[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Subduction zones and radwaste...
When my daughter was 5 years old I took her to a lecture on plate
tectonics. The lecturer discussed the using of the subduction zones for
waste disposal. My daughter questioned the lecturer about the long term
utility of such an endeavor because she was concerned about volcanoes
spewing parts of old automobiles and and washing machines. The audience
thought it was very cute.
On you, it does not look so cute.
Are you serious?
Joe Alvarez
JPreisig@AOL.COM wrote:
> Hmmmmmm.....
>
> This is from JPreisig@aol.com .
>
> Greetings Radsafers.
>
> I find any attempt to place (reactor???) radwaste in subduction
> zones
> offensive. I surely don't believe it is the way to go. There are
> considerable
> problems (and errors) in the information being presented in this
> RADSAFE
> string. Plate tectonic spreading rates in the Pacific Ocean (i.e. the
> East
> Pacific Ridge) are on the order of 6 to 10 cm. per year. If
> subduction zone
> rates are the same as the spreading rates, then at the subduction
> zones
> crust is going into the subduction zones at 6-10 cm. per year.
>
> Usually, along the major Pacific subduction zones, there are many
> volcanoes.
> At some level, material going down into the subduction zone has some
> chance
> of coming back to the Earth's surface via the volcanoes. I'm not
> saying
> that this will happen quickly. The volcanoes are associated with the
> subduction
> process. So, if you dispose of reactor radwaste in subduction zones,
> there is
> a chance it will re-appear at the Earth's surface in lava, ash, etc.
>
> I think re-processing of the rad waste is the way to go. Separate
> the
> Uranium &
> long-lived alpha emitters from the short-lived (300 years = 10 half
> lives;
> Cesium, Strontium, etc.) photon emitters. Clearly re-processing is
> dose
> intensive. If we can do the re-processing remotely & robotically, so
> be it.
> Clearly, Pu proliferation could be a problem. But how about sending
> any
> produced Pu (from reprocessing) to Pantex in Texas regularly, where
> all the
> rest
> of our Pu is????
>
> I guess we could store the waste for 300 years at Yucca Mountain,
> until
> the heavy gamma radionuclides have decayed away significantly. The
> remaining
> long-lived alpha emitters shouldn't pose too much of a problem. I
> know
> I'm simplifying this all way too much.
>
> As for Yucca Mountain, I know this is a difficult process for all
> involved.
> I was involved with the New Jersey LLRW Siting Process (as a
> groundwater
> modeller), and to this day have wonderment about some of the things
> that
> occurred then and there. Fortunately, New Jersey did not spend as
> much
> money on this siting process as other states. I remember some of the
> local
> geologists telling me about the North Carolina siting process. At the
> NC
> siting meetings, I'm told men in black hoods showed up for the
> discussions.
> After the local siting board members had made their presentations, the
> men
> in the black hoods (who may have been armed) responded: "We've heard
> your (dose) numbers. Now we have some numbers for you: 22 caliber,
> 357 magnum, and on and on...." I don't think the men in the black
> hoods
> were kidding. I don't think that Nevadans are any less well armed. I
> think
> such
> processes must go forward slowly. And I don't think South Carolina
> will
> continue taking LLRW ad infinatum.
>
> Well, clearly I've said too much already, as usual. Have a good
> night!!!!
>
>
> Joe Preisig, Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.