This can not be over-stated. Volcanic ash is one of the most abrasive materials found in nature. Imagine scrubbing the inside of your lungs with 200-grit sandpaper.
Doing a little web searching.
Forgot about my old friend Polonium. Take a look at the Wiki article on it.
Polonium is to Plutonium as Unstoppable Zombie hoards are to Mormon Missionaries delivering pamplets.
Some scientist are tracing Polonium in the air to volcanic activity.
When a big volcanoe errupts, I’d wonder how much of that stuff gets belched out? Not to mention all the other radioactive “nasties”.
Polonium[sub]210[/sub] is dissolved in magma, and then released as a gas. Relieving the pressure of the magma bubble would cause the gases to be released (since it’s only the pressure that keeps them dissolved). So, you’d have nuclear weapons waste in addition to the radioactive gases released by the magma pool.
Actually, they are sometimes long terms eruptions, and sometimes single vast explosions. The OP’s idea wouldn’t do much for the first, but in theory could help with the second.
I’d have to agree with this. We just don’t know enough to do it right. We don’t even know enough to tell when desperate measures like trying it even if we don’t really know what we are doing would be justified.
Well, not quite. The abrasiveness of volcanic ash does wonders to internal combustion engines. At least insurance might help pay for the damage.
On the other hand, inhaling volcanic ash is akin to inhaling Portland cement. Irrespective of choking on the ash, your body fluids effectively turn your lungs into cement bags.
Er… and those “tests” killed about 11,000 Americans and who knows how many others through increased cancer rates over the years. :rolleyes:
I think it’s sad that we haven’t exploited yellowstone for it’s geothermal energy we could darn near power half of this country
Ah. Beaten to the punch by Bridget Burke - my apologies, BB.
Agreed. I personally would pave yellowstone over if it would solve our energy problems, but I think we could even do it quite tastefully and get a butload of power.
In fact, while not realistic, the more power we draw from yellowstone, the cooler the magma chamber should get. We wouldn’t need to directly vent Yellowstone, just create a massive heat exchanger and use the process to make power. Global warming and super volcano solved with one plain old ordinary bit of magic.
As nice as the title might be, the article (pdf) lists more relevant information. They looked at atmospheric tests only. (Underground tests don’t release much fallout) The 11,000 deaths you talk about are for the entire population of people born in 1952, and the normal cancer rate is predicted at 60 million. 11,000 sounds like a lot, but it’s a pretty trivial risk, statistically. Note that the RR for fallout radiation exposure due to tests is far less that than for gasoline fume exposure during fillups. Further, that is for dozens of enormous atmospheric tests (many at ground level), as opposed to one theoretical deeply buried volcano-stopping detonation.
Billfish’s rant is pretty spot-on – radiation is scary because of a set of cultural beliefs that have mythologized the dangers of “the bomb”, just like terrorism, etc is being mythologized now.
If we are that desperate to destroy unique geological features for pure selfishness and greed, our society hasn’t come very far.
Cite?
You don’t have to destroy anything. Yellowstone is huge. You could put a massive industrial complex there and it could essentially be hidden except that the park would have significant funds to help maintain it’s wildlife refuge. It wouldn’t be out of selfishness and greed anyway, it would be out of a desparate need to quit destroying the planet by burning fossil fuels.
One of the keys to risk assessment is understanding not how the risk compares to other hypothetical risks, but how the risk compares to the benefit gained. The Soviets were not going to invade the US if the US stopped testing nuclear weapons (and vice-versa.) I think the benefits gained by nuclear testing were minimal, and the additional risk of cancer unjustified.
The comment about gasoline is pretty irrelevant (a rhetorical red herring) - what does gasoline have to do with the decision to conduct atmospheric nuclear testing?
Isn’t the point of the OP to vent the pressure, thereby letting it escape? Where would the pressure vent to, if not the atmosphere? Are there large underground cavities under Yellowstone?
I’m afraid my parents would disagree with you on this. The excess Carbon 14 they have in their bones allows them to plausibly lie about theit age once they are dead.
A useful proposition. I stand corrected.
Well played, sir!
Well there’s the geyser decline and extinction in New Zealand caused by geothermal energy development. Yellowstone is already under pressure from geothermal development.
Lest this drag into GD territory, exploiting geothermal energy within the park, and areas surrounding the park, is selfish greed. I fail to understand this constant drumbeat for exploiting more energy development, while not addressing energy conservation with the same (if not more) ferver and strength. In the words of Ed ward Abbey, “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”
Have you ever visited Yellowstone? It’s not as big as you may think.
No.