Radiation evidence in Volcanic lava

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by river, Jan 10, 2018.

  1. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    And the answer is no, not anymore so than your average rock.
    Because the type of radioactive decay that you'd be looking for is from isotopes with very long lifetimes. Thus there would be an insignificant drop in radioactivity levels during the time it took for the lave to cool. This also means that the lava flow would remain radioactive for long periods after the eruption which would have a noticeable effect on vegetation near the boundaries of the flow. Nothing of the type has ever been noted around lava flows.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    But the vegetation could have adapted to radiation .

    Anyway here's my point in the end , finally , I imagine for many of you ;

    If the Earth is heated from fission , or nuclear material , then the lava , from volcanic eruptions should hold proof of this theory . Lava should have some radioactivity associated with it .

    But if true Jan58 , as you say , vegetation would give us a signal that radioactivity is present in lava , then the conclusion is that , the heat in the core of the Earth is not nuclear driven .
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    The kind they put in books.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    • Please refer to other members using their chosen screen names.
    Empty response , not surprised .

    I rename you as gawdawful

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    Did you even read my earlier post? The total amount of radioactivity needed to provide the needed amount of heat (which is ~1/2 of the total Earth's heat source, the rest is residual heat left over from the Earth's formation) is actually really small when compared to the mass of the Earth. Thus no part of the Earth, core or mantle, has to be more radioactive than the crust of the Earth is on average. So even if all of that radioactivity were contained in the mantle (the source of lava), then lava would still be less radioactive than your average hunk of coal.

    Your whole premises that lava must have above normal levels of radioactivity for there to be a radioactive component to the interior heat source of the Earth is wrong.
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Why do you think that your calculations are correct ? And on what basis is your theory based ?
     
  10. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    They are based on:
    The value given for radioactive heating of 2e13 watts.
    The mass of the Earth.
    The known occurrence of U-238 in the Earth's crust.
    The known energy by the decay of a U-238 atom.
    The Known decay rate of U-238
    This info with information an equations obtained from Nuclear Radiation Physics by Ralph E. Lapp and Howard L. Andrews, makes it easy to calculate just how many U-238 atoms/sec/kilogram need to be decaying in the Earth to provide the above listed heating.
    Further, by using the known percentage of C-14 in naturally occurring carbon, and the known decay rate of C-14, it is easy to calculate how many C-14 atoms decay per sec per kg in naturally occurring and show that is a much higher number than you get for the Earth on average.

    This is not "my theory", this is purely the numbers speaking.

    Why is it so hard for you to just accept that you were mistaken with your initial premise?
     
  11. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    Hmmm....I read

    What makes you think , that simply asking in depth questions makes me mistaken ?

    Thanks for the info though .

    Lets just leave it here .
     
  12. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    Well, Jack Ass, you can call me anything.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    31,445
    Moderator note:

    Members are reminded that they are to refer to other members using their chosen screen names. The alteration of a user's name in order to disparage or insult may lead to an official warning, according to the terms of our site posting guidelines.
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,434
    Coal ash, just because it concentrates the minute amounts of uranium and thorium.
     
  15. Lookingfor... Registered Member

    Messages:
    43
    Do you mean radio activity? This is broadcast by television stations and relayed by satellites. There should be SOME present.
     
  16. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,332
    It certainly would, but slide 14 of the presentation I linked to said that radioactivity (by which I take it they mean elevated compared to other rocks) is commonly found in coal itself, not just in the ash from burning it.
     
  17. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    I apologize for not watching that video, but I'm currently working with one fully functional eye and the screen flickers too much for me.

    My question is: Where does the radioactive material go?
     
  18. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    26,873
    The standard explanation: As noted (previous post), uranium is water soluble from rock and binds to organic debris. So it concentrates - relatively speaking - in the mud of swamps etc. that are downhill from rocks containing it. That is the source material of coal, shale, etc. So some coal and shale beds have lots of uranium in them - to the point that some shale, the more highly compressed mud, is actually classified as uranium ore.
     
    exchemist likes this.
  19. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,332
    Yes indeed, thank you, I was just pointing out to Seattle we were not talking about coal ash. Clearly that will concentrate heavy metals even further, however.
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    11,058
    So , no lava from Volcanoes has no nuclear radiation because ?

    I have yet found no evidence as to why lava cooled or not should not have some residual radiation associated with it ?
     
  21. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801
    You have to so there is evidence, we don't have to prove a negative.
     
  22. Janus58 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,915
    That's not how it works. you are the one making a claim: That lava should show more than normal residual radiation(Everything has some level of radioactivity.).
    Thus you are the one that needs to provide evidence/arguments to support your case (The fact that you think it should is not an argument for it).
     

Share This Page