This is a rather unusual ethical dilemma that has emerged in Finland recently for which you will have to read the following article:
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-12/world/finland.nuclear.waste_1_nuclear-waste-disposal-canisters?_s=PM:WORLD
And now I would like to ask you to consider the following: does the documentarian Michael Madsen (not to be confused with the American actor) have a valid point in his documentary? Or do you agree with the scientists who feel that his argument is nothing to worry about? Or are you somewhere in between, since arguments are rarely black and white. As usual, 250 word post up by Thursday night and 100 word response up by Sunday night.
First off, 100,000 years is a pretty long time; meaning that if we do survive the next 100,000 years we will either be A) a lot more technologically developed than we are now, or B) a bunch of post-apocalyptic nomads. I will argue for both of these points.
ReplyDeleteA) IF we do manage to avoid all the pitfalls of having to survive for another 100,000 years (after all we’ve only been around for roughly 250,000 years; 100,000 years is A LONG TIME in the evolutionary time scale of humans), I would hope that the bureaucrats of the future (and of now, but you can’t expect much of them) would implement policies to keep the land at Onkalo off-limits to the common yokel. Furthermore, I would also argue that if in 50 years we have come this far with electronic advancements, 100,000 years would spawn technology able to detect what is beneath Onkalo. I will also take this argument to another level of kookiness: In 100,000, there will be a strong probability of space travel and even the possibility of colonizing exo-planets (In my opinion, I think it’s pretty much guaranteed that we will be colonizing exo-planets in the next 1000 years), thus the need for land on Earth will be minimal, and the actual importance of Earth will be even less.
B) Now, if we don’t manage to make it to 100,000 years from now and we are all killed by the multitudinous factors that could kill us now, then the possible dangers of Onkalo are non-existent.
C) I will go so far as introduce another variable possibility: aliens… Aliens could come at any time and free us from the dangers of Onkalo. “TO THE MOON, ALICE!”
I feel that the main topic of this article is the repercussions of opening Onkalo in the future and what threats it might pose to futuristic societies. I think that Madsen is worrying too much and over-playing his idea that in 100,000 years knowledge will be lost. Where does the idea that all knowledge will be lost from? Granted history is relatively new when the timescale is expanded to one hundred thousand years, and known history is around five thousand years new. History being new though, does not necessarily point to a loss of knowledge in the future. Another point I would like to make is that society has to worry about surviving all of the hazards of such a vast expanse of time. The human race and society has many more problems to deal with in the near future that need to be surpassed before the 100,000 years can be reached. Madsen also puts forth his idea that random people will dig up and meander into Onkalo and let loose a worldwide disaster. As said by Seppala “…in reality a few people would be exposed to radiation; it would not be a global catastrophe." Overall I disagree with Madsen’s reasons to stop the building of the bunker. We don’t know for certain the time span needed for the waste to be safe, but in our time it is one of the safest alternatives for the waste created by the creation of power that we need to survive, if it is not stored in places like Onkalo, where should we store it?
ReplyDeleteMadsen has a valid point because he is trying to look out for the future of humans, but as Carlos said, 100,000 years is a very long time from now. Our technological advancements now will be (if humanity is still in existence) laughed at and mocked 100,000 years from now. I believe by that time, they might even be able to destroy nuclear waste ( I know I might be getting a little too far ahead of myself). But to get back to what the scientists were getting at, I believe that they know what they are talking about considering their country is ahead of the pack on this area of expertise. It even explains that in the article. I do not agree with what Madsen says about people digging into Onkalo and causing disaster because this facility will be dealing with nuclear wastes and I believe that there will be some type of security that will see to this not happening. I also agree with what Eric says when he quoted Seppala "...in reality a few people would be exposed to radiation." This is very true. You cannot assume that since a certain area of Finland is exposed to radiation that the entire world will be exposed and/or affected by this.
ReplyDeleteI honestly think there isn't much to worry about. Let's say that Onkalo is left alone underground and we do live and develop for 100,000 more years. Even today, diggers don't just go "X marks the spot, let's drill!" They do tests on the soil and inspect areas thoroughly before drilling for research, mining, or whatever they may be doing. If these practices aren't lost in time, with the technological advances in this far future, we will definitely be able to pick up what is underneath before drilling and know to stay away. If anything, this area should be made into a strict no-drilling zone for the next... However long it needs to be until new technologies find a way to effectively get rid of or recycle the nuclear waste without "opening up Pandora's box".
ReplyDeleteA lot of things can happen in 100,000 years. The people of Finland could have moved elsewhere in the world. We could have all unified as one country, for all we know. More importantly, however, we may not even be living on the Earth anymore. It may seem too "sci-fi" of a concept at the moment, but 100,000 is a very, very long time. We have been able to reach the moon since 1970 (or so), and if we extrapolate from there, we can definitely assume with some degree of certainty that we will have colonized other planets by the end of the 100,000-year mark. In such time, the Earth may even be completely abandoned and the nuclear waste no longer an issue.
Astrid
The disposal of nuclear waste has been a hot topic ever since the creation of nuclear power plants. A chemical so volatile and dangerous cannot be placed anywhere so it seems that the only place people can think to bury the waste is deep under the ground, which seems to be the best idea to date. I think Finland may have the right idea in just burying the nuclear waste as deep as possible in the most contained place they can build. While it is great that they are thinking so far in advance as 100,000 years I think there is little chance that our society will be around long enough to see the 100,000 year mark. By that time I hope that our society will be developed enough to have some alternative way to dispose of nuclear waste like zapping it into space or finding some acid that dissolves the waste with no harmful effects. Our world will be an entirely different place when that day comes, if our world still exists, and while I thank the Finish for thinking about our future, I do not think nuclear waste disposal will be a major issue. Such things as space travel and conquering new planets will be more of an issue. Nuclear waste will not be a problem in 100,000 years, but in the meantime I am sure a solution will come about.
ReplyDelete@Carlos Fuenmayor: I could not agree more with just about all of your statements. After revising my own post and reading yours I saw that we both said many of the same things. I agree in that 100,000 years is a long time for human society. While many people feel that we will be here forever it is only a slim chance that the human race will make it to 100,000 years. Also, I agree that we are constantly creating new technologies and 100,000 years will hopefully spawn unimaginable technological advances to better dispose of nuclear waste.
ReplyDeleteAs a side note, the title of this article should be changed to "Michael Madsen goes bonkers in Finland".
ReplyDeleteThe long dilemma about nuclear waste and what to do with it seems to have arrived at a solution. The waste container that is predicted to last one hundred thousand years has drawn criticism and I believe that Madsen does make a point. Even though one hundred thousand years is a very long time, no one is sure about how long human civilization will exist. The only thing that can happen is speculation. One can speculate that we wont be around that long and the nuclear waste won’t matter just as Madsen can speculate that there will be consequences after this time period has expired. In the mean time however, this seems to be the best way to dispose of such toxic waste although I cannot confidently say this because I don’t know the other possibilities. Regardless of this fact if this is perhaps the most safe, then the time period is the least of our worries. Instead of criticizing the progress that has been made in terms of waste disposal, one should try and come up with another solution. Of course the best solution would be to forgo nuclear experimentation therefore eliminating nuclear waste but we all know this won’t happen. When it comes down to it though I think Madsen is overreacting in terms of what he says will happen if the waste is disposed of in these underground containers. I think that one should be concerned that there is this expiration date on the containers but no one really knows what the future holds.
ReplyDelete@Julie-Ann: I’m going to have to strongly disagree with you, we should most definitely not forego nuclear experimentation; at least not the kind that the Finish are conducting. The Finish currently have four nuclear reactors online, and another scheduled to go online in 2013; as of now, the four reactors power 23.4% of Finland’s power alone, and they are extremely efficient and safe. In fact, I’d go so far as saying that most nuclear power reactors are virtually harmless if safety/containment protocols are followed down to the periods like in the case of Three Mile Island and not like the case of Chernobyl, and that the U.S. should let go of the stigmas against nuclear power and start using fission as it’s primary source of electrical power. Nuclear power is veritably of the most efficient, environmentally safe, and clean ways of producing electricity; that is if the proper protocols are followed and the power plants well maintained.
ReplyDeleteTime could be a very destructive force and 100,000 years is a very long time. Their plans of defenses to contain the waste might not be as strong as it is now. Nuclear waste is supposed to be dangerous to touch and be around which is why we are working so hard to dispose of it, if the lining of this tunnel system is weak then its purpose is useless. Also the waste could possibly over time break down the lining and break out into an epidemic. Also thinking on how far ahead this is planned to survive it might lose purpose and become obsolete. I feel that these problems are all things that are very important to talk about now but as time passes and 100,000 years pass this conversation if even remembered would be laughed at. Technology is clearly advancing as we can see even with this tunnel system. The possibilities of whats to come is endless and maybe there will be a way to recycle these wastes. One way that I think it would be able to last that long is because that new material is being made and discovered. Material that could be resistant to the waste paired with material that could buffer the geological movements sets it up for optimal use. Hopefully within the next 100,000 years we will find a use for nuclear waste that can benefit us and could allow us to use all this stockpiled waste for the earth. Of course if that is the case then we would have Onkalo becoming the next Stonehenge having no use to the people of the present and its past uses would remain a mystery.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably a shit storm that should never have been brought up and Micheal Madsen is going to be the next Micheal Moore of Europe with one set goal; make money and upset the apple cart. Its true that we can not predict the next 100,000 years but this is probably the best solution that has been placed into action to date. Im sure that Micheal Madsen would have picked a bigger bone if Finland decided to dump it into the Baltic. What he really should have pried at, is to look at the Engineering standpoint that something put into the ground will... and I repeat...will decay. We bury shit all the time, water mains, trans-oceanic data cables for internet, and guess what, we have not forgotten about them. Know why because they rot or break or decay. So this hole in the ground will need either decade maintenance or something that will make sure that we as a race realize that we buried something into the ground. There is nothing that we have built that has stood the test of time. So this maintenance free facility story is starting to look bleak.
ReplyDeleteAnother point, radioactive waste decays, into non-radioactive material, I do realize that it takes thousands of years or in the case of some of the spent nuclear fuel and its waste, a half-life of 1million years. That is 1/10 of what this place is 'designed' to do. So when they do find this sparkling chest of gamma emitting wonderment. It will be spitting them out at a lower rate. There is also cases in which the waste deteriorates to another element and thus becomes useful to humans, and then there is recycling the waste. So to sum it up. Micheal Madsen needs to stop watching Indiana Jones films and realize that if it is forgotten by some nomad or future explorer. He wont be around for long and he too will be as dead as this topic is to me.
Although I do understand Michael Madsen’s point, I think the bigger problem may be closer than that. Although only 40 people are working on the bunker now, I cannot help but wonder if the workers will be exposed to the nuclear waste while filling the bunker. I also have a hard time believing that the titanium pipes and concrete layers will keep seeping radioactive waste contained. That is not that much of a far out idea. If this were reliable and practical, wouldn’t it be used more often to dispose? Madsen’s concern is about civilization losing all technology. This has happened in the past but I feel like this may be a bit of a reach. Will the “nomads” not understand a picture of a dead person, with gases around it? I do not think Madsen’s opinions are all that they are made up to be. He is taking one side of the argument and blowing it up. If history repeats itself, than the human population will not exist to see the day the “expiration date” comes. Is the chance that the population may not understand a picture, and happen to dig in the spot while the radioactive is still hazardous, not worth the risk?
ReplyDeleteOn the other end, is this the most realistic way to consider our future? In a more optimistic view, our technology and society makes step everyday to become more advanced. If this progression continues on the pace we are now, a full proof plan cannot be that far. I see both sides of the argument; I do not completely know enough about the disposal of nuclear waste to say which side I would take.
In today’s society, nuclear waste stirs up great discussion. In Finland just like many other countries have come up with innovative ways to deal with this nuclear matter. There idea is to build a underground waste system that should last a one hundred thousand years. I think this is a great innovative idea because if you think about how long one hundred thousand years is, so many question come to mind. First, the fact that we might not even be here as a civilization in one hundred thousand years is a big one. We never know what natural disasters or apocalypse could happen in that time span. Second is that in one hundred thousand years from now I am sure they will have come up with a great idea of how to store nuclear waste efficiently. If you think about it, we have had nuclear powers around for at most seventy- eighty years and we have come up with some very primitive ideas. With one hundred thousand years to think about what to do with it, it will be very easy I believe for scientist to come up with something. At this point what else can we come up with. There have been many different ideas that have been thought of but what really is best? We need something that is not harmful to use now but something that gives us time to really think about how to get rid of it.
ReplyDeleteIf the bunker is supposed to last 100,000 years... what's supposed to happen after the 100,000 years are up? I mean, if it's not gonna last for ever then the system is definitely susceptible to damage and deterioration. So maybe Onkalo will indeed need surveillance by future generations. The bunker is supposed to be built by 2100, also a long time from now, and the ideas about its layout and whole concept could change with the more modern technology that is yet to come. For now, however, I guess the bunker is the best idea since nothing else has been proposed.
ReplyDeleteI think Madsen kind of does have a valid point in this documentary because, well anything can happen during that time span, and you can never be too sure. But, why would knowledge be lost in the future? If anything it'd be more than what it is now. Madsen is right to worry about the consequences that the bunker could bring in the future, but in order to keep that from happening, we must make sure that it is not forgotten. If we make sure that over time people will continue to know that Onkalo exists, then the right precautions can be taken so it doesn't affect us when those 100,00 thousand years are up and it explodes or something. Maybe in the future it will be made to last even longer. I think it's safe to say that we'll never know.
@ Leidy:
ReplyDeleteOf course the bunker will need surveillance by future generations - you wouldn't just bury tons of nuclear waste underground and not at least watch over it, would you?
You do have a really good point that in the future, in 2100, the design for the bunker could be improved and updated according to our exponentially rising technology. They may even figure out other ways to dispose of the nuclear waste and no longer need thee bunker, and all of this would be unnecessary. I'm sure that at some point of the design process someone has thought of potential implosion or explosion, and this issue will more than likely be dealt with when needed.
Anyone who reads this article cannot help but be skeptical. One hundred thousand years with no surveillance? How can a country make a promise like that? The plan does sound very reasonable, and thought out. Unfortunately no plan is full proof. There are always variables that go unforeseen. Suppose moisture does make it’s way into the bunker? There would be no way for the people of Finland to know that thousands of gallons of nuclear were leaking into their soil, drinking water, farms, and homes. That would be a catastrophe of epic proportions. That ground would most likely be contaminated for thousands of years. Another prospective is, what if there is a radical, unforeseen shift in the earth’s movements that could not have been scientifically predicted. There would be no way for them at that point to safely check the soil. In addition, what happens after thousands and thousands of years that could result in corrosion of those barrels? Is that waste really safe then? Undoubtedly, nuclear power is a modern day marvel. I can only encourage Finland in its conquest to produce clean nuclear energy that would help their economy flourish, and provide jobs to their people. Unfortunately a plan for one hundred thousand years is a little much. No person can possibly predict the future one hundred thousand years from now. Although the plan to produce nuclear energy is solid, and very smart, a timeline that long can really create skeptics.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with a lot of the comments that many of my classmates has said. 100,000 years, is a VERY long time. An extremely long time. Technology in the past 10 years has already tripled in power, efficiency, and is faster than ever before. Computers soon will be smarter than the human brain. It has been predicted, and it isn't far off. I can't even imagine what kind of technology we will be capable of producing/having 100,000 years from now. Who says we will live on Earth during that time either? There are many questions, but no answers. But, who says even humans will live 100,000 years from now in general? There is a giant IF factor there. We don't know what is going to happen. I do agree with Madsen on what he says in the documentary about anything can happen during that time span. Overall, Nuclear power is by far, the way that we should go with energy, until we can figure out how to make Nuclear Fusion sustainable. I don't know though, I just don't think building a bunker to store this nuclear waste is the best idea, nor do I think that it will last 100,000 years. Plus the bunker will be done by 2100? I mean, President Obama's energy plan to make 80% of all power come from Renewable sources by 2035 sounds like a long time. But 2100? I'm very skeptical about this and I think that we shouldn't be thinking about extremely long term projects like this.
ReplyDeleteThe article took me a few times to re-read it in order to understand the issue but now that I’m aware of the dilemma I feel that Madsen does have a valid point. However, it’s not like there are many options at solving a problem that has befuddled us for years so at this point anything is worth a try. We can’t expect those who are here in 100,000 years to not be as curious as we were and not “dig around”. They have the right to know what there up against and they need to know what to do when the tunnels services have become obsolete. Maybe they could leave behind the documentary as a heads up to the aliens of the future. Then again what if they’ve outgrown DVD players and TV’s? Maybe we can make the warnings and the blueprints official documents and tightly seal them in an indestructible case. Even then what papers will withstand 100,000 years? The constitution was written only 223 years ago and the original copy is already falling apart. So scientists now need to create some kind of paper that will survive the time, or carve it in stone. If none of these suggestions sound anywhere close to a solution then I have no idea what the Finnish should do. This is why I am at USF for business and not science. I’ll leave all of these stressful decisions to those who don’t plan on being family-oriented or enjoy sleep deprivation and grey hairs…:)
ReplyDeleteThe first thing I was thinking about when they said 2100, was that is such a long time. Should we be thinking about such a long term project right now? I agree with Madsen because we need to know what has happened in the past.In any situation, it is necessary to leave behind some sort of document for our future because they need to know about the nuclear project. In 100,000 years people have to take care of the bunker, and how are they going to do that if there are no documents? My main concern is that in the future people will not have the document because there will be a different method of writing. Nonetheless we should try and keep a document for the future, so they know what is in the bunker and how to take care of it. Keeping nuclear waste underground so it's safe? Is that a good idea, yet alone is it going to work? Nuclear power is a very good source and we need it for the future. Do we need to keep it underground, and the major concern is will it be safe there? Is that a good idea, yet alone is it going to work? Nuclear power is a very good source and we need it for the future. Do we need to keep it underground, and the major concern is will it be safe there? Having a plan for such a long time is not a good idea, because maybe in the future there will be another energy source. In otherwords, we may not need to have the nuclear power.
ReplyDeleteI believe that in a 100,000 years people will still be educated and that intelligence will not be lost because there is little or no proof that it would be. Technology is always advancing and I believe that it would continue to advance in a 100,000 years so Madsen’s claims seem to be exaggerated in my opinion. I think that people would still be educated enough keep track and record where the nuclear waste is being kept even for 100,000 years. Scientists made claims saying that the nuclear bunker will be safe enough to last for years in the statement, “The waste will be secured through a system of ‘multiple barriers,’ the first being the Finnish bedrock itself, the rest engineered from steel and concrete” according to the article. I also think that the nuclear bunker, that contains a large amount of toxic waste, should just not be “sealed and forgotten” according to the article because it is important to keep tract of something that is harmful and destructive to our environment. Though the article claimed that the nuclear bunker is safe for 100,000 we have to keep records to where it is located to check it by that time. I am pretty sure that we are able to keep tract of the nuclear bunker in a 100,000 years because people would have been able to come up with better ideas to deal with the situation since technology is always advancing.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Michael Madsen has a valid argument because our generation should think of all the possible consequences when doing something that can affect the generations after. When Madsen states that we should try to find a way for the contents of Onkalo to never be forgotten or construct hieroglyphic monoliths to tell our future generations what is inside a lot of controversy rises because one will ask themselves “why would we forget what is inside Onkalo?” but If we look back in history we can see that at some point something happened that our civilization had to start over losing all the knowledge that had been obtained so even if Onkalo was built to last over a million years it does not mean that the contents inside of it will always be remembered. At the point that everyone forgets what is inside Onkalo someone will try to go digging or will try to open it up to see what is inside without knowing that it might kill them. Just because Onkalo is built to last 100,000 years it does not mean that it is permanent because once those 100,000 years are up Onkalo will be no good and the future generations will have to think of other ways to dispose of Our waste and the only way that they would be able to do that would be to go back and open up Onkalo which could release a lot of radiation causing them harm.
ReplyDeleteI strongly believe that the statement that Michael Madsen is trying to make is incorrect and without any proof to be taken seriously. In 100,000 years, humanity will be so advanced that the technology necessary to deal with a “problem” of that magnitude will be already available. It is just a matter of thinking for a minute how much society has advanced since 100,000 years ago. By the time that this bunker becomes a problem, the colonization of the moon will be matter of centuries ago, and some German scientists would have already found a solution to deal with nuclear waste. I cannot agree with Madsen saying that “all we know is gone and forgotten,” because how can knowledge be forgotten? Also, as of today, when nuclear plants are being built everywhere, why would people forget about the potential hazards of it? Is he trying to say that as time passes by current languages will become obsolete and we are going to depend on body gestures and sounds like animals? It contradicts the evolutionary theory. I think he has been watching the History Channel for too many hours, and that he should think about the repercussions that releasing such documentary could have with the Finnish people. Also, I understand that when people talk about such sensitive subjects such as nuclear power and radiation, we tend overreact and exaggerate a little. I mean it has only been 24 years after the Chernobyl disaster and we all know the catastrophic effects that it had over the region. But saying that in 100,000 years humanity will not be capable of dealing with nuclear waste is nonsense. New sources of energy will be found by that time, and nuclear plants will be a thing of past generations.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Michael Madsen could possibly be making a valid point. However, we are just humans; we normally do not think of the possible results of our actions, possible consequences that could affect this generation and many other generations to come. But, if we go along and improve the system that has already been created to manage nuclear waste, and for it to be decommissioned in the 2100s, do they put in the consideration that, that is a very long time from now? In a hundred years would the management of nuclear waste still be the priority of our society and the economy? (Considering that this waste repository is costing four billion dollars) By that time, is it not possible to develop a quicker, cheaper, and a more effective way to manage our nuclear waste? Moreover, Onkalo can be very harmful to the environment and some are worried that it will be forgotten after many years of being buried underground. If we all think about it, we would argue that, that could never happen. That it is impossible for us to forget about something as important as Onkalo. But haven’t we proven through the years that the best thing humanity does is to forget things? We tend to not value our history because we have a tendency to think that it is not as important because it is not currently affecting us. There are many things that need to be put on consideration before making a major decision such as the management of our nuclear waste. I think that more study needs to be done and if the Finns become nearly a hundred percent positive that this is the best way to manage the nuclear waste, then so be it.
ReplyDelete@Carlos
ReplyDeleteI cannot help but agree that there are many factors concerning the future of the human race 10000 years from now. In addition to many possible twist and turns that might take place among the humans, what about the factors of overcrowding? What if 50,000 years from now so many people exist on this planet that the land at Onkolo needs to be developed but the government cannot recall what happened there since it is unguarded? What happens when the people living above it start developing signs of radiation sickness and slowly die? At that point do we just decree it necessary to decrease the surplus population?
@Eric
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I mean 100,00 years is a very long time from. Who knows how the world is going to be. I don't even think that we are not going to even know the purpose of the waste bunker in 100,00 years. But, like you said technology has changed and we do have the resources to keep track of our history and it is going farther back. There is a lot of things going on in the world today, I do think this waste bunker should be the last thing on our mind. I don't think we need to worry about it now. Good question to ponder though if we didn't have the waste bunker where would put it?
@Astrid I agree with what your getting at. Even if this place is forgotten we won't just dig in that area by accident. I like your comparison of Onkalo being like Pandoras box that it should remain closed until we are able to take care of what is inside. 100,000 years is a long time and we can easily develop some kind of disposal or recyclable system to deal with the nuclear waste. I like the potential situations that you present that could happen in the next 100,000 years like if we all united into one country or if we were able to colonize on the moon or other planets.
ReplyDelete@Dustin: Well, global population trends seem to suggest that our population growth is starting to slow down and level out. Current population surveys estimate that there are about 6.8 billion people on the planet, and we're over crowded NOW. Yes, there could be problems of overcrowding in the future, but according to scientists, at our current rate of consumption, the planets feasible population limit is around 12 billion, which we'll hopefully not exceed. If we do, we'll have more pressing matter than what's beneath Onkalo. That's just my opinion, of course!
ReplyDelete@ Jackelyn. I completely understand your point. I agree with everything you say especially the bit where you talk about if we will even need to control nuclear wastes a hundred years from now, or better yet, if that will even be our priority. Technology is advancing so quickly that in 50 years, I believe that we would have found some type of dispose of the nuclear wastes properly without having to store them. Going off of the argument we had in class about that ancient event that i did not even know what we were talking about, I believe that Onkalo will do the same exact thing. I believe that since our technology advances so quickly that Onkalo will not be necessary in the near future. At least 50 years from now. And I absolutely agree with what you had to say about how humans do not remember or even acknowledge history as we should. We believe that history should not be taught or even examined in school, but if you think about it, history is what shapes the future. We get ideas from people in history to help us with problems we have now or problems we might face in the future. But going back to the topic of Onkalo, I honestly do not believe that this site will be of any concern in the future because we will have some way of disposing of nuclear waste more properly.
ReplyDelete@glanderos
ReplyDeleteI believe that there would be ideas in the future that would be able to deal with this problem about Onkalo, but it is true that no one knows what the future would be like. Since I do not know what might happen in the future, I would also like to think about this situation in a different perspective like glanderos’s point of view. What if Onkalo is forgotten? What would happen if someone does open the nuclear bunker? And I agree that it is important and necessary to find out ways of dealing with this problem because our future is as stake.
@paula: You brought up a good point that I wasn’t thinking off. This waste disposal method would probably be monitored. If we are educated enough to make one we’re educated enough to keep tract of the waste. It will most likely be a topic of constant conversation on how to better dispose of nuclear waste so there may be better methods in the future considering the fact that technology is always advancing. Also the fact that some people think it will be sealed and forgotten is an exaggeration because as you said regardless of how secure a disposal mechanism may be, if the waste inside is very dangerous then it will be supervised.
ReplyDelete@danied22
ReplyDeleteI agree with your position of the problem at hand. He is dealing with the far reaches of possible reality. There are so many problems that we as humans need to be dealt with such as the health concerns of the workers at the site. I do however want to bring up one point that a lot of people misconstrue which is nuclear waste is slopped into 55 gallon drums and leak out after a while. The reality is the security in place tries to minimize the exposure to gamma radiation, which can penetrate more than 2 1/2" of concrete. I also agree with the stretch that is being made by the director with the whole lost information by society. It is more plausible in the past but when there is so many people in the world, one would need a catastrophe so enormous that everything is lost to the new inhabitance of the earth. And they would probably care a shit less about nuclear waste when they are at the bottom of a new food chain.
@Jackielyn
ReplyDeleteYou said something in the beginning of your post that really stood out to me. When you said,we are just humans; we normally do not think of the possible results of our actions, possible consequences that could affect this generation and many other generations to come. This is what the problem is with our society today. We do not deal with the issues that are at hand now. We put them off and deal with them in the future and hope we get through it. Instead we should just deal with it now. Figure out the best ways to find an answer and do it. Just pushing things off is never the answer. I do contradict this theory when it comes to this argument because 100,000 years is long enough that we not might even be here as a civilization to view this expiration date.
@jesusafv: I agree with you about future generations and their technology. My main concern with the nuclear waste, was the fact that in the future, we would not use the technology used now, but a new alternative. I agree with him because when the world is progressing, it does not mean that we can stop using new sources and making things better. Just in general everything he said makes sense, because it is necessary to keep the nuclear waste safe and there are a few ways we can do that. Going into the future, there are more likely going to be more ways to preserve the waste for future generations.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Paula. I agree with you in the fact that knowledge about this bunker will not be forgotten in 100,000 years. Scientists are not just going to forget about the bunker. The possibility of that happening is null because of the danger that nuclear waste means to our planet’s environment. I think that he just wants to create panic so that people protests the development of nuclear plants throughout the world. But, he is doing it the wrong way by exaggerating facts. I’m pretty sure that those scientists know more about the threat of nuclear waste to humanity than Michael Madsen, so I prefer to believe them.
ReplyDelete@ dustin
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100%. Finland says that the bunker can last for at least 100,000 years with no surveillance but like you said “there are always variables that go unforeseen” like a huge earthquake or anything else that could destroy some part of the bunker and since there is no surveillance how are they to know that it is broken. Even a small crack in this bunker could have major consequences if the waste were to get into their water supply or soil it would affect their food supply which if eaten could cause sickness.
@astx7
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point where people will not just pop out of nowhere and decide to dig at the site of Onkalo. Also like you said, once you lock it up, you can’t just leave it there and not think of more ways to get rid of it. As soon as we lock it up we should go and keep thinking about more ways to clean it up better than letting the waste sit underground. But to refer back to the first thing you said, we don’t have to worry about it, to me I think that since it won’t be done till 2100 we probably will find different way to store it before the project is even completed. So pretty much yea I don’t think we need to worry about it.
@Carlos
ReplyDeleteI agree with your argument completely. The fact of the matter is, there are too many variables to take into account for this to be either black or white, but the evidence you show, puts a lot of things into perspective. Madsen is taking it out of proportion and 100,000 years is a long time to be worrying. I also would like to say that I enjoy your satire in the last part of the argument. I feel that statement about aliens is so outlandish, that it aims to make Madsen's claim seen outlandish as well which works well for your argument.
@ Cliz
ReplyDeleteThanks, I truly do believe that in the near future it might be not as significant as it seems to be now, to manage nuclear waste. We would care, yes, however there’s a great possibility that Onkalo’s legend, if completely put into action, will be forgotten. I also agree with Julie Ann that I do believe that we become smarter every generation, so that is a great chance that in the future, we will come up with more quicker and efficient ways to manage our nuclear waste. I think more thoughts and consideration needs to be put in the project because it can impact our environment more than we might consider.
@Astx7
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with most of the post. 100,000 years is a very long
time, everything will change within the next thousand years. I think
astx7 was correct in saying the comparison of “opening Pandora’s box’
is a bit drastic. I also agree with the point that it is not likely
that in exactly 100,000 years, people will drill Finland in the exact
location of Onkalo. With a setting a no drilling policy in that area
until the nuclear waste is less toxic seems like a relatively smart
solution. We are assuming that inhabitants of Finland will go against
the warnings and drill in the location.
Mr. Breckenridge,
I sent this to you in an email on time. I am just reposting it here.
Thank you,
Danie