From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rafal@smigrodzki.org)
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 16:13:12 MST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 08:22:21 MST