Please talk me down out of the crazy tree on this, BUT...

[Midnight Marauder]

I thought the unthinkable earlier today, and thinking on it some more, It's starting to sound like a possible viable solution to the Japan meltdown problem, but it's so horrible to contemplate it's, well, unthinkable, like I said.

And of course there is NO way it would even, ever be considered, probably never brought up either, even in whispers. BUT... The idea is:

Clearing every living thing out of the area for at least 100 mile radius... Making sure that is so.... Then.... With their cooperation and permission...

Using a tactical nuclear weapon to vaporize the reactor site. Nuking Japan, again. It's almost too horrible to contemplate.

BUT, everything on the site would be vaporized and just, gone. The fallout wouldn't be much worse than Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were FAR less dangerous than this nuclear power site is and has potential to be.

We would launch from a submarine, when all conditions are right. Strong wind out of the Southwest, Jet Stream in right position, evacuations confirmed.

Between us and the Soviets and China, hundreds of nukes and H-bombs have been detonated in atmosphere. Dozens more, in the ocean and under ground. We're all still here. Virtually NO harmful effect. Certainly not anything like the harm this plant can possibly do.

Again, please talk me out of this?

 

[skeptic]

There are zero upsides, and doing so would actually make things much, much, much worse.

The biggest danger in Japan is that 6 reactors, all of which are 30+ years old and which are laden with 30 years of nuclear waste and contamination would explode and send that contamination into the upper atmosphere.

Nuking the plant would destroy very little of that radiation. But it would spread it magnificently.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There are zero upsides, and doing so would actually make things much, much, much worse.

The biggest danger in Japan is that 6 reactors, all of which are 30+ years old and which are laden with 30 years of nuclear waste and contamination would explode and send that contamination into the upper atmosphere.

Nuking the plant would destroy very little of that radiation. But it would spread it magnificently.

To where?

Same place 100+ atmospheric detonations went?

The site would be vaporized. Fissionable material, vaporized. It would go into atmosphere and be carried off into the ocean by the winds.

I'm not talking using a H-Bomb, or even one of our big ones. Just a mid-sized tactical nuke. No massive mushroom cloud, just enough destructive power to clear the site and carry the particulates off into the ocean we've also detonated warheads in dozens of times.

Compared to the damage this plant has the potential to do?

You haven't given this much thought.

 

[Ravi]

This sounds as retarded as calls to nuke the oil spill.

 

[Mini 14]

The same thought has crossed my mind, but I just can't come up with any way to effectively control the blast and the fallout. Japan isn't a big country. I think the risk is too great.

Now if this were in Siberia.....maybe...

I'm watching the helicopters dumping water. This is for show, because I don't believe that is going to make a difference at all. They are doing it to make people think they are doing all they can. It is like putting a band-aid on a severed leg. I suppose I would try it too, but take a look at it if you get the chance. Maybe its just me, but that doesn't seem worth the risk....not at all.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This sounds as retarded as calls to nuke the oil spill.

I never heard any of those. That IS retarded. This? Think about the difference between the potential harm this plant can do, and the known quantity of a atmospheric nuclear detonation.

 

[skeptic]

just because something is vaporized does not mean it isn't still intact atoms. In this case radioactive atoms like cesium 137 and iodine 131, or worse, plutonium isotopes.

The gasoline in your carburator is vaporized. It is still volatile gasoline.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

The same thought has crossed my mind, but I just can't come up with any way to effectively control the blast and the fallout. Japan isn't a big country. I think the risk is too great.

They would have to have a good, strong, sustained SW wind.

 

[dilloduck]

I'd have to check with Eots,Terral and Old Rocks first but I like the idea of a clean slate IF it would really clean it.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

just because something is vaporized does not mean it isn't still intact atoms. In this case radioactive atoms like cesium 137 and iodine 131, or worse, plutonium isotopes.

We can CONTROL or at least reasonably predict, where this material will end up.

Now? Later when it gets worse? You can't.

The gasoline in your carburator is vaporized. It is still volatile gasoline.

It's NOT vaporized, it is atomized. Big difference. Please study.

And who the hell besides NASCAR still uses carburetors?

 

[Mini 14]

This sounds as retarded as calls to nuke the oil spill.

I never heard any of those. That IS retarded. This? Think about the difference between the potential harm this plant can do, and the known quantity of a atmospheric nuclear detonation.

The Russians have successfully used nuclear weapons to seal wells on several occasions. It sounds crazy, but it works.

The problem in the Gulf was the depth. Otherwise, it would have been the solution.

 

[RadiomanATL]

There are zero upsides, and doing so would actually make things much, much, much worse.

The biggest danger in Japan is that 6 reactors, all of which are 30+ years old and which are laden with 30 years of nuclear waste and contamination would explode and send that contamination into the upper atmosphere.

Nuking the plant would destroy very little of that radiation. But it would spread it magnificently.

To where?

Same place 100+ atmospheric detonations went?

The site would be vaporized. Fissionable material, vaporized. It would go into atmosphere and be carried off into the ocean by the winds.

I'm not talking using a H-Bomb, or even one of our big ones. Just a mid-sized tactical nuke. No massive mushroom cloud, just enough destructive power to clear the site and carry the particulates off into the ocean we've also detonated warheads in dozens of times.

Compared to the damage this plant has the potential to do?

You haven't given this much thought.

Except that you are adding a whole lot more fissile material from the reactors into the detonation than any other nuke test has ever done before, as far as I can tell.

 

[Ravi]

There are zero upsides, and doing so would actually make things much, much, much worse.

The biggest danger in Japan is that 6 reactors, all of which are 30+ years old and which are laden with 30 years of nuclear waste and contamination would explode and send that contamination into the upper atmosphere.

Nuking the plant would destroy very little of that radiation. But it would spread it magnificently.

To where?

Same place 100+ atmospheric detonations went?

The site would be vaporized. Fissionable material, vaporized. It would go into atmosphere and be carried off into the ocean by the winds.

I'm not talking using a H-Bomb, or even one of our big ones. Just a mid-sized tactical nuke. No massive mushroom cloud, just enough destructive power to clear the site and carry the particulates off into the ocean we've also detonated warheads in dozens of times.

Compared to the damage this plant has the potential to do?

You haven't given this much thought.

Except that you are adding a whole lot more fissile material from the reactors into the detonation than any other nuke test has ever done before, as far as I can tell.

Yep...in all likely hood it would be like throwing gasoline onto a fire.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

There are zero upsides, and doing so would actually make things much, much, much worse.

The biggest danger in Japan is that 6 reactors, all of which are 30+ years old and which are laden with 30 years of nuclear waste and contamination would explode and send that contamination into the upper atmosphere.

Nuking the plant would destroy very little of that radiation. But it would spread it magnificently.

To where?

Same place 100+ atmospheric detonations went?

The site would be vaporized. Fissionable material, vaporized. It would go into atmosphere and be carried off into the ocean by the winds.

I'm not talking using a H-Bomb, or even one of our big ones. Just a mid-sized tactical nuke. No massive mushroom cloud, just enough destructive power to clear the site and carry the particulates off into the ocean we've also detonated warheads in dozens of times.

Compared to the damage this plant has the potential to do?

You haven't given this much thought.

Except that you are adding a whole lot more fissile material from the reactors into the detonation than any other nuke test has ever done before, as far as I can tell.

More than the BIG H-Bombs?

I know, lots of variables in this particular equation.

 

[Mini 14]

just because something is vaporized does not mean it isn't still intact atoms. In this case radioactive atoms like cesium 137 and iodine 131, or worse, plutonium isotopes.

We can CONTROL or at least reasonably predict, where this material will end up.

Now? Later when it gets worse? You can't.

The gasoline in your carburator is vaporized. It is still volatile gasoline.

It's NOT vaporized, it is atomized. Big difference. Please study.

And who the hell besides NASCAR still uses carburetors?

I don't see any way to control the fallout? That to me is the big hurdle. If you can, go for it....but if you aren't 100% sure, I think its best to let the thing meltdown and filter out over the ocean.

Also......I have a holley carb on my 351W, sitting in a 72 Bronco Sport.

LOVE it!!!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

To where?

Same place 100+ atmospheric detonations went?

The site would be vaporized. Fissionable material, vaporized. It would go into atmosphere and be carried off into the ocean by the winds.

I'm not talking using a H-Bomb, or even one of our big ones. Just a mid-sized tactical nuke. No massive mushroom cloud, just enough destructive power to clear the site and carry the particulates off into the ocean we've also detonated warheads in dozens of times.

Compared to the damage this plant has the potential to do?

You haven't given this much thought.

Except that you are adding a whole lot more fissile material from the reactors into the detonation than any other nuke test has ever done before, as far as I can tell.

Yep...in all likely hood it would be like throwing gasoline onto a fire.

Actually? No. Explosions put out fires. This one would carry the radioactive materials away from Japan, and into the ocean.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

just because something is vaporized does not mean it isn't still intact atoms. In this case radioactive atoms like cesium 137 and iodine 131, or worse, plutonium isotopes.

We can CONTROL or at least reasonably predict, where this material will end up.

Now? Later when it gets worse? You can't.

The gasoline in your carburator is vaporized. It is still volatile gasoline.

It's NOT vaporized, it is atomized. Big difference. Please study.

And who the hell besides NASCAR still uses carburetors?

I don't see any way to control the fallout? That to me is the big hurdle. If you can, go for it....but if you aren't 100% sure, I think its best to let the thing meltdown and filter out over the ocean.

We know from testing and using nukes in war time, the fallout is predictable, goes with the wind.

 

[skeptic]

just because something is vaporized does not mean it isn't still intact atoms. In this case radioactive atoms like cesium 137 and iodine 131, or worse, plutonium isotopes.

We can CONTROL or at least reasonably predict, where this material will end up.

Now? Later when it gets worse? You can't.

The gasoline in your carburator is vaporized. It is still volatile gasoline.

It's NOT vaporized, it is atomized. Big difference. Please study.

And who the hell besides NASCAR still uses carburetors?

vaporized and atomized mean the exact same thing.

Adj. 1. vaporized - converted into a gas or vapor

at·om·ize (t-mz)
tr.v. at·om·ized, at·om·iz·ing, at·om·iz·es
1. To reduce to or separate into atoms.

those atoms are still completely intact molecules of radioactive cesium, plutonium and iodine.

 

[skeptic]

To where?

Same place 100+ atmospheric detonations went?

The site would be vaporized. Fissionable material, vaporized. It would go into atmosphere and be carried off into the ocean by the winds.

I'm not talking using a H-Bomb, or even one of our big ones. Just a mid-sized tactical nuke. No massive mushroom cloud, just enough destructive power to clear the site and carry the particulates off into the ocean we've also detonated warheads in dozens of times.

Compared to the damage this plant has the potential to do?

You haven't given this much thought.

Except that you are adding a whole lot more fissile material from the reactors into the detonation than any other nuke test has ever done before, as far as I can tell.

Yep...in all likely hood it would be like throwing gasoline onto a fire.

or throwing a grenade onto a fire

 

[syrenn]

The problem with "nuking" the site is that it would blast the radioactive material high into the atmosphere. That is a great danger as it would be picked up by the get stream. As it is now the contamination is more less contained to the immediate area.

What the need to so is sandbag it. Totally bury it.