Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Technology => Topic started by: Jolly- Joliver on 24/03/2011 23:37:00
-
It appears that as some members were drifting from the main topic So Geeiser has locked the other thread.
I ask that people actually consider the question at hand and how serious it is, and stay on that subject.....
Some are talking about burying the plant under concrete, my issue with that, is that first it never worked in Chernobyl, second there are many reactors here and they would letting them all melt down under the concrete, which would then heavily pollute the earth below all the waste rods and the current active rods would melt. Third or fourth that Japan is a tiny island and shouldn't have any amount of it's land lost.
So my question is what do you all think the best answer is here?
To clarify the question.
Is there a better answer to Fukushima than simply burying it? Rather than talking about there not being that much of a problem, or squabbling about data, what other options are there?
-
Please rephrase the topic in the form of a question, in line with the forum policy.
BTW, if this turns into another rant, it too will be locked.
Meanwile, I suggest you take a good look at the AUP. You'll find it here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
-
Please rephrase the topic in the form of a question, in line with the forum policy.
BTW, if this turns into another rant, it too will be locked.
Meanwile, I suggest you take a good look at the AUP. You'll find it here
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=8535.0
Thankyou for the link, noted.