From: Charles Hixson (charleshixsn@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:13:31 MST
Gary Miller wrote:
>> Leeching out of glass is slow,
>>but leeching out of glass covered with asphalt would take??? If
>>you're really paranoid, you could encase the whole thing in powdered
>>plaster.
>>
>>
>
>I remember when I used to work for DOE some of the HAZMAT guys said that
>the waste molecules are
>very heavy and when the get in water they tend to sink to the bottom and
>stay in the mud unless the
>mud is stirred up.
>
>What about dumping the waste once in is encased in glass in Marinas
>trench? It is over 7 miles deep.
>We could never generate enough waste to even fill up an eighth of a mile
>at the bottom.
>
>Life at the bottom of the trench should be very minimal due to the
>complete lack of sunlight, cold temperature and extreme pressure.
>
>It would also be safe from curiosity seekers or terrorists since
>technology to descend to these depths is ultra expensive and dangerous.
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-extropians@extropy.org [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.org]
>On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
>Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 6:13 PM
>To: extropians@extropy.org
>Subject: RE: Hydrogen as SCAM?
>
>
>
>Charles Hixson wrote:
>
>
>>Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>How about reasonably deep burial (no need to be excessive), but
>>vitrify it first. If that doesn't seem sufficient, then embed the
>>glass into asphalt, and bury that.
>>
>>
>
>### I am all for it.
>
> Leeching out of glass is slow,
>
>
>>but leeching out of glass covered with asphalt would take??? If
>>you're really paranoid, you could encase the whole thing in powdered
>>plaster.
>>
>>
>
>### Titanium alloy would be even better.
>
>Rafal
>
There's lots that would be better. I was just looking for "good
enough". And I don't want to drop it in the ocean, because I suspect
that at some point it would become a valuable resource. So don't make
it too hard to reach on purpose. Titanium has too high a melt
temperature, and is too hard to work.. I was thinking of just covering
it with plaster, and them putting a wax coat over the plaster. That was
to keep out water, not people. (Vitrified glass might be a decent heat
source, but after a very few years it would be too "cool" to be very
reasonable weapon material.)
-- -- Charles Hixson Gnu software that is free, The best is yet to be.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 11:15:44 MST