Talk:Synroc

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Energy

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Claims edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

The article says

Synroc-based glass composite materials (GCM) combine the process 
and chemical flexibility of glass with the superior chemical 
durability of ceramics and can achieve higher waste loadings,.

I question whether ceramics have superior chemical durability to glass. I can see that a ceramic might have a higher waste load capacity, but I'm really dubious about the claim of superior chemical durability. However, I'm not a materials scientist, so I'm not quite ready to remove that claim. This also sound a bit ad-copy-ish.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 22:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Well, from glass we find Because obsidian is metastable at the Earth's surface (over time the glass becomes fine-grained mineral crystals), no obsidian has been found that is older than Cretaceous age. This breakdown of obsidian is accelerated by the presence of water. So it is plausible to me that glass can be less stable than ceramics. Paul Studier (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I suspect we won't find any ceramics older than the Cretaceous, either. Do we have a projected breakdown time for Synroc, for comparison? I don't see that in the article. By contrast, according to an article “Garbage In, Garbage Out” in Audobon Magazine (Sept/Oct 1998, referenced here) a glass bottle may take up to a million years to break down.

Not trying to be a pain in the anatomy; I just want us to be accurate.

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 15:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

From reference 1, Synroc is a particular kind of "Synthetic Rock", invented in 1978 by the late Professor Ted Ringwood of the Australian National University. It has since diversified, but generally speaking is an advanced ceramic comprising geochemically stable natural titanate minerals which have immobilised uranium and thorium for billions of years. So The World Nuclear Association thinks that it can be stable for billions of years. I think igneous rocks in general can be considered ceramics. Paul Studier (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good enough for me! I've yanked my "dubious--discuss" tag.

Thanks,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 16:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic