NationStates Jolt Archive

Or would this yield the same result as simple incineration?

Or would this yield the same result as simple incineration?

Nope, cos subduction zones aren't fiery chasms that we chuck rubbish in, They are zones of increased tectonic activity relating to descending plates. These plates are often covered by a thick layer of marine sediment, rendering them (apart from the occasional trench) much like the rest of the seabed.

Or would this yield the same result as simple incineration?You mean making California west of the San Andreas Fault the global waste disposal?

Making my HOME the global waste disposal?

We'd have shitty volcanoes?

We'd have shitty volcanoes?

yea: volcanic dust is bad enough, just wait until they start belching up styrofoam fumes and asbestos fibers.


melted is melted: there's only so much you can do to destroy some of this stuff.

the real trick would be to find a way to break it down chemically, and be left with something biodegradable.

Isn't someone working on a strain of bacteria that will be tailor made to eat styrofoam?

I honestly believe we should just put all our waste into a giant ball and fire it into the Sun.

I'd say it would be better to either find a way to use biological organisms or nanotech to break it down than to bury it. It's a lot better to convert the stuff back in to useful compounds or to simply return it to nature than to bury it and hope that nothing ever goes wrong.

Making my HOME the global waste disposal?

News flash: it already is.:rolleyes:

News flash: it already is.:rolleyes:

Nono, that would be Florida.

Radioactive waste would be a good idea. Simply put it on the subduction zone, let it ride over thousands of years to the core, which is pretty radioactive anyway, and then it'll be diluted there. If it ever comes back it would be millions of years later at much reduced radioactivity levels.

I'd say it would be better to either find a way to use biological organisms or nanotech to break it down than to bury it. It's a lot better to convert the stuff back in to useful compounds or to simply return it to nature than to bury it and hope that nothing ever goes wrong.
As always, Vetalia offers the best solution.

Iztat: Or we could be mean and start putting radioactive waste inside the mouth of every active volcano on the planet and watch the hilarious results.

I'd say it would be better to either find a way to use biological organisms or nanotech to break it down than to bury it. It's a lot better to convert the stuff back in to useful compounds or to simply return it to nature than to bury it and hope that nothing ever goes wrong.What about radioactive waste? Got any biological organisms for that?

What about radioactive waste? Got any biological organisms for that?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor??

??

Basically, a breeder reactor, as it creates more fissile material out of existing used material, seriously reduces radiation from the material.

Basically, a breeder reactor, as it creates more fissile material out of existing used material, seriously reduces radiation from the material.I'm too tired now for reading the article. What fissile material does the reactor produce and what end product is there that has no more radioactivity?

I'm too tired now for reading the article. What fissile material does the reactor produce and what end product is there that has no more radioactivity?

Basically, it takes used fissile material and recycles it into usuable material. I don't believe it can eliminate radioactivity altogether, due to the fact that there's only so many times you can reuse something before you can't use it anymore, but it does make it far less radioactive, and far easier to store underground somewhere where it won't leak, and leaks that can happen--which are always possible--are far, far less severe. It's a safer and overall more productive and useful design for a reactor.

Basically, it takes used fissile material and recycles it into usuable material. I don't believe it can eliminate radioactivity altogether, due to the fact that there's only so many times you can reuse something before you can't use it anymore, but it does make it far less radioactive, and far easier to store underground somewhere where it won't leak, and leaks that can happen--which are always possible--are far, far less severe. It's a safer and overall more productive and useful design for a reactor.So what does the fissile material fissure into?

So what does the fissile material fissure into?

I have now reached the point to where my understanding of the subject has failed me. Seeing as how I understood it only from these "break it down simply" bits of info myself, I have no idea. Ask Vetalia.

Nono, that would be Florida.

Oh yeah, almost forgot.

Radioactive waste would be a good idea. Simply put it on the subduction zone, let it ride over thousands of years to the core, which is pretty radioactive anyway, and then it'll be diluted there. If it ever comes back it would be millions of years later at much reduced radioactivity levels.

To be honest, burying radioactive waste in a subduction zone is like burying radioactive waste in an earthquake zone. If you manage to bury it in the crust that is going to be subducted, and not the sediments that get scraped off the surface, its not going anywhere for millions of years. Subduction is slow.