Using Sub-Saharan Africa as a dumping ground

Kylon · Expert Joined: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 802

Many people say one of the most pressing issues with Nuclear waste is the radioactive waste disposal, and how nobody wants it in their back yard and what not.

So I was thinking, what if we paid all the people who would be effected(which wouldn't be many) in a region of Sub-Saharan Africa, to let us dump our radioactive/toxic waste there.

The soil of sub-saharan Africa to my knowledge is very permeable, and is pretty much empty. The radioactive waste would soak right in. And although I know many of you are appalled at the idea of dumping radioactive waste in sub-saharan Africa, consider this-

1. People will not accept a power down, they will choose any solution rather than mass dieoff, regardless of how environmentally unfriendly it is. If they don't use nuclear, they will use coal(which is potentially far worse), and they will destroy the forest as a fuel supply.

2. Sub-Saharan Africa has very, very little life in it, and is the life is decreasing more so as global warming increases. There are so few people living in Sub-Saharan Africa, that we could easily afford to make them all millionaires(and transport them somewhere better), in exchange for the amount of money we'de make and save, due to the dumping of nuclear waste on their useless land.

3. The land is very pourous(to my knowledge), meaning the nuclear waste would soak right into the soil. Although this may be a bad thing in places where you don't want the nuclear waste, when disposed of, it would be very difficult to get large amounts of material for a dirty bomb by a terrorist, especially if we dumped at many different sites all over the desert.

4. Very little water goes through sub-saharan Africa, meaning that the toxic waste will be more likely to stay in one place, rather than spreading around, polluting other pieces of valuable land or eco-systems.

Although this is horrible, think of the alternative, mass dieoff, complete destruction of the environment, and the use of coal to pump toxins into the environment.

Jack · Dark Lord Joined: Aug 11, 2004 Posts: 5085

Or, just pay the rulers of the local government for dumping privileges.

I think it's a good idea. Why not? Everyone wins. The local residents will never have to worry about night lights. Cool

_________________
Dieoff. Fun to watch. Better with hot buttered popcorn! new_popcornsmiley

SoothSayer

Or, just pay the rulers of the local government for dumping privileges.

Already happens. Western world toxic waste ships already dump their loads on African coasts.

See here.
_________________
Technology will save us!

Laughs_Last · Intermediate Crude Joined: Jul 26, 2005 Posts: 850

[deleted by author]

NEOPO

Anywhere on this globe is your backyard!!!

Powerdown is an option.
Powerdown does not have to = mass die off.....it just really seems like all of this energy folly will lead to many dead fools and maybe so yet I do not feel that it is the only path.

Heck blast the waste off into deep space maybe?

Build containers that actually hold the stuff maybe?

Poordogabone · Tar Sands Joined: May 13, 2005 Posts: 44

Just google 'sirocco wind', we appreciate your effort trying to solve PO but in the future we prefer that any ideas that involves irridiating people
of a third world that don't even participate in the energy orgy be kept to yourself.

EnergyUnlimited · Fusion Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3122

Breeder technology with spent fuel reprocessing would produce about 50 times more energy than current process does per weight of uranium and much smaller amounts of waste in form of short living isotopes mainly.

There are also proposals to dispose current waste on ocean floor, on Antarctic, fire it into deep space (hopefully something more realiable than Challenger would be used to this end) etc.
Why on Sahara?
If you want to go this way, it is better to wait until Iranian oil is over and than dispose all nuclear waste there.
One stone and two chickens killed.

Kylon · Expert Joined: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 802

Sounds good, but unfortunately the Iranians would use the spent radioactive waste to create dirty bombs.

The only way to really do that effectively, would be to shoot nuclear waste rockets, or use airplanes, and disperse the nuclear waste throughout the atomsphere over Iran.

Then they get a nice glow, but the waste is so spread out, that they can't make a dirty bomb of their own.

The reason I picked sub-saharan Africa, is it's the worst place on Earth, as far as liveability, and almost nothing grows there.

Ontop of that, it has(to my knowledge) pourous soil, which makes it ideal for dumping liquidified nuclear waste. It would sink into the little pours and holes in the ground, and so digging it up for a dirty bomb would be impractical, it would be cheaper to dig up Uranium some where, and refine it that way.

Also, dumping it in Iran, and letting it sink into the Iranian soil would be bad. There are underwater streams that might pick up the nuclear waste, dispersing it throughout the globe. It then would become a global problem.

I don't want glowing fish.

Although we could still use dirty bombs on the Iranians. Dirty bombs in my opinion would cause way more terror than actual damage.

The downside of that is that because we are so "humane" and because are survival is so interlinked with global opinion, it would cause us more harm than good.

Zardoz

Our attitude towards all things African is really something, isn't it?

By the way, Kylon, you mindless, uneducated, brain-dead twit, this is the area of the world that you are so idiotically referring to:

Everything except North Africa, you moron...

gg3

Obviously this proposal is a troll by someone who thinks we've never heard of breeder reactors or reprocessing. Sigh...

Kylon · Expert Joined: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 802

No, I'm not a troll.

My opinion is just that the Sahara is already a nearly lifeless wasteland, and we wouldn't be hurting it any by dumping our waste there.

The amount of money we'de save would be great enough that all the people living there could live in luxury, and be relocated to a tropical paradise.

It helps the people who live there, and saves us money, and doesn't hurt the environment.

Doly · Expert Joined: Dec 03, 2004 Posts: 4034

mekrob · Expert Joined: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 2663

kam30en · Heavy Crude Joined: Dec 17, 2005 Posts: 274

Uhh...sub-saharan africa is not a wasteland. It may be a violent place, but it is quite fertile. Look on Google-Earth. Sub-saharan africa is the bottom half of africa. Most of it is heavily populated. Your much better off dumping toxic waste in the SAHARA desert. Most of it is totally uninhabited.

Kylon · Expert Joined: Aug 12, 2005 Posts: 802

I guess I got the two mixed up! Razz

But still, it would make a good dumping ground(The Sahara)!

It would be nice if we didn't need a dumping ground, but we do, and I don't think that the population is going to give up their McMansions, without burning everything in sight to maintain their way of life, which would be a much, much, worse potential solution than dumping radioactive waste(in my opinion). You may feel otherwise, but I like my trees.

If we don't go nuclear, or find a good economical alternative, major resource wars may have to occur, wars that could potentially be alot more deadly for the inhabitants of Africa, and the rest of the world in general. If we don't use nuclear, or find a good alternative, then the U.S government(along with it's people) may demand a more, and more fascist alternative, in order to try and conserve(and control) resources, while maintaining a high quality of life for the politically powerful. Obviously

You may think I'm racist, but the fact of the matter is, we need an alternative, and we need a dumping ground. I'm not racist, I just don't mind dumping radioactive waste in places where I don't live. If it were other white people, I still wouldn't care.

The inner parts of Austrailia would also do fine, if the Austrailian government would accept radioactive waste. However, I don't think that will happen(except for their own radioactive waste). Also, parts of Arizona would make a good place to dump radioactive waste, and so would any desert. The less life there, and the less populated, the better.

I just named off the Sahara, because it's cheap real estate, and it's very inhospitable to life. To relocate all the people who live there would be much cheaper than finding another dumping ground, and furthermore, the people we relocated, we could give huge, huge sums of money, and resources, so they could live in a much more hospitable part of the world, live in big houses, never have to work again, and not have to worry about being raped by the local warlord.

They may still feel "heritage", but I can gurantee you, if you take some peasant from the third world, offer them 2.5 million dollars, a big house, and a nice piece of land, and security, most of the peasants will say yes. Those peasants who say "no, we would rather live in our homeland, our barren desert means so much to us", we can simply dump radioactive waste on the parts of the land that they don't occupy, and that we've bought from other peasants.

And again, although this solution may be evil, what's worse, massive ecological destruction, increased global warming, constant resource wars, a fascist government coming into power in the current democracies, OR relocating(and providing massive sums of money to) a small group of people, giving them a much better life with medical care, education, protection by the state, providing for all their food needs, along with all the cash they get, and then dumping massive quantities of radioactive waste into the soil, where it will remain.

If y'all have a better solution to the whole apocalypse scenario, I'd like to hear it. I'm not really in favor of destroying other people's useless, inhospitable wastelands, while paying them huge sums of money, and would much rather have a solution where we wouldn't do that.

The masses however, will not give up the McMansions, regardless of race.