. I have a major prolem with 'shipping' the radioactive waste we produce to the dark abyss of the ocean. Playing devil's advocate here...But, what happens when the waste does finally sink into the Earth's crust and gets 'recycled' and pushed under a tectonic plate (the Nazca plate for instance)? According to a report from the United States National Academy of Sciences, it may take some nuclear wastes up to three million years to fully decay! What happens when some of these materials, let's say the waste that takes three million years to fully decay, gets pushed up under the South American plate and in thousands of years (or possibly a couple million years) and gets blown out of the top of a South American volcano? What happens when the South American plate is through with radioactive material and comes up somewhere in the South Pacific? The disposal of nuclear waste in the ocean trenches seems like such an horrid idea. Worst-case scenario: What happens when nuclear waste leaks out of the container? I understand that it will not be simply places into a Rubbermaid container, but my mind keeps going back to worst-case scenario. The radioactive waste that leaks out will prove detrimental to so many marine ecosystems. The end of the article suggested possibly sending it out into deep space. Okay, as it stands now, even after humans are gone, our radio waves and television signals will be radiating out into space for hundreds of years (if not more) even after we're gone. Even after we're gone, nature, on the universal scale, can't get rid of our remains. Outer space is not our dumping ground. Mrs. Bosiak raised a very valid question: 'Who owns space?' Who has the right to dump nuclear waste into outer space? Is there honestly nothing that we as humans see as sacred? Something that we won't put our 'sticky fingers' in. Space should not become our personal dumping grounds. Ashton, being the 'good Republican' that she is, raised a very valid point (says the Democrat): "What about costs?" Where is this money going to come from? Neither solution is going to be 'cheap.' In 1980, the cost for one disposal mission was estimated at $45.7 million. Our National Debt is fast approaching $11 trillion. The National Debt has continued an increase of $3.31 billion daily. We cannot as a country keep spending like we have been in the past. This project would only add to the outstanding debt we have already accrued. Neither solution is a 'good one.' The cost of either one is going to break the bank of our pitiful National Debt. The problem is, the issue of radioactive disposal is an issue of politics as well as technological. Politically, no one wants radioactive waste stored near them (Can you blame them?). Technologically, the disposal of nuclear waste is extremely difficult at best. One report issued by the British Parliament stated, 'In considering arrangements for dealing safely with such wastes [nuclear wastes], man is faced with time scales that transcend his experience.' In other words, we do not have the technology or the know-how to properly store nuclear waste."
Tell me what you think about my stance. I know it might take a while to read, but the article struck a major chord with me.
Justin Ballard