[nexuist]

While true, I find it hard to believe that moving water from one tank to another is some kind of grave threat to humanity like the article wants the reader to think. In the worst case scenario can't they just put these tanks in a big hole and pour concrete on them?

[max002]

and what happens with concrete when the ground trembles...? it breaks. apart of that concrete is still damaged by radiation and such wholes and concrete needs to be redone after some years (there's already second one i chernobyl). and then after some years you have a lot of contaminated cement, which you need to cover again... and again... and again... it'll need to be redone even after both you and I die (assuming I don't get to my dream of changing all organs for new ones and living to 500 ;))

[nexuist]

In other words, a problem we already know how to solve and have done so multiple times before.

[max002]

Hiding problems from sight doesnt solve them. It justs hides them. Its like a temporary patch, but the ground will be radiated for long time. What then? Another spot? Then again in another spot? So my and your grandchildren will basically have live to on radioactive waste/a ticking bomb? Thats not solution.

[nexuist]

This is how landfills work currently so it is not much of a deviation from the status quo. It would still take millions of years before we run out of land to put all the nuclear waste ever created in.

[garmaine]

There’s not that much radiation in this water. None of those concerns would apply. They could literally just dump it into the ocean without measurable effect, which is the plan of record.