Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Like we didn't see with a hundred or so atmospheric tests? Dozens more underground tests? Underwater tests? Two atmospheric detonations in wartime?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.
There is no comparison. There's also, NO precident for answering. It's a variable, a scary one I agree.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.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.
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!
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.Yes, PLEASE no more nuking of anything...
Like we didn't see with a hundred or so atmospheric tests? Dozens more underground tests? Underwater tests? Two atmospheric detonations in wartime?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.
I did agree with the first three words of your post, however. You've made that much quite obvious.
Alarmist speculation. With nothing at all to back it up.That is correct. And solution you propose would make the situation many magnitudes worse, and create a crisis worldwide.
When you cherry pick your definitions, it almost makes you look intelligent!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.
Is in context. Thanks for playing though. Also, Vaporize does NOT mean the same thing. That's a conversion, not a reduction.2. to reduce to fine particles or spray.
It wasn't a statement of your intellect. It was a statement of whether you can USE it or not. So far, looks nil.Like we didn't see with a hundred or so atmospheric tests? Dozens more underground tests? Underwater tests? Two atmospheric detonations in wartime?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.
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.
Actually? No. Explosions put out fires.
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.When you cherry pick your definitions, it almost makes you look intelligent!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.
Is in context. Thanks for playing though. Also, Vaporize does NOT mean the same thing. That's a conversion, not a reduction.2. to reduce to fine particles or spray.
Bullshit and you know it.
Both atomize and vaporize share the exact same meaning in their primary definitions.
We know from testing and using nukes in war time, the fallout is predictable, goes with the wind.
You being butthurt does not alter the state of anyone else, except in your deluded mind.Actually? No. Explosions put out fires.
explosions also cause fires, you are looking increasingly like the world's most narcissistic moron.
I don't take it seriously, read the thread title again.
It's just a exercise. Mental gymnastics.
I'm not.... I'm just wondering which would be worse. The potential here is extreme if it continues to deteriorate.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.
Who said it was?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.....
There is no comparison. There's also, NO precident for answering. It's a variable, a scary one I agree.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!
Four Chernobyl's possible in Japan. Who can predict?I'm not.... I'm just wondering which would be worse. The potential here is extreme if it continues to deteriorate.*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.
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.
I'm not.... I'm just wondering which would be worse. The potential here is extreme if it continues to deteriorate.*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.
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.