This is a rather unusual ethical dilemma that has emerged in Finland recently for which you will have to read the following article:
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.
I believe that both Madsen and the scientists have a somewhat valid point. Nuclear energy is a double-sided sword, a high risk high reward situation, the energy provided is significant far more than any fossil fuel, which is inefficient at best, yet to manage such a plant is a highly dangerous situation. Once a plant can be managed effectively another problem presents itself: the waste. Nuclear waste cannot be simple disposed of; it’s dangerous. Instead it needs to be stored away from the public and away from any natural location which it might “infect”. The scientists working on project Onkalo, along with Finland’s government, realize this problem and have taken steps to safely handle the inevitable fallout that nuclear energy creates – this is far more advanced than say the United States with its Yucca Mountain incident. So project Onkalo is clearly a working remedy towards this global problem but Madsen raises a serious problem – what happens after it’s stored? Now nuclear waste needs to be stored because it “decays”, it doesn’t just go away, and it “decays” over an extremely long amount of time. Onkalo can store it for 100,000 years; Madsen mentions that it needs to be stored for “a million years”. Either way it’s so far in the future that no one can be certain of what will happen – the only certainty is that the nuclear waste will not just go away and regardless of what happens on the surface the waste will remain. Now Madsen takes what seems to be an extreme point of view, mentioning the end of all known knowledge and the need for hieroglyphic monoliths to warn the future civilization should the need arise. The scientists do not need to agree with Madsen, since it is a tad extreme, but they also should not ignore his point. Madsen should also take into account civilizations foresight should they realize something is going to happen that might endanger the sanctity of this facility. No one can be certain of what will happen that far into the future though and precautions should be taken.
ReplyDeleteMr. Michael brings up some good points about Finland’s new innovative idea. Without question this is a brilliant idea. So many technological doors are closed simply due to the fact of nuclear waste being virtually impossible to dispose of. This, “into eternity piece of art” is a giant step towards the world’s reliance on nuclear energy instead of depleting nonrenewable resources such as coal and forest. But Michael does what every other overqualified opinionist does to a brilliant Idea, and that is question it and doubt it. Besides the obvious of this nuclear waste storage being dangerous and somewhat prone to terrorist threats or sabotage, the pros easily outweigh the cons. This invention has potential far greater than what people realize. The most significant issue Michael talks of, which seems like the only valid issue to debate about with this invention, is the fact of time. Since the original creators and developers probably won’t be alive to see the end of construction or be help with its upkeep, the original positive focus of this project rest in the story telling abilities of the scientist who put it all together. Since the time scale of this project was declared as being able to last over 100,000, the story telling quality has to be up to par. If you take a look back in time, the only major nuclear incidents were all from human error. Since this project has such a long life span away from its original developers, the “telephone game” effect can come in to play over the years and the original purpose can be slowly altered for the worse. But to end on a positive note, I'm sure training and restrictions will enforce this “into eternity” to an absolutely error free project since the Finland government is willing to blow over 4 billion dollars on it!
ReplyDeleteI think the best point made here is by the scientists: Who cares? If the bunker lasts anywhere near as long as they say, who’s going to be there to dig it up? It probably won’t be humans, more likely an evolved species of super groundhogs. If burying the nuclear waste is the cheapest way to dispose of it, I don’t see any reason why the Fins won’t. Except I do have doubts that they actually ever will get the bunker built.
ReplyDeleteThere were a lot of questions that popped into my mind while reading this article and many of them are still unanswered. This "Into Eternity" idea is interesting and seems to me like an excellent way to dispose of nuclear waste. But it doesn’t completely come together for me. The program will take 100 years to complete and you know you can add at least another 20 years onto that. I don’t know what infrastructure is like in Finland, but here it takes two years just to finish adding a lane to an interstate. Also of note, Europeans have a pretty short attention span (ex. Panama Canal, Manginot Line). Even if they do build it I don’t how well you can believe any estimate of 100,000 years. To me it sounds like a nice even number that someone just pulled out of hat. 100 years is a long time but 100,000 years is longer than humans have even existed. When dealing with estimates of this length, there are too many unaccounted variables to rely on even the best experts. And also, where are they storing their waste for the next 120 years? Lastly, what happens if someone comes up with a cheaper and safer way to dispose of the waste in that time?
Hey Navarre, excellent points! I definitely think Madsen is overthinking this one. I don’t think the question to ask is if 100,000 years is a long enough. That amount of time is closer to eternity than anything else. But I also think you bring up a good point when you say that the site could attract potential terrorist threats or an attack. Still I think this is a long term solution to a pretty big question countries around the world are dealing with. If Finland pulls the project off, I think they may have found a good enough answer.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting article. I would have easily agreed with Michael Madsen's argument because the fact that he is thinking about the well being of earth's inhabitants 100,000 years from now just a lot about his character. Just because we cannot understand such a time frame, and wont even live through it no matter how lucky we get, it does not mean that we should just ignore the problem. Mankind cannot just solve their current problems by harming future generations, NO MATTER HOW FAR AWAY THOSE GENERATIONS ARE FROM EXISTING. Thats the hard thing to grasp. Time does not matter. It is irrelevant. However, like one scientist pointed out, this specific project is not a pandora's box that when opened will cause global catastrophe. Only the people dumb enough to go deep underground to see whats there will be harmed by radiation ( i hope its not my reincarnation that is one of those "dumb" people). And once that happens, im sure nobody else will dare go down there. So, the project wont be much of a problem 100,000 years from now, therefore i do not agree with madsen's
ReplyDeleteconcerns. I am all for the project. I actually think that coutries worldwide should follow Finland's idea so that their bunkers can be finished by 2100 also. The sooner we find a safe place to place all of our nuclear waste, the better.
I think both arguments by Madsen and the scientists are very convincing. If I would of just read about scientists point of view I would have agreed 100%. I’m the type of person to think about the future generations and how they would possibly be effected by the Nuclear bunkers. So Madsen stands out more to me because he matches my personalty. A lot of questions come to mind as I read about the scientists ideas about there project. How do we know it will last 100,000 years? What happens if during the 100 years of this bunker being made something goes wrong and they can only look at what the first group of workers left them on documents. So the ideas will constantly be changing and that will eventually add on time to the 100 years... due to confusion. “The bunker is based around a spiraling track that will eventually be three miles long, and reach a depth of 500 meters.”!!! Who knows what will be there in 100s of years from now but I’m sure it wouldn’t be good if someone ends up digging it up not knowing what the bunker is when it’s highly toxic. I know that we need to come up with ideas on what to do with nuclear waste and scientists believe that it will be safe and useful but I’m like Madsen and doubt most ideas. Without people like Madsen questioning the idea, scientists would have no feedback on how to prove people wrong and make there project convincing to everyone.
ReplyDelete@Sebastian
ReplyDeleteI agree with you with being geared towards Madsen’s argument. His character is what made me really listen to his concerns for the future generations just like I would do in a situation.I really don’t think the scientists are really worried about “harming future generations” but they are thinking more about what the can do with the waste and what plans the can think of now. As I read on to your response it’s funny how now my mind has changed... You’re right, that would be dumb to just keep digging and find something that could harm you. I don’t even know anymore who’s side I would choose and what would be right.
“Finland’s nuclear waste bunker built to last 100,000 years,” brings up a series issue that could affect the surrounding countries of Finland. This nuclear waste has to be deposited somewhere away from humanity, so I feel that this project is a great idea. It is understandable that Michael Madsen is questioning the idea, but this nuclear water bunker “Onkalo” seems like a stable bunker if scientists who have been doing research say that it will last around 100,000 years. What other choice is there than to put this waste deep underground away from cities. The main concern though is that future generations will have to deal with this bunker and make sure there aren’t any leaks in the tunnels, but these corrosion-resistant copper canisters add reinforcement in the bunker; so there shouldn’t be as much worry. With major global issues such as nuclear water, there is bound to be someone who needs to stick their nose in and question what is happening, but he has a right. Another point raised in this article is that Seppala mentions that Finland is the first country to be testing this, so this giant maze of underground tunnels is the guinea pig about to find out if this idea works. Again, if something goes wrong in the future, these scientists won’t be the ones dealing with it. I would have to side with the scientists on this issue because I have no reason not to trust them.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with nuclear waste I believe there is always something to worry about. I do not completely disagree with the scientist, but Madsen has a point of asking questions that I believe even the scientist have trouble answering because no one can predict the future. I can see the scientist side of finding a way to hold nuclear waste for such a long period of time and the benefits of not having to worry about it. The only problem is what if it gets forgotten about and the land is used to build on and then the nuclear waste is exposed to everyone in the area. When you want something to last for 100,000 years there better be very good documentation when it is something of such high importance. This is a project that has been going on since 1970 and is not going to be finished for a long time coming. Because it is such a long project there is a chance of it never being completed. It is expensive project that takes a lot of money, resources, and personal time of everyone on board. The fact that people who are working on the project will be dead before it is completed is slightly scary. Lots can go wrong during that time. Now for the scientist to come up with such a creative way of storing nuclear waste for such a long time is amazing. I hope it does work out so that there is potential of not having to worry about nuclear waste in the future. Something has to be done with nuclear waste and for now this seems to be the best option. We must hope that there has been lots of test done to make sure this project will really work and that everyone working on the project is safe.
ReplyDeleteI think that this could be a great idea, but also something that is a waste of money. If you think about it, who will be alive when this thing is supposed to come to its end of life? Nearly 100,000 years from now, none of us will be around. In fact, I believe that this Nuclear Waste tunnel, will have been forgotten about over the next decade. Although it says this will require no surveillance or management by those of future generations, then why does it have a "life span" on it? That just does not make sense to me. This seems like it is a huge waste of money, because it can not fit all of the nuclear waste in this world today. So what do they expect to build a new one of these every 100,000 years? Costing the United States approximately 4.1 billion dollars every time? That is just ridiculous. I think it could be great or our society, because we truly do not need all of this nuclear waste in the world, but you never know if something will go wrong. Or who knows, the wrong person could "accidentally" dig it up not realizing what is in the bunker. Personally, a little more thought needs to go in this project before they come clear across and just send it out to Helsinki. Also in the beginning of the article it states that "Finland thinks" they have found the world's first permanent nuclear waste bunker. It would have caught my eye differently if they said they have found the world's first nuclear waste bunker.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting concept to acknowledge. The scientists are definitely on the right track, mainly because it's essentially one of the only proposals towards nuclear waste disposal that mankind has come up with worth considering. A spiraling tunnel a quarter mile deep could definitely hold a massive amount of nuclear waste, certainly not all of it but it's a start no doubt. As for the issue of cost the next best plan is to launch all of the waste into space and as we all know, this option would be the most expensive of any alternative. To me this looks like the start of many possible projects of a similar nature. Finland's scientists just so happened to be the first to start on something like this, and if there's good results there's no reason that other countries (the six world powers in particular) will surely follow suit. Something else to think about is the vastness of 100,000 years. That's 100 centuries, and by the end of this time period mankind will have DEFINITELY found alternate power sources; if we're even still around for that matter. I mean seriously, we went from a basic combustion engine to manned space flight in less than 1 century, which is only 1 percent of the time that's being considered here. Honestly, I'm rather sure that we'll have wiped ourselves out long before the end of this project anyway. By the time that all of the radioactive matter has decayed, deep underground structures such as these may be the only evidence of our existence in the first place.
ReplyDeleteI found the article to be very interesting. It seems like a brilliant idea that Finland has to create a bunker to store the nuclear waste in, and it sounds as though they have everything planned out fairly well. However, I do believe that Madsen brings up a valid point even though it is a bit extreme, but it almost seems as though he is proposing the worst possible situation and asking the scientists what they would do should all that happen. Granted, it is a bit excessive that he suggest all our known language and civilization should be forgotten about in 100,000 years and that we should resort to hieroglyphics in order to communicate with those in the future. I really felt though that in the last couple sentences Madsen brings up a strong point, what would happen if for whatever reason, future generations ended up digging in the site where the nuclear waste was stored? The scientists seem to bank on this idea of 100,000 years, but Madsen mentions that the U.S. says it would take millions of years for waste of that level to decay, how do the scientists know for sure that only a “few people would be exposed to radiation”? Although it does sound like the scientists have definitely put a tremendous amount of time (and money… 4.1 billion dollars worth) into this research, and the idea sounds solid. So, with all that said, I’m somewhere in the middle about whether this is a good or not, or who I side with; but hey, if Finland wants to spend all that time and money into being the ones who “set the standard for final disposal” then I say more power to ya.
ReplyDeleteI had never heard about this dilemma until reading the article, which I found to be very interesting. After learning about both arguments, I feel that the scientists and Madsen made valid points about Finland’s nuclear waste bunker. It is an amazing technological advance to have discovered a way to literally bury this highly toxic material. It seems that the scientists have a well-developed plan put into place with the construction of the spiraling track and barriers. It wasn’t until I read about Madsen’s argument, when I realized that this brilliant idea does have its flaws. This bunker is being built to last 100,000 years and then what? No one is certain what life on Earth will be like, because that enormous time span is out of our grasp. In addition, Madsen brings to surface the controversial question about the knowledge of Onkalo. I agree that people will have forgotten or will be unaware of what lies beneath the surface at this particular site. I definitely see the possibility of future generations unknowingly digging up this waste that is sealed beneath the ground. Even though it would not be a “global catastrophe” and only a few people would be exposed to the radiation, I still think it should be a concern. Especially when the United States brought up the point that this highly toxic material needed to be buried for a million years, it really proves that no one really knows. It could be more dangerous in 100,000 years than anyone is anticipating. This is a difficult yet solid debate, since both sides of the argument make compelling cases.
ReplyDeleteI think that Finland’s new idea has a good outlook, but there are many questions that arise when thinking about all of this. As mentioned in the article, Finland is farther ahead than any other country on resolving the issue, but 100,000 years is a long time span to try to wrap our minds around. What if it doesn’t last for that long? And who is going to deal with it then? And what if something happens to it before the expected time and no one is prepared to deal with it? I am sort of in between on this argument; I think that both sides have valid points, but that a lot more needs to be planned out before a project such as this is confirmed and begins. I do think that I am more on the side that thinks they should go ahead and try it though. We won’t know for sure if it works until it is tried, and scientists seem to have a fairly decent idea on what they are doing, so who knows? It may actually turn out alright. If the country could actually get this idea under control and begin the project and have it completed in a timely manner, we could see how it ends up and be able to have a possible overall solution to the storing of nuclear wastes, which is indeed a huge concern that our generation is battling right now.
ReplyDeleteBefore reading this, surprisingly, very interesting article, I had absolutely no knowledge about any of this. After listening to both arguments, I feel as if both the scientists and documentarian Michael Madsen make excellent and valid points about the nuclear waste bunker in Finland. I think all of the technological advances that scientists and researches in this world have made have surpasses and exceeded anyone’s expectations from the past. Although these scientists have made many advances come up with a way to ultimately hide and put away the nuclear waste, Michael Madsen arises and very valid and questionable point. It is said that this nuclear waste bunker will last 100,00 years, many many years past our death. But what happens after these 100,00 years are up? What happens if years and years down the rode the site, in which this nuclear waste bunker is being held, is accidentally dug up? Although these scientists in Finland have probably spent countless hours working on this project, it does have its flaws. I do however, agree completely with what the scientists are ultimately trying to accomplish. There are however major concerns about the nuclear waste bunker and what will happen after its 100,00 years are up. This is something that the scientists need to take some time to think about, because all be it they found a way to store the nuclear waste, they need to think 100,00 years in advance to determine what will happen once this bunkers lifespan is up. After learning about this issue, I find myself to be caught in the middle. Two very good and valid arguments, both equally flawed.
ReplyDeleteI have never even heard of this controversial topic until right now, shockingly. I think this article is quite interesting and can cause a variety of different opinions from it. I admire Finland for coming up with an outstanding idea to demolish the amount of nuclear waste in the area and keep it away from contact with humans, but at the same time I feel differently about it. Even though the “Onkalo” underground tunnel system sounds like a clever idea, I think the line, “… and must last at least 100,000 years,” sounds quite ridiculous honestly since the scientists make it sound like it has an expiration date when talking about food, rather than just waste. I also think it’s nearly impossible to gather all of the nuclear waste that has piled up all these years and be able to fit it underground, no matter how deep and how long the bunker stretches out for. I think spending over four billion dollars is outrageous for gathering nuclear waste, despite the fact that no matter what they chose to do with it, it will be quite costly. Even though I do agree on some of the scientists’ points, I think Michael Madsen has a good reason to be cautioned about putting it underground for years. Since no one will be around in 100,000 years, I’m sure the record of when the nuclear waste was placed underground won’t be here either. This causes problems since people won’t even have a clue of what is underneath them and either dig it up or construct buildings on top of the landmass, leading to major problems.
ReplyDeleteI do not really see the point of this bunker. I totally agree with the scientists who say that the nuclear waste is nothing to worry about. I know I am very ignorant when it comes to environmental issues such as global warming and pollution but even those environmental issues I know nothing about seem more important than this nuclear waste bunker. By the time this bunker is finished being built, which is in like a million years, technology will have moved past the need for this bunker and will have found a new way to deposit nuclear waste and then this bunker will prove to be a waste of money and the future generations will laugh at what a silly idea this was and the other more important things we could have spent money on.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in the slight chance that this bunker proves to be worth the time and money, it will definitely put Finland ahead of the rest of the world in regards to technology and nuclear product usage. Their idea does seem like if everything goes as planned, it will be ingenious. I just have a hard time seeing the people of the 2100’s caring about something as silly as a nuclear waste bunker. I think the people would rather us find a way to conserve more water or find an alternative to fossil fuels for driving cars. In the year 2100 when all of the oil runs out, a nuclear waste bunker will be the least of their concerns.
I think that both sides of the argument raise good observations and ideas. Madsen raises a good point in wondering what will happen if 100,000 years from now it is dug up. What type of effects will it have on nature since the wastes are radioactive and extremely toxic? How will future society deal with the social arguments over this 100,000 year old waste? Yes, the scientist are at least keeping the future generations in mind with the idea that no monitoring by future generations will be required, but it seems as if they’re forgetting the fact that they will basically be dumping the problem onto the lap of the next generation. And also the idea that the project won’t be completely finished for another 100,000 years is insane. 100,000 years is only thought of in human past. Can the earth even sustain life for another 100,000 years? At the rate we’re going now I really doubt the earth will last that long, and when the end is near scientist will be more worried about trying to solve an environmental problem then recycling nuclear waste. But then again the scientist have a legitimate argument in that the waste has to be recycled and this is the most efficient plan they can come up with that won’t do harm to the environment. The concept itself seems to be pretty impossible and hard to handle, but scientist are doing the best that they can, as quick as possible.
ReplyDeleteI believe that both the scientists and Michael Madsen have valid reasons. The scientists have a project called Onkalo and are trying to better waste and make it more efficient. However, Michael Madsen does not encourage or believe what the scientists are trying to do, nor does he like the project. Michael Madsen believes that eventually, this new project will not work and will, in turn, hurt people instead of making the environment better to live in. The scientists, on the other hand, are trying to prove that their Onkalo project is one that will be very beneficial and will help the environment for many years to come. The scientists are also trying to validate their reasoning for their project because other places, such as the United States, have started this trend and, so far, the project for making the environment better is going well. I believe both the scientists and Michael Madsen because I believe that the scientists are just trying to better the environment. I believe that they have thought about the possibilities of making people sick and the cautions they will have to take when creating Onkalo and finishing it. I also, agree with Michael Madsen because it is a very dangerous task and if something were to go wrong with Onkalo, people would get hurt and the environment would be damaged. Also, it would be very hard to stop the waste from hurting people and continuing to corrode the environment and it would also be extremely hard to then transfer all of that nuclear waste and keep it from further damaging anything.
ReplyDelete@lindizzy91
ReplyDeleteI understand your concern but it’s that exact mentality that exacerbates the problem of nuclear waste. How do get clean energy is a huge concern right now and nuclear power is very enticing because of its high energy output. The problem though is that the nuclear waste cannot be disposed of properly with our current technology. Nuclear energy is like a cancer, anything that comes in contact with it, equipment etc.., cannot be used again and nuclear waste is the same way. More and more countries are looking at nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. With the idea of clean energy in mind we need to look at figuring out how to properly handle nuclear waste because all we have now are just storage centers like “Onkalo”. Unless this changes in the near future then people in the 2100s and people thousands of years from now will care about “Onkalo” and bunkers just like it.
@ Megan:
ReplyDeleteI agree; I think both Madsen and the scientists have good points, it just depends on the way they look at the situation. There are several remaining questions on whether the project would be the best way to go, and but a lot of it seems to be determined on whether or not they want to take a risk. If the project could help solve the problem of nuclear waste, then that would be great, but they don’t know if it will totally work, if it will actually last long enough, or if it will give people these health issues. Once all of this is reasoned through, hopefully they can come up with a positive solution.
@ ebarton
ReplyDeleteLiz you and I are most definitely on the same page here. We both realize the technological advances that have been made but yet also have the same concerns about what will happen after the 100,00 years is up. We also both agreed that both the scientists in Finland and Michael Madsen both had strong and valid points. I also have the same fear that someone will accidentally dig up the site where the nuclear waste bunker is being held. I think we both can agree that there are still many unanswered questions that have many people concerned. We both believe that the scientists and researchers need to spend more time thinking about the future 100,000 years from now as opposed to just right now.
@Ibass
ReplyDeleteI can't agree with you when you call the possibility of our civilization being forgotten a stretch. There are so many problems in the world today and as a species, we aren't very unified at all. I mean, look at North Korea for example. None of the citizens know of the internet (which is a global phenomenon), and most don't even know that we've been to the moon yet. And don't even get me started on terrorism...basically the point I'm trying to make is that occasionally very corrupt individuals are elected into power, and this could ultimately be our downfall.
@megan
ReplyDeleteI agree with you so much! This project is a good idea, but in the end many people are in a disagreement to this. The scientists are trying to make so many valid reasons, that it is just making it more and more complicated as the project becomes further under the way. The wast could indeed come out and hurt people, and possibly change their lives forever. We have been living with the waste on this earth for so many years, why are we trying to get rid of it now? It just does not make sense.
@elliot321
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with this because we really don’t need to be looking this far ahead as we have no idea how long civilization is going to last, and this nuclear waste needs to go somewhere. I had no idea that scientists were thinking about launching waste into space, so I really need to start watching the news. Putting it underground seems like a more viable option because it might just be cheaper to build a giant network of tunnels that will last 100,000 years as predicted. Elliot is right because other nations will start on a project similar to this if Finland is successful.
@kmurray
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with where you stand on this issue. I find myself torn between the two arguments, because valid points are being made on both sides. As you mentioned, these scientists finally devised an environmentally friendly plan to recycle this nuclear waste. However, you make a very good point. What will life be like on Earth in another 100,000 years? No one can determine that, which adds an unknown element to this project. I definitely see where you are coming from though. I also wonder if it is that important to create this nuclear waste deposit even though no one working on it will see its completion. These are hard decisions that people have to make, but like you said the scientists are doing the best the can.
@sebastian I also feel like the project should not pose many concerns for the future of humanity. I think with enough records and documentation the bunker shouldn't become a mythical object below the earth. Who even knows if there will be humanity in 100,000 years? Of course it's important to plan for the future of humanity, but it's also important to know that there may never be a perfect solution so we should try to find the best and least dangerous solution. Considering that this is one of the best and safest plans for nuclear disposal, I feel that the argument for humanity in 100,000 years is something that should not stop this nuclear bunker from going into action.
ReplyDelete@maxwell
ReplyDeleteThis response pretty much sums up everything I was thinking while I was reading the article. I agree that it will probably take longer than the estimated 100 years to build and that it is also a pretty big assumption to think that a bunker will last longer than humans have been around thus far. The questions being posed at the end are very key questions that I do not think the scientists were thinking through when posing the idea to waste money on something as silly as a nuclear waste bunker. Overall it seems that almost everyone is very skeptical about this amazing nuclear waste disposal site.
@kwalton
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you- I also think that the idea of nuclear bunkers is quite genius. However, at the same time I feel like it could be a waste of money and not worth it. None of us will be alive in 100,000 years, and word of the nuclear bunker may even be forgotten by then. I could not agree more with you, too, that the United States spending 4.1 billion dollars every time a nuclear bunker is going to be in place is outrageous and not right. I agree with your opinion greatly that considering all the possible things that could happen to the bunker would be a great way to carry out this billion dollar plan in an effective way.
At lindizzy91,
ReplyDeleteThe project will be finished by 2100. Thats not that far away. only 89 years from now. Also, you mentioned that there are other things to worry about that are more important then finding a place to dumb earth's nuclear waste like how to stop the burning of fossil fuels and conservation of water. Well, these problems are also being analized and people are trying to find solutions for them also. There are billions of people on earth so i think i am not alone when i say we can multi task lol if we ignore the problem, it will become bigger and bigger for future generations. So we must start now. It is our duty.
@jalasmar: I had pretty much the same theory as you. If I hadn’t seen Madsen’s argument the scientist would’ve easily convinced me that they were right because of all the facts they had. I think a big part of that line of thinking is deeper than a personality match. I think it’s a lack of care for the topic that makes us quickly side with the first argument we see. I also asked the same questions. How does anybody anywhere have any idea of what will be 100,000 years from now? And didn’t scientist say that the world is ending soon? 100,000 years isn’t anywhere near soon. I agree with you on the idea that this entire project seems to be a bit outrageous and unpredictable and people like Madsen are very necessary to keep balance between scientist with irrational theories and rational thinking beings.
ReplyDelete@Hillary
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you here, and you brought up a good point that I hadn’t even considered. What would happen if all of those scientists die before the project is completed? You’re right, it is scary. If that happened, people who hadn’t been working on it as long would have to take over, and they might not know as much about the project, or how to handle it. I also agree that Madsen raised some good points and it did seem like the scientists had trouble answering them. Hopefully they will figure out a safe, effective way to handle the nuclear waste, because something does have to be done with it.