Nothing can escape us. So even if we do that it will still cause some upset of some sort that will come back round to us in some form. Recycling (reusing) and recycling (converting waste into others materials) are some solutions. But the real solution lies with us both as consumers and producers. As individual consumers we need to cut back on our needs. Producers need to get their act together to cut back on packaging. Packaging is such a menace and waste of resources. Industrial growth and expansion is coming back to haunt us in some many ways: wars, exploitation and suffering and waste mountains. Greed is the cause.
2007-05-12 01:06:16
·
answer #1
·
answered by ♥zene purrs♥ 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
All of the waste that would be produced sending the stuff up there would cause a lot of harm. Think about how much fuel (big orange tank used with the space shuttle) that is burned just sending a few people up there. Trying to send our mountains of garbage up there would pollute our world pretty darn fast and sap our energy supplies too.
2007-05-12 01:04:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Even though it looks good, but it is not possible for the following reasons.
* Cost of sending it out of the universe is very high (un imaginable)
* All we produced are the products from the earth. If you start throwing them out in the universe, the weight of the earth will start decreasing. This will effect in the rotation and hence the temperature, climatic condition, etc., will change, and atlast that will be the end of earth.
2007-05-12 01:27:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by tdrajagopal 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
With Nuclear Waste it is a great idea, so we can use it to fuel our future space craft...
All other waste, we need to proceed with a 100% use and reuse process.
The oil industry is the best industry in this as they use 100% of the crude oil. They get a lot of negative images against them, and some of it is diserved, but in this max usage, they are the best for it. If every industry would impliment a 100% use and reuse policy, we would see our wastes practically eliminated.
2007-05-12 01:14:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by Vman 2040 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The waste would probably float in the universe and what if it rains back some time from the space like shooting stars, meteorites, comets etc. Did you give a thought in this direction as well? After all everything in this universe is cyclic.
2007-05-12 01:53:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Ganesh 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
YEAH YOU HAVE THOUGHT OF A GREAT IDEA BUT SORRY TO SAY BUT THIS HAS BEN THOUGHT ABOUT LONG AGO..THIS IS NOT IMPLEMENTED UNTIL NOW BECAUSE THE COST OF THE DISPOSAL IS SO MUCH THAT IT IS NOT WORTH USING THIS METHOD OF WASTE DISPOSAL..IT REQUIRES BILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST TO TAKE SOME KILOGRAMS INTO THE SPACE AND YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THOUSANDS OF TONS OF WASTE!!!
YEAH NEW METHODS OF SPACE TRAVEL ARE BEING SOUGHT FOR AND THEN IT WILL BE SEEN IF THIS METHOD BECOMES ECONOMICAL..
ALSO SOME SYSTEM IS BEING DEVELOPED SO THAT THE EXHAUST GASES CAN BE DUMPED DIRECTLY INTO THE SPACE.LETS HOPE THAT THESE WILL COME VERY SOON!!!!
2007-05-12 01:04:33
·
answer #6
·
answered by vipul_teen007 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
No we can't. I think we all should try to recycle all the wastage n dumps n use those again that way it wont make any pllution. For example my plastic buchet is brocken what should i do i can take it to the trash can n the trashman will take to the recycling factory n make another buchet that way it wont pollute the world n we will get our nessicitis.. I hope You will get those things i told you.
2007-05-12 01:10:53
·
answer #7
·
answered by kitty 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
For the most part, the planet is a closed system. Your theory is to take part of that system and expel it. By doing that, you are decreasing the total potential energy there is on the planet. Also, if you expel enough "waste", over time, the mass of the planet will change and will effect its orbit around the sun.
2007-05-12 01:05:47
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
There is uncountable waste remaining on earth , how much we will be able to dump outside the earth!!! And we have to waste too much of fuel to do so .This will create scarcity of fuel for the daily human use.So,my friend it is almost impossible.
2007-05-12 20:35:10
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mandar 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
"might it is achieveable to sell off each and all the waste on the earth onto yet another planet including Mercury?" No. top now, it expenses something like US $10,000 in line with pound to launch something into Earth orbit. Sending something into area - no be counted if to a distinctive planet, a deep-area orbit with regard to the sunlight, into the sunlight itself, or into an get away trajectory from our image voltaic equipment - is much greater costly. in spite of economies of scale from development fleets of so-referred to as "vast dumb boosters", any attempt to deliver an significant fraction of non-recyclable waste on my own into area might purely bankrupt the international. yet that may not all. think of of the transportation of all that waste to proper launch web content, and each and all the pollutants that would reason. think of of each and all the flexibility needed to produce the gasoline needed to power all those rockets. think of of the commercial infrastructure required to *build* all those rockets. It purely isn't attainable. it is not even attainable in case you constrained it, as some have suggested, to poisonous and/or radioactive waste. Recycling and storage of waste cloth produced on the floor is a floor-based difficulty, and continually would be. which isn't to declare that the difficulty is insurmountable - it is purely that dumping into area isn't an option for addressing it. P.S. removing guy-made waste from the Earth won't probable exchange its orbit. The fractional mass of the waste while in comparison with that of the Earth is insignificant, and the mass of the Earth while in comparison with that of the sunlight is amazingly small besides. The Earth's orbit with regard to the sunlight actually relies upon in basic terms on the sunlight's mass and the fee of the Earth.
2016-12-11 07:17:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋