Why don't we bury our radioactive waste in an ocean trench?

Has no one seen the Ishiro Honda documentary on this subject? You’re going to doom us all!!!

Fred there is a difference between an equilibrium level of mildly radioactive materials dispersed over the ocean ecosystem and localized concentrations of highly radioactive and long lived isotopes clustered along subduction zones.

Sure, turn quietly slumbering Cthulhu into rudely awakened radioactive Cthulhu ! I’m sure it’ll turn out well for everyone involved.

Just long enough for free neutrons to decay!

So does anybody know anything about the “waterfall of sand” that ronbo posted about 13 years ago? Does it actually exist? It sounds pretty cool.

And as we have learned in the years between this post and now … it would also be available to James Cameron.

Best I could find was this reference on Wikipedia about San Lucas Canyon off of Baja. One of the references http://members.iinet.net/~glrmc/RMC%201975%20Mass%20Transport%20-%20Earth%20Science%20Rev.%2011,%20145-177.PDF states

No mention of Alaska or a river of sand though.

Thanks Grey! Quite fascinating. Even if it doesn’t quite match what the OP described, I would assume it must be what he/she was talking about.

Turbidity currents are a kind of ‘river of sand’, although they consist of silt rather than sand.

A turbidity flow might usefully bury some nasty stuff for prolonged periods of time, assuming we can find a suitable candidate.

But it is possible that at least some of the nuclear waste we are now throwing away could become an economic resource in the future, so throwing it into inaccessible regions might not be the best idea.

Actually, according to the follow-up articles, it might actually be beneficial to human life, and life on Earth in general. Dancingly so!

For an actual plan, in Canada there is the deep geologic depository:

Seems a cheaper and better proposal.