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

[RadiomanATL]

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.

H-bombs increase the size of the bang via tritium injected into the core at the moment of implosion. Not by using more fissile material.

In your scenario a whole lot more fissile material is being used. In an H-bomb, a larger bang injects a whole lot of vaporized material into the upper stratosphere and effectively away from living things. There it dissipates enough over all of the stratosphere before eventually falling back to earth.

In your scenario with a much, much smaller bang, all the nuclear material will not be spread out nearly as far, or nearly as high. Effectively it will turn a much larger area into a wasteland than if they just sat back and did nothing.

Just MO though.

 

[Ravi]

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.

AND they spew more particles into the air in the process.

This, I predict, will become the next big internet sensation...a stupid approach to a disaster that no one will take seriously except the people that normally don't think things through to the logical conclusion.

 

[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?

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.

When you cherry pick your definitions, it almost makes you look intelligent!

2. to reduce to fine particles or spray.

Is in context. Thanks for playing though. Also, Vaporize does NOT mean the same thing. That's a conversion, not a reduction.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

AND they spew more particles into the air in the process.

This, I predict, will become the next big internet sensation...a stupid approach to a disaster that no one will take seriously except the people that normally don't think things through to the logical conclusion.

I don't take it seriously, read the thread title again.

It's just a exercise. Mental gymnastics.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

AND they spew more particles into the air in the process.

This, I predict, will become the next big internet sensation...a stupid approach to a disaster that no one will take seriously except the people that normally don't think things through to the logical conclusion.

Fortunately the experts will handle it as BP did and we can move on to the next crisis that goes viral. May as well speculate. What the hell?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

H-bombs increase the size of the bang via tritium injected into the core at the moment of implosion. Not by using more fissile material.

In your scenario a whole lot more fissile material is being used. In an H-bomb, a larger bang injects a whole lot of vaporized material into the upper stratosphere and effectively away from living things. There it dissipates enough over all of the stratosphere before eventually falling back to earth.

In your scenario with a much, much smaller bang, all the nuclear material will not be spread out nearly as far, or nearly as high. Effectively it will turn a much larger area into a wasteland than if they just sat back and did nothing.

Just MO though.

Yes we would need a nuclear physicist, to tell what might happen to the fuel and the piles, of these reactors. It's definitely a scary variable.

 

[Ravi]

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

AND they spew more particles into the air in the process.

This, I predict, will become the next big internet sensation...a stupid approach to a disaster that no one will take seriously except the people that normally don't think things through to the logical conclusion.

I don't take it seriously, read the thread title again.

It's just a exercise. Mental gymnastics.

Did I say you did? Quite a guilty conscience you have.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

But.... Hundreds of nukes were detonated into the atmosphere during testing, dozens underwater and under ground. Two during wartime in Japan... The world is still here.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

AND they spew more particles into the air in the process.

This, I predict, will become the next big internet sensation...a stupid approach to a disaster that no one will take seriously except the people that normally don't think things through to the logical conclusion.

I don't take it seriously, read the thread title again.

It's just a exercise. Mental gymnastics.

Did I say you did? Quite a guilty conscience you have.

And I didn't say you did. So, back at'cha! I was merely letting you know. And I know it would give you a headache, to actually try to think about it beyond just knee-jerk. It's okay. It's predictable.

 

[RadiomanATL]

More than the BIG H-Bombs?

I know, lots of variables in this particular equation.

H-bombs increase the size of the bang via tritium injected into the core at the moment of implosion. Not by using more fissile material.

In your scenario a whole lot more fissile material is being used. In an H-bomb, a larger bang injects a whole lot of vaporized material into the upper stratosphere and effectively away from living things. There it dissipates enough over all of the stratosphere before eventually falling back to earth.

In your scenario with a much, much smaller bang, all the nuclear material will not be spread out nearly as far, or nearly as high. Effectively it will turn a much larger area into a wasteland than if they just sat back and did nothing.

Just MO though.

Yes we would need a nuclear physicist, to tell what might happen to the fuel and the piles, of these reactors. It's definitely a scary variable.

*shrug*

I think that they would probably give the same answer as I did, with a lot more geekisms thrown in.

But admittedly, I'm biased.

 

[Ravi]

I don't take it seriously, read the thread title again.

It's just a exercise. Mental gymnastics.

Did I say you did? Quite a guilty conscience you have.

And I didn't say you did. So, back at'cha! I was merely letting you know. And I know it would give you a headache, to actually try to think about it beyond just knee-jerk. It's okay. It's predictable.

Typical response when you've been called on your bullshit.

 

[dilloduck]

How about pouring a shit load of anti-matter on it ?

 

[zzzz]

Using a nuclear device to destroy nuclear fuel could increase the yield of the nuclear weapon considerably. You have to realize that in an nuclear warhead there is a very small amount of material that is used for the fission/fusion process. A nuclear plant posses a lot more basic radioactive material and the yield and fallout may balloon to unimaginable levels. All you have to do is look at the Castle Bravo test in 1954 to see what happens when you do not take into account other materials increasing yield and fallout.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Did I say you did? Quite a guilty conscience you have.

And I didn't say you did. So, back at'cha! I was merely letting you know. And I know it would give you a headache, to actually try to think about it beyond just knee-jerk. It's okay. It's predictable.

Typical response when you've been called on your bullshit.

Calling you back on yours? Yes, because you didn't read for comprehension and think your answer through, and left yourself wide open for the cheap zing!

You're fun to play with though, sorta like silly putty!

 

[xotoxi]

Again, please talk me out of this?

By asking us to talk you out of this, are you implying that you actually have the power to do this???

What kind of mod powers did Gunny give you? Atomic banhammer?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

H-bombs increase the size of the bang via tritium injected into the core at the moment of implosion. Not by using more fissile material.

In your scenario a whole lot more fissile material is being used. In an H-bomb, a larger bang injects a whole lot of vaporized material into the upper stratosphere and effectively away from living things. There it dissipates enough over all of the stratosphere before eventually falling back to earth.

In your scenario with a much, much smaller bang, all the nuclear material will not be spread out nearly as far, or nearly as high. Effectively it will turn a much larger area into a wasteland than if they just sat back and did nothing.

Just MO though.

Yes we would need a nuclear physicist, to tell what might happen to the fuel and the piles, of these reactors. It's definitely a scary variable.

*shrug*

I think that they would probably give the same answer as I did, with a lot more geekisms thrown in.

But admittedly, I'm biased.

I'm not.... I'm just wondering which would be worse. The potential here is extreme if it continues to deteriorate.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Again, please talk me out of this?

By asking us to talk you out of this, are you implying that you actually have the power to do this???

If you really believe that, sure!

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Using a nuclear device to destroy nuclear fuel could increase the yield of the nuclear weapon considerably. You have to realize that in an nuclear warhead there is a very small amount of material that is used for the fission/fusion process. A nuclear plant posses a lot more basic radioactive material and the yield and fallout may balloon to unimaginable levels. All you have to do is look at the Castle Bravo test in 1954 to see what happens when you do not take into account other materials increasing yield and fallout.

That wasn't due to the presence at the test site of extra fuel, there was none. It was a flaw in the bomb design.

Castle Bravo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Old Rocks]

I cannot think of a worse possible solution to this crisis. Using a nuke on it would waft huge amounts of radioactive isotopes into the stratosphere. Far higher than they would otherwise rise on just the thermal column from a reactor meltdown.

This would scatter the plutonium from the Mox cored reactor into the jet stream, gaurenteeing that there would be deaths from this in the US and everywhere downwind.

 

[zzzz]

Using a nuclear device to destroy nuclear fuel could increase the yield of the nuclear weapon considerably. You have to realize that in an nuclear warhead there is a very small amount of material that is used for the fission/fusion process. A nuclear plant posses a lot more basic radioactive material and the yield and fallout may balloon to unimaginable levels. All you have to do is look at the Castle Bravo test in 1954 to see what happens when you do not take into account other materials increasing yield and fallout.

That wasn't due to the presence at the test site of extra fuel, there was none. It was a flaw in the bomb design.

Castle Bravo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was due to not thinking through the process and the inert material became a booster to the yield and fallout. If you explode a nuclear device in the middle of a bunch of fuels rods what do you think is going to happen when the neutrons from the device start colliding with the atoms in the nuclear material!