If we disposed of nuclear waste by subduction, could that lead to radioactive volcanic eruptions?

Thanks. What prompted the question was a diagram regarding subduction zones. If you don't mind, take a look and let me know what you think of its accuracy. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sio.ucsd.edu/volcano/about/images/recycle.gif&imgrefurl=http://sio.ucsd.edu/volcano/about/subduction.html&h=369&w=493&sz=14&tbnid=XXDKIpyqqm-glM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=130&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dsubduction&hl=en&usg=__iky-wHeeFg-MeTmI7VD2Rxb9dvI=&ei=P2HwStfsLYOxlAfrxfHuCA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=6&ct=image&ved=0CBsQ9QEwBQ

• Report

by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 3rd, 2009

It's not the most artistic diagram of the sort that I have seen, but it seems pretty accurate.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on November 3rd, 2009

Thanks. I can appreciate that even though the volcano appears close to the subduction zone, it would take the collapsing plate quite some time to move that far. Of course, at worst case, erruptions can occur right laong the rift, can they not?

• Report

by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 3rd, 2009

A rift is something else. Those form where crust is puled apart. In these areas, the stresses are compressing the crust. Magma (molten rock) forms in subduction zone because water in the subducted plate gets forced out by the heat and pressure that occurs at depth. Water infused into hot rocks lowers their melting temperatures. The subducted slab has to get so deep before this will occur. Because of this, the volcanism associaed with a subduction zone will always be some distance behind the trench.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on November 4th, 2009

Aha. I really need to study up on plate tectonics. Thanks.

• Report

by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 4th, 2009

It means that you take the radioactive waste and drop it down into the deep ocean trench (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_trench) of a subduction zone. Over millions of years, this waste would then be subducted with the oceanic plate and/or buried in the accretionary wedge.

• Report

by Glenn Blaylock on November 3rd, 2009

Sounds unproven and risky
Subduction is part of the 'engine' of Earth, everything is tied together.
I would want to see some concrete research that could prove this safe, before it was attempted.
Just because someone is considered an 'expert', it doesn't mean that they are correct.
It is an option that should be explored, but not approached lightly

• Report

by qwerty on November 3rd, 2009

Here's a link to a subduction proponent's claims. http://www.scientiapress.com/findings/sea-based.htm

• Report

by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on November 3rd, 2009

@qwerty: I don't hear Glenn taking a position on it one way or the other -- he's got geology credentials, I'd rather let him speak for himself than put words in his mouth.

• Report

by HasntBeen on November 3rd, 2009

Didn't say he was, just putting my opinion in
my comment wasn't really directed at anyone
In his answer he sort of lean toward caution
I think I may have commented the wrong answer
I was agreeing with him
Sorry for the confusion

• Report

by qwerty on November 3rd, 2009

Ok, thanks.
 
To me, the idea sounds promising... but any time you're talking about disposing nuclear waste, it's a messy proposition. It's just hard to pass on nuclear power in a world that gets more and more power hungry all the time. What's worse, global warming or the risk of nuclear contamination in future generations? I think anybody who takes an absolutist position on these topics is clogging up the circulatory system of ideas... we have to keep trying to balance the merits and risks in a very complex set of conditions.

• Report

by HasntBeen on November 3rd, 2009

I agree with merits vs risk
I just think that when we are talking about a very complex system that all life on Earth depends on, extreme caution is warranted.
What I think we should be looking at is our civivlied way of life.
The lives that we lead are very detructive to the environment, even with the best conservation, humans, living the way we do, will overrun the resources of the planet.
If we really want to perserve the ecology for future generation, we should look at how we live, as opposed to find better ways to maintain our resource hungry lives.
Nuke power is clean on the surface, until we talk about how much energy it takes to extract the ore, and how to handle the waste.
Kind of off topic, but everything mentioned in this thread is related on a global scale

• Report

by qwerty on November 3rd, 2009

Yes, I agree that we need to reduce our resource consumption (and population growth). But I don't think that alone is enough to reach sustainability... we need more sustainable energy sources too. It will take a combination of solutions to get to a stable situation -- and then, inevitably, something will happen to disturb the stability and we'll have to correct again and again. Balance really is like riding a bicycle... you're always falling, it's just about not hitting the ground too hard.

• Report

by HasntBeen on November 3rd, 2009

we need both, no doubt
But ppl pushing for change, need to look in the mirror
Every single human is driving the demand, for energy in all forms.
I don't think we need to go back to the stone age, but we need to look at some of the convience in all our lives

• Report

by qwerty on November 3rd, 2009

Aye.

• Report

by HasntBeen on November 3rd, 2009

The half like of the waste is 30K years or so, just a flash in the pan in geologic time. So I guess that would be pretty safe. If not, I deny all knowledge of supporting the plan. :-)

• Report

by Jim in a Nautilus COAT on January 14th, 2010