urza Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 hello all i'm new to this forum.. first post... anyway the reason i did join up here other than curiosity is because i have a major question that needs answering... i'm in 10th grade and i have an upcoming science fair.. i was thinking of doing a biology project when it hit me... is it possible to use radioactive elements as a catalyst for the decomposition of garbage? since one of the properties of radioactive isotopes is that they destroy living tissues, therefore they may be used to increase the rate of garbage decomposing. or whatever the right term is... i know you cant use this on all types of garbage... but you probably can on the ones that are made of cells( banana peels, bones etc....) I was thinking that this would be a way of erasing a huge part of the "garbage" problem therefore the "pollution" problem... so.. is this possible? if it is, is it enviromentally friendly? has anyone ever thought of this before? am i crazy or is there logic in this? thx for your future cooperation.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 The cells you mention are organic and are going to break down anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 yes i know.. thats why i said increase the rate of.... they will serve as a catalyst.... and it'll take them a while to "eventually" decompose anybody else.. any comments at all?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulderMan Posted March 19, 2005 Share Posted March 19, 2005 i would have thought that radioisotopes would only have an affect on living cells. wouldnt some of the radioisotopes that you will plan with, pollute the enviroment also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 19, 2005 Author Share Posted March 19, 2005 what i thought was that if i added these isotopes to dumpsites which are isolated from most inhabited "living" areas that it wouldn't have much affect on the enviroment.. of course some of the enviroment might be endagered like the animals that inhabit dumpsites, but the pros would far outweigh the cons. should i go with it or not?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 20, 2005 Author Share Posted March 20, 2005 wow is this the only feedback you can give me!! if you have no idea what i'm talking about plz do tell.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 20, 2005 Share Posted March 20, 2005 I honestly don't think this would work \Bacteria and fungi break down organic garbage. By hitting this garbage with radioisotopes, you'll kill the bacteria. Radioactive materials kill organims by changing their DNA (cancer) or by altering the chemical structure of internal processes, but they don't acutally take organic compounds and break them down into simpler parts. Bacteria do do that. They return nutrients back to the earth to be recycles. I don't think that radioactive substances would do this. It's dangerous to introduce radioactive wastes to an area. Under the best conditions, radioactive wastes (except when found in nature) can harm the environment futher. If we do as you suggest, we could end up having radioactive landfills, a bigger environmental problem then garbage alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 20, 2005 Author Share Posted March 20, 2005 ok thx for answering. it means alot.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coquina Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I honestly don't think this would work \Bacteria and fungi break down organic garbage. By hitting this garbage with radioisotopes' date=' you'll kill the bacteria. Radioactive materials kill organims by changing their DNA (cancer) or by altering the chemical structure of internal processes, but they don't acutally take organic compounds and break them down into simpler parts. Bacteria do do that. They return nutrients back to the earth to be recycles. I don't think that radioactive substances would do this. It's dangerous to introduce radioactive wastes to an area. Under the best conditions, radioactive wastes (except when found in nature) can harm the environment futher. If we do as you suggest, we could end up having radioactive landfills, a bigger environmental problem then garbage alone.[/quote'] I don't know how heat producing radioactive isotopes can be, but if they could be used to heat water within a contained system, you might speed up the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coquina Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I don't know how heat producing radioactive isotopes can be, but if they could be used to heat water within a contained system, you might speed up the process. Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I don't know how heat producing radioactive isotopes can be, but if they could be used to heat water within a contained system, you might speed up the process. I'm not aware that hotter objects break down faster. But even if they do, there is still the pollution problem... a bigger disadvantage that outwieghs any possible benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 mmm.. yeah heat does speed up a process, and it would be useful and enviromentally friendly if it were contained.. but is it better than all other options? i might actually experiment on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I`m with Ecoli 100% on this one. it`s the bacterial action that accelerates decomposition, nuking them would be counter productive. think about how certain foods are irradiated with Cobalt 60 and Why it`s done. it kills off any bacteria that assists the breakdown, and thus giving the food an indefinate shelf life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MulderMan Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 I`m with Ecoli 100% on this one. it`s the bacterial action that accelerates decomposition' date=' nuking them would be counter productive. think about how certain foods are irradiated with Cobalt 60 and Why it`s done. it kills off any bacteria that assists the breakdown, and thus giving the food an indefinate shelf life.[/quote'] you know i would have never thought of that, they do it to strawberries dont they? thats what i heard. you could always do an emperiment on the factors affecting the rate of decay, or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 21, 2005 Share Posted March 21, 2005 Yup, strawberries are a classic example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 21, 2005 Author Share Posted March 21, 2005 hmm ya rate of decay, i already wrote a whole c++ program on that.. a calculator with all radioactive isotopes and their half lives, which can calculate the total amount left over a certain period of time.. or vice versa with the time spent after a certain portion have decomposed... anyway i might experiment with what YT2095 mentioned. That is, the indefinate shelf life after implementing radioisotopes to food.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecoli Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 you know i would have never thought of that, they do it to strawberries dont they? thats what i heard. They do it with lots of foods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluenoise Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 Yeah heat works well, and air, and moisture. I remember a recent documentry about this landfill project that moistense and exposes the garbage to more gas circulation. They achieve far greature decomposition rates. (Plus all the increased activity from the gas/water also raises the temperature and has an even greater effect.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 22, 2005 Author Share Posted March 22, 2005 They do it with lots of foods. how do they do that without making the food itself radioactive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 it`s similar to the idea that X-Rays on a broken limb don`t leave you radioactive either the Cobalt 60 doesn`t actualy come into contact with the food, only the Gamma rays, and they decay almost instantly. Something like that anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 it`s similar to the idea that X-Rays on a broken limb don`t leave you radioactive either the Cobalt 60 doesn`t actualy come into contact with the food' date=' only the Gamma rays, and they decay almost instantly. Something like that anyway [/quote'] Gammas technically don't decay. But they aren't of high enough energy to cause a nuclear reaction that would activate anything, so nothing becomes radioactive. All of the interactions are on the atomic level, e.g. ionization of molecules and breaking molecular bonds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 22, 2005 Author Share Posted March 22, 2005 so how do the bacteria die and the fruit or whatever it is you're giving a longer "shelf-life" remain unaffected by the radioisotope, or even the alpha,beta,or gamma rays it releases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 it de-natures critical DNA structures in the living organism(s) that cause the decay. in effect, renders the product sterile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urza Posted March 22, 2005 Author Share Posted March 22, 2005 and what of the fruit, does its DNA also de-nature, leaving it sterile, or is it somehow unaffected? is so , then how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted March 22, 2005 Share Posted March 22, 2005 it is also rendered sterile (non of the seeds would ever grow). consider it similar to pasteurising milk, the milk`s just as good as before, but without the harmfull pathogens, only difference is that iradiated food doesn`t get HOT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now