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

[SMEERs]

Yes, PLEASE no more nuking of anything...

 

[Midnight Marauder]

We are talking about 44 million people in Tokyo area, metro and wards. If the wind stays out of the NE blowing this mess right towards them, I don't even want to think of the consequences.

Can a metro area that large be evacuated? If these reactors suddenly go Chernobyl, what will happen?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

Like we didn't see with a hundred or so atmospheric tests? Dozens more underground tests? Underwater tests? Two atmospheric detonations in wartime?

I did agree with the first three words of your post, however. You've made that much quite obvious.

 

[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

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!

There is no comparison. There's also, NO precident for answering. It's a variable, a scary one I agree.

 

[Old Rocks]

That is correct. And solution you propose would make the situation many magnitudes worse, and create a crisis worldwide.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Yes, PLEASE no more nuking of anything...

I agree with you. It's almost unthinkable. Hopefully it will never happen again in mankind's history. Certainly this event we're discussing, won't either. I'm not calling for it, just discussing it.

 

[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.

Like we didn't see with a hundred or so atmospheric tests? Dozens more underground tests? Underwater tests? Two atmospheric detonations in wartime?

I did agree with the first three words of your post, however. You've made that much quite obvious.

State whatever you wish concerning someone elses intellect. That does not change the fact that what you propose is stupid beyond belief.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

That is correct. And solution you propose would make the situation many magnitudes worse, and create a crisis worldwide.

Alarmist speculation. With nothing at all to back it up.

 

[skeptic]

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

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

Bullshit and you know it.

Both atomize and vaporize share the exact same meaning in their primary definitions.

And regardless of that nuclear bombs do not destroy atoms, they merely split them into two smaller atoms. Uranium 235 may become Uranium 233 and something else, but the radioactive material is generally not destroyed but multiplied.

Dude, your OP is grade school idiocy. It is the kind of stuff only kooks and clowns and terrorists think up. And of course it is 100% wrong.

Are you just a jerk off looking for attention in the form of an inane argument or are you too stupid to realize that you posted epic fail?

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

Like we didn't see with a hundred or so atmospheric tests? Dozens more underground tests? Underwater tests? Two atmospheric detonations in wartime?

I did agree with the first three words of your post, however. You've made that much quite obvious.

State whatever you wish concerning someone elses intellect. That does not change the fact that what you propose is stupid beyond belief.

It wasn't a statement of your intellect. It was a statement of whether you can USE it or not. So far, looks nil.

Reading for context isn't one of your strong suits.

 

[skeptic]

Actually? No. Explosions put out fires.

explosions also cause fires, you are looking increasingly like the world's most narcissistic moron.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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.

Bullshit and you know it.

Both atomize and vaporize share the exact same meaning in their primary definitions.

Context is key. I was NOT using the "primary definition" of atomize, in context. You got your ass handed to you, go put some salve on the lesions.

 

[skeptic]

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

and everybody knows that wind is 100% predictable.....

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Actually? No. Explosions put out fires.

explosions also cause fires, you are looking increasingly like the world's most narcissistic moron.

You being butthurt does not alter the state of anyone else, except in your deluded mind.

 

[skeptic]

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

It's just a exercise. Mental gymnastics.

...for the mentally disabled

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

Like I said, IMO it would spread a whole whole whole lot more radioactive material over a larger area. But unfortunately it wouldn't spread it out enough to make it non-harmful to humans. It wouldn't be a large enough explosion to get it high enough in the atmosphere in order to do that, like our other tests did.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

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

and everybody knows that wind is 100% predictable.....

Who said it was?

But it's alot more predictable than a Chernobyl-type episode with four reactors.

 

[zzzz]

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!

There is no comparison. There's also, NO precident for answering. It's a variable, a scary one I agree.

My point is that a nuclear solution is not viable and therefore is mute. There are only 2 ways to solve the problem. Cooling the pile down or the Russian solution; entomb it in concrete! The Russian solution cost many brave human beings their lives and it will cost the Japanese dearly too and the continuousness threat of the entombed vault being breached by another earthquake will always be present.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

*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.

Like I said, IMO it would spread a whole whole whole lot more radioactive material over a larger area. But unfortunately it wouldn't spread it out enough to make it non-harmful to humans. It wouldn't be a large enough explosion to get it high enough in the atmosphere in order to do that, like our other tests did.

Four Chernobyl's possible in Japan. Who can predict?

NO radiation ever came to our shores, over nuclear detonations in atmosphere. Radiation DID come to our shores, from Chernobyl.

 

[dilloduck]

*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.

Like I said, IMO it would spread a whole whole whole lot more radioactive material over a larger area. But unfortunately it wouldn't spread it out enough to make it non-harmful to humans. It wouldn't be a large enough explosion to get it high enough in the atmosphere in order to do that, like our other tests did.

How about a nuke with a shaped charge full of anti-matter ?