- #1
user101
- 207
- 0
Why don't we drop medical waste and nuclear waste into active volcanoes? Aren't the temperatures in these volcaneous high enough to obliterate hazardous waste?
rocophysics said:I remember that episode from Futurama in which a big spaceship was built to carry away the waste from Earth. Now that's a good idea :-]
user101 said:Why don't we drop medical waste and nuclear waste into active volcanoes? Aren't the temperatures in these volcaneous high enough to obliterate hazardous waste?
medical waste: There is no need; simply buring the waste destroys it. And it would be very expensive to transport to the nearest volcano.user101 said:Why don't we drop medical waste and nuclear waste into active volcanoes? Aren't the temperatures in these volcaneous high enough to obliterate hazardous waste?
vanesch said:BTW, the fact that it decays by itself is one of the favorable properties of nuclear waste, which is not the case with certain kinds of chemical waste for instance. Heavy metals remain heavy metals for ever.
Lead is dangerous of you ingest it. Ingesting materials from an active volcano might cause you other, more pressing problems.nanoWatt said:I thought that Uranium would reduce to Lead anyway. So just because it's producing less radiation doesn't make it safe.
nanoWatt said:I thought that Uranium would reduce to Lead anyway. So just because it's producing less radiation doesn't make it safe.
Closer to 2300 Tonnes - 2500 tons. See http://www.evworld.com/library/energy_numbers.pdf"vanesch said:This is true. Only, with "full nuclear incineration" (that is, by using a fast spectrum), the only genuine waste you have are fission products. Now, it is true that there are some genuinely chemically toxic materials in there, but the *amount* of it is very small as compared to the amount of directly generated chemically toxic materials by other processes.
The total fission energy content of 1 kg of uranium corresponds to the total combustion energy of 1500 ton of coal.
Except that the radioactive elements released by coal burning - thorium and uranium mainly - are not very radioactive whereas fission products are very radioactive. The heavier non-fission products eg. Plutonium are also much more radioactive than U and Th.So we see that simply from one single source of heavy metal pollution of the biosphere, namely coal burning, we pollute already a few orders of magnitude more (for the same energy extraction) than its equivalent pollution by decay of radioactive waste *after its eventual full release to the biosphere* which is not intended.
Andrew Mason said:Except that the radioactive elements released by coal burning - thorium and uranium mainly - are not very radioactive whereas fission products are very radioactive. The heavier non-fission products eg. Plutonium are also much more radioactive than U and Th.
olgranpappy said:and besides, if we use the volcano for destroying medical/nuclear waste then what will we use to sacrafice our virgins?
Do you have a particularly big caldera?vanesch said:I'll offer my services
Here, you find some interesting information:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/...t/colmain.html
Does anybody have opinions on the pros and cons of concentrating and burying waste, as above, compared to spreading it evenly around the globe via the stratosphere?I've been thinking recently - what if we took nuclear waste, pulverized it (carefully, of course), and mixed it in with with concrete at a dilution that makes it no more radioactive than uranium ore. Then take the concrete and use it to fill in played-out mines (not necessarily uranium mines, just any mine at all, selected for not being under the water table, etc.) Would we end up with any dangers greater than what is naturally present in the environment anyway?
It's not that we can't dispose of it, it's that we can't dispose of it economically.ChrisLeslie said:Does anybody have opinions on the pros and cons of concentrating and burying waste, as above, compared to spreading it evenly around the globe via the stratosphere?
user101 said:Why don't we drop medical waste and nuclear waste into active volcanoes? Aren't the temperatures in these volcaneous high enough to obliterate hazardous waste?
ChrisLeslie said:Does anybody have opinions on the pros and cons of concentrating and burying waste, as above, compared to spreading it evenly around the globe via the stratosphere?
One reason is that it is not a safe or effective method of disposal. While active volcanoes have high temperatures, they do not reach the temperatures needed to completely destroy medical or nuclear waste. This can lead to the release of harmful pollutants into the environment.
The heat of a volcano may partially melt or incinerate the waste, but it does not completely destroy it. This can result in toxic chemicals and radioactive materials being released into the atmosphere, posing a significant threat to human health and the environment.
While it may seem like a quick and easy solution, it is not a sustainable or responsible method of waste disposal. Dumping waste into active volcanoes can have long-lasting impacts on the surrounding ecosystems and communities.
Yes, there are several potential negative effects, including air and water pollution, damage to wildlife and marine life, and the potential for volcanic eruptions to spread the waste over a larger area. Additionally, it is not a sustainable solution as eventually, the volcano will become inactive and the waste will resurface.
There are several safe and effective methods of disposing of medical and nuclear waste, including incineration, chemical treatment, and burial in designated landfills. These methods are carefully regulated and monitored to ensure the protection of human health and the environment.