using the sun as a landfill.

makes me uncomfy if for no other reason than not knowing what we dont know

bob haller wrote:

makes me uncomfy if for no other reason than not knowing what we dont know


We couldn't possibly throw enough trash to matter, Bob. The Sun is
big. Really, really big.

However, it's just way to expensive to do that. It makes more sense
to put it on ships and dump it out in an ocean subduction zone.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

On 12/17/2016 2:11 PM, bob haller wrote:

makes me uncomfy if for no other reason than not knowing what we dont know




I drive past a high tech incinerator every day that burns
trash to produce enough electricity for almost 20,000 homes.
The only drawback is the 'big hill' of ash it creates'
which can be seen in the link below.

Hence it's name g

Monarch Hill Renewable Energy Park
http://monarchhill.wm.com/index.jsp

But Florida has a distinct lack of
hills, so what's one or two?


s

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:

makes me uncomfy if for no other reason than not knowing what we dont know


We couldn't possibly throw enough trash to matter, Bob. The Sun is
big. Really, really big.

However, it's just way to expensive to do that. It makes more sense
to put it on ships and dump it out in an ocean subduction zone.

Yea, no thanks. Besides being banned by international treaty since 1993
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_...oactive_waste),
there are significant potential issues with this idea.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HT...stion/1000181/

http://geology.about.com/od/platetec...eadisposal.htm

The speed at which an ocean subduction zone moves dictates that you need
to put the waste in something solid that can withstand thousands of
years of being in the ocean. If you're going to do that, there's not
much point to putting it there versus a geologically stable area. Since
that's the case, putting it in a geologically stable area is less risky.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

On Sunday, December 18, 2016 at 9:23:03 AM UTC+13, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

makes me uncomfy if for no other reason than not knowing what we dont know


We couldn't possibly throw enough trash to matter, Bob. The Sun is
big. Really, really big.

However, it's just way to expensive to do that. It makes more sense
to put it on ships and dump it out in an ocean subduction zone.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

That assumes what we think we know about subduction is true. It may not be.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HDb9Ijynfo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePyU7cyMT_k

As a resident who sits atop a presumed subduction zone, (New Zealand) I would not welcome the importation of all the world's waste here. Particularly since the Southern hemisphere is relatively isolated from nuclear concerns at the moment.