Living with nuclear waste means remembering on a different scale

Re:Living with nuclear waste means remembering on a differen... by CamperBob2 on Sunday June 11, 2017 @02:56PM (#14533199)

Put it in Antarctica. Problem solved.

Or we can keep digging up fossil fuels and burning them, in which case there won't be an Antarctica at some point.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Living with nuclear waste means remembering on a differen... by johncolanduoni on Sunday June 11, 2017 @04:24PM (#14533591)

What are fossil fuels going to do to the land mass? It has the highest elevation on earth.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Living with nuclear waste means remembering on a differen... by CamperBob2 on Sunday June 11, 2017 @05:21PM (#14533848)

That might be true in a technical sense, I suppose, although I thought Everest was the highest point on Earth. I can't find any references regarding Antarctica having the highest land elevation; any pointers?

And I'm sure it won't all melt.

But if we want to preserve the continent's desirable property of complete inaccessibility to non-technologically literate humans for the next 10,000 or more years, it would be worth considering the effects of ACC. Right now it's a good place to store nuke waste for that very reason.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Living with nuclear waste means remembering on a differen... by undersuit on Monday June 12, 2017 @11:15AM (#14537943)

>I can't find any references regarding Antarctica having the highest land elevation; any pointers?

Wikipedia says Antarctica "has the highest average elevation of all the continents", but right now a lot of it is ice. East Antarctica is supposed to be covered with so much ice that a large majority of the land has been compressed below sea level(CTRL+F the wikipedia article for 'isostatic rebound' and view the pictures).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica

[ Parent | on HN ]