Why don't we drop medical waste and nuclear waste into active volcanoes?

Question

Aren't volcanoes the "ultimate high-temperature incinerators"?

Answer 1

In either case you would have to "inject" the waste well below the surface of the lava/ magma to ensure true incineration otherwise you are just going to "flash off" all sorts of unpleasantness into the atmosphere.

With the nuclear waste, the next time the active volcano erupts it will send a cloud of radioactive dust and gases around the world.

Engineering/ transportation would also make it prohibitively expensive

Answer 2

Because the hazardous parts would come right back out. It is also not clear that volcanic incineration would be hot enough to sterilize garbage. Based on the Environmental Protection Agency, medical waste should always be burned off at more than 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit, with a few states requiring temperatures of 1,800 or 2,000 degrees to reduce volatile organic emissions. It's an even worse idea to toss nuclear waste into a volcano. Combustion won't have any influence on spent nuclear fuel, nor will it reduce the radioactivity of low-level waste like toxin heavy clothing and equipment. Just like the incineration of medical waste, this produces dangerous emissions that would pop right out of a volcano.

Answer 3

Because it isn't safe. An active volcano is not necessarily one that is erupting all the time. Also...lots of volcanoes erupt explosively (like Mt. St. Helens or Pinatubo) rather than quietly like the ones in Hawaii.

It would be too dangerous to have people piling waste in the crater waiting for an eruption or during an actual eruption. There is no guarantee that the waste would be completely burnt up. There is the potential that waste could be scattered over a large area in an eruption.

It would be better to actually build an incinerator that could be controlled by humans and burn the waste in a controlled environment.

Answer 4

Apart from the other issues already noted by others, the emissions of incineration are not "clean" even when the biological materials are destroyed. This is why the burning isn't just done out in the open. Flashing low-level radioactive material into the atmosphere for general dispersion by the wind is also a poor idea.

Putting high-level nuclear wastes in any situation where it cannot be easily recovered in the event of an unforeseen problem is a bad idea in my view.

Answer 5

I don't think the output end of volcanoes is environmentally friendly;however put the stuff ,properly encased to last 100 years or more,and bury it in an active subduction zone.It would not be spewed out from a volcanoe for more than ten million years and it would be decayed to a safe level by then.

Answer 6

Yes, but you might want to consider this: the heat may react with the waste, and cause a reaction, or it may not fully incinerate. In this case, the waste would flow to the ocean, and contaminate the water.

Answer 7

This would work for medical waste as the toxic substances are living organisms and they would not survive, but it is cheaper to burn them in an industrial incinerator than transport them to a volcano.

Nuclear waste is radioactive and only time will reduce it's radioactivity. Heat will not.

Answer 8

if nuclear wastes are added in a volcano it will burst and not act like an incinerator causing harmul radiations to spread everywhere and produce mutants just like X-MEN though not as stable and powerful.

Answer 9

Your are joking, right? That's all we need is a bunch of nulear waste floating on a volcanic mantle that is waiting to blow it sky high and float it around the world.