Sea-based approaches to the disposal of nuclear waste make it hard for terrorists, rebels, or criminals to steal for use in radiological weapons or in nuclear bombs. The world’s oceans have a vastly greater dilutive capacity than any single land site in the event of unintended leaks (though by the same token the effects of a leak could travel farther). And seawater itself contains a variety of radionuclides, so treating it as a domain in which there is no natural radioactivity runs counter to fact. Meanwhile, without a great deal of additional investment and endless political arguments, land-based geological storage sites will not have the capacity to store all the waste that will be generated in future decades.
The most important rationale, though, is that siting, constructing, and operating land-based long-term storage sites constitute major, difficult technological and political problems. It is wrongheaded and irresponsible to assume that many relatively poor, unstable, and technologically lagging countries with nuclear reactors will deal successfully with these challenges. Too many things can go wrong, with disastrous outcomes.
So a shared international solution to the problems of the long-term storage of nuclear waste should represent a high priority. And investigating sea-based solutions makes eminent sense because they are peculiarly suited to international cooperation. When considering solutions that require significant noise generation, we need to consider potential damage to sea creatures, similar to the damage caused by undersea mining.1
Four sea-based approaches recommend themselves.
April 4, 1968. Civil rights leader Martin Luther King was killed by a single bullet as he stood on the second floor balcony outside his hotel room in Memphis.
June 8, 1968. Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated in the crowded “pantry” (actually, a food preparation area) of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles after his primary election victory.
August 4, 1962. Celebrity actress Marilyn Monroe died in her bedroom in Los Angeles (or in the guest house near her house, from which she was carried back to her bedroom).
On April 27, 1996, 76-year old William Colby, former director of the CIA, disappeared from his vacation home on the water at Rocky Point, Maryland. Colby had spent the day at a marina fixing his sloop. He returned home after 6 pm, phoned his wife, who was visiting her mother in Texas, and told her he was tired and would eat supper, then go to bed. He watered his trees, met with his gardener and his visiting sister around 7:15 pm (sunset was at 7:57), and fixed himself a meal. The next day there was no sign of him. Eventually, a neighbor phoned the police. They found his supper half-eaten. The computer and radio were on. His canoe was missing.
. Just as the minimum age of 35 for becoming president reduces the risk of immaturity and inexperience, a maximum age of 75 would reduce the risk of the ravages of old age. It’s not a question of whether a given individual can outperform. It’s whether 
The Theory of the Reversing Earth was a key component of Immanuel Velikovsky’s Venus theory in which he contended that close passages of Venus caused Earth to topple over four times during the Bronze Age catastrophes. Now we have a Revised Venus Theory that corrects inadequacies of the original theory and provides a cause of the inversions as well as approximate dates (2200, 1628, 1210, and 820 BC), an array of new evidence, and a link to the great mass extinctions of prehistory. Viktoria Nagudi interviews Kenneth J. Dillon of Scientia Press. 9 Likes, 0 Dislikes.
In his Worlds in Collision (New York: Macmillan, 1950), Immanuel Velikovsky argued that Venus emerged as a red-hot comet from Jupiter and passed Earth every 52 years, causing the Bronze Age catastrophes, before settling into its current orbit. His claim set off a controversy in which his theory was rejected and stigmatized. But over the years, new findings have changed the picture. Here are eight new reasons to accept a Revised Venus Theory.