What are the scientific objections to the Deep Earth Reactor theory?
Wednesday, August 11th, 2010 at
5:06 PM
I have read in multiple sources that the heat produced in the interior of the Earth is the result of "natural radioactivity". Specifically from the decay of Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium isotopes. So my question is this: What other naturally occurring processes are there that convert radioactivity into heat OTHER than fission? Because if fission is the only known process that can do this, isn’t it likely that fission does indeed take place deep inside the Earth? If not the core than perhaps in the lower mantle.
Filed under: Potassium Diet
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
You’re confusing two different processes. To a reasonable degree radioactivity can be seen as simply the emission of energy, even when a particle is actually emitted the principle is the same. A release of a radioactive particle will cause adjacent particles to vibrate more (i.e become more energetic) and the result of this increased movement is heat. When people refer to radioactive heating of the Earth that is what they are referring to, the addition of energy in the form of radiation from unstable isotopes to the Earth.
Fission does not convert radioactivity into heat, it splits an atom to release energy and it requires very specific isotopes to do so, the only known current ones being U-235, U-233 and Pu-239, the latter two of these being synthetic isotopes. It’s important to realise that splitting an atom to produce energy (and therefore heat) is very different from heating via natural decay. Interestingly however, when U-235 was in greater quantities in the crust it is perfectly feasible that large deposits could have become unstable and undergone fission. Given the relatively short half life of U-235 (700 million years) though, it’s very unlikely that it would be the internal heat source for the Earth through fission.