From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Feb 11 2003 - 14:56:59 MST
Ev Mick wrote:
> In a message dated 02/03/2003 10:29:46 AM Central Standard Time,
> kmb@kai-m-becker.de writes:
>
>
> If Uranium would be as inert and safe for the biosphere as coal or
> gas, and if the process from Uranium to energy and the disposal of
> the waste would be as safe as with coal or gas, I'd agree with you.
>
>
>
> Would you agree then that it would be safe were nuclear wastes to be
> dropped into tectonic plate subduction zones? Kind of
> remote...that.....removed from the biosphere altogether I'd say.
>
### Subduction zones are geologically pretty unstable, and are covered with
water - so it's very difficult to drill tunnels, the tunnels can get damaged
by earthquakes, and the waste can get dissolved in water (as in black smoker
vents). Also, the removal from biosphere would take geological amounts of
time (hundreds of thousands of years), compared to a few thousand years for
the radionuclides to decay.
Deep burial in dry rock is better. It is just as effective in removing the
waste from the biosphere.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Feb 11 2003 - 14:49:41 MST