From: Gary Miller (garymiller@starband.net)
Date: Fri Feb 14 2003 - 10:43:10 MST
> 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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Feb 14 2003 - 10:46:17 MST