Thanks for proving my point. Undersea life (and also divers and any other life / activity that depend upon not being contaminated by a barrel of radioactive waste) doesn't matter to you.
- Showing that there was
no harm to undersea life would have negated the point I was making. Of course, you can't. Bringing up something completely irrelevant (slaughterhouses) doesn't do it.
- Showing that we must choose between doing good in slaughterhouses or not dumping radioactive waste into the ocean, and that we can't do both, would also have negated the point. Your analogy (whatever it was supposed to be) fails terribly, just as if somebody said "hey, the holocaust was really bad, let's all be thankful we aren't dealing with that" if somebody mentions (insert horrible abuse of human rights here, just so long as "it isn't as bad as the holocaust").
You
know both of these are ridiculous arguments and you were silly to even try to divert the issue, which is why you didn't follow it up. My bringing up the many things that use the sea and shouldn't be recklessly subjected to possible contamination isn't irrelevant.
About the "security benefit" (which I figured out on my own, but, in your words, "who gives a fuck") you'd have done better to highlight
that before making ill-advised tirades. It's only beneficial if you assume that suddenly we can save tons of money on nuclear security, which in most cases will not materialize because reactors and spent fuel still must be guarded. On top of that, the possibility for people to be sloppy in anything critical mustn't be underestimated. We don't know precisely how underseas currents work, and even if you went along much of an ocean or a sea dispersing it as you went along, there's no guarantee that the cyclical currents won't keep it fairly well saturated. Bringing up post-Chernobyl, post-USSR bombing the hell out of Eastern Europe EU drinking water standards doesn't mask that this is still a harm, even if it is "acceptable" it is not the sort of thing that should be lightly done.
What's more ridiculous is that there's no positive to even perfectly dispersing it in the oceans instead of placing it in a mine where it can be checked and controlled, and even subject to possible future
uses, beyond maybe placating local know-nothings who will fight any nuclear waste disposal. However dumping it in the sea, especially undiluted like this, is reckless as hell.
Get that Maddox-wannabe shit outta here. You
lose! Good day, sir.
TransatlanticFoe wrote:We don't need a thread of environmentalist guff crying about nuclear waste that's not a threat.
wat
