It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Japan to propose 'nuking' the 6x Reactors and Facility

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:33 AM
link   
I seriously can't comprehend how this playing card isn't at least on the table now. Given 3x Reactors have gone into 'China-Syndrome' and would radiate more Radioactive materials over years to come, than a simple nuke would in vapourising all the plant and materials in one go. Thermonuclear/Hydrogen tests many times larger than what i'm showing you in the video were carried out in the Pacific and Mainland USA hundreds of times. Japan has recovered twice from being hit from 2 Trinity sized bombs.
The area is already devastated, and 42 million alone in Tokyo WILL be affected by the radiation currently spewing from the plant under 500 tonnes of molten core material. Wait until the winds blow offshore again, evac EVERYONE and just pull the red button already.

www.youtube.com...




posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:41 AM
link   
And a nuclear explosion would NOT detonate the tonnes of "waste" material how?

No really, think about this one for a while ok?



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by RUDDD
 


Maybe because that idea is retarded? Nuke the plant? Seriously? That guarantees radioactive material will be spread into the upper atmosphere. And, unlike hollywood movies would have you believe, stuff at the epicenter of a nuclear blast isn't instantly vaporized, it's blown to bits. Hell the test tower at the trinity site was still standing after the explosion.

So not only are you putting radioactive particulate into the atmosphere and spreading fallout, you're also potentially blasting radioactive bits of the rods and cores ALL OVER, which in turn spread more radiation.

That's a horribly bad idea, fight a nuclear disaster by nuking it.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:45 AM
link   
In a nuclear explosion your creating critical mass from 2 SEPERATE elements by radiating them using a prism of mirrors in the bombs core (detonated by internal explosions around these elements to fuse them together in order to achieve critical mass.)

Anything outside this, sand, stone, nuclear material, or otherwise simply gets vapourised because of the kinetic heat being released INTERNALLY from the bomb. external radioactive materials don't create critical mass from a external source, like everything else, it gets vapourised.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:49 AM
link   
Maths for retards.

Radioactive material + radioactive material = lots and lots and lots of radioactive material.

Question

If the heat from a thermonuclear explosion is able to vaporize the radioactive material in a nuclear power plant, where does it's own radiation come from and why is it too not simply vaporized?
edit on 15-3-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
HAH! lOVE IT! Nuke a nuclear power plant, Does anyone have any idea what the weild of that would be?....Multiple chain reactions and at least 6 inner explosions creating seperate unstable vacuums of air ON an allready unstable tectonic plate
Christ, itd either abliterate Japan or tear the earth. *puts head in hands*



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I should also point out that this thread is titled:

"Japan to propose 'nuking' the 6x Reactors and Facility"

But is merely 1 dude asking why this isn't an option. I'm not sure if there is a rule about misleading titles, but if there is, this should fit the bill.

p.s. sand doesn't get vaporized it gets fused into glass:

Trinitite
=================
Lets reiterate, hopefully people actually read this

A nuclear bomb and a nuclear reactor are 2 different things using 2 different processes. You can NOT make a nuclear reactor explode in a nuclear explosion like a bomb, that's not how it works. What you will do is destroy any containment, expose and damage the rods, which can potentially spark explosions and fires, but these will not be nuclear blasts.

So no, it's not a chain reaction of nuking a reactor that then nukes something, that's not how it works. Nuking the site would increase the problem dramatically.

edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)


Nuclear_explosion



A nuclear explosion occurs as a result of the rapid release of energy from an intentionally high-speed nuclear reaction. The driving reaction may be nuclear fission, nuclear fusion or a multistage cascading combination of the two, though to date all fusion based weapons have used a fission device to initiate fusion, and a pure fusion weapon remains a hypothetical device. Atmospheric nuclear explosions are associated with mushroom clouds, although mushroom clouds can occur with large chemical explosions, and it is possible to have an air-burst nuclear explosion without these clouds. Nuclear explosions produce radiation and radioactive debris.


Radiation



In physics, radiation describes a process in which energetic particles or waves travel through a medium or space.


Radioactive




Radioactive decay is the process by which an atomic nucleus of an unstable atom loses energy by emitting ionizing particles (ionizing radiation). The emission is spontaneous, in that the atom decays without any interaction with another particle from outside the atom (i.e., without a nuclear reaction). Usually, radioactive decay happens due to a process confined to the nucleus of the unstable atom, but occasionally (as with the different processes of electron capture and internal conversion) an inner electron of the radioactive atom is also necessary to the process.

edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)


PhysicsOfFission




Nuclear Fission energy is released when a very heavy atomic nucleus absorbs a neutron and splits into two lighter fragments. The energy release in this process is enormous. It is 10 million times greater than the energy released when one atom of carbon from a fossil fuel is burned.


nuclearbomb.html




The plutonium is unstable, or radioactive. Its atoms are constantly 'falling apart', breaking up into smaller elements that are more stable. Every time one nucleus does this, it releases the extra energy it no longer needs to hold it together, as well as a few left-over neutrons. This energy, and the escaping neutrons, is what we describe as the radiation being emitted from the radioactive plutonium. This energy and flow of escaping neutrons can damage human cells, so radioactivity is dangerous. Enough atoms in the chunk of plutonium are breaking down at any one time to make the chunk of plutonium warm up, but not enough to be considered an explosion.



edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by phishyblankwaters
 


Wellll it depends really, It could happen given the right circumstances At the very least radioactive material would be spread dramatically and the crator left would have a half-life of a few thousand years



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   
reply to post by TedHodgson
 


no a nuclear bomb can not create a nuclear bomb out of a reactor, or radioactive material. It would spread the contamination far and wide, but would not create a chain reaction of nuclear blasts. It could indeed cause radioactive particulate explosions if exposing the rods to the air, but this isn't the same as a nuclear bomb as outlined in the links i provided above.

In any event we can all agree it would possibly be the worst course of action right now.




The basic difference is that in a nuclear reactor, the nuclear chain reaction is kept at a level to be just barely self-sustaining. In a bomb, the chain reaction accelerates madly until the energy produces causes the assembly to fly apart. The distinction is exactly analogous to the difference between gasoline burning in a car engine and a molotov cocktail.
Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.


With a nuclear weapon, an initial explosion is used to compress the nuclear material to critical mass. At this point, it will explode releasing massive amounts of energy in the form of a nuclear explosion. Within a nuclear power plant there is simply no way to bring the material to critical mass.

This is why reactors don't explode, they are controlled and held at barely sustainable reaction using graphite to pick up extra neutrinos. For the material to create the uncontrolled chain reaction we call a nuclear explosion, the material has to be packed intensely tight for the particles to continue the reaction of particles decaying.

Let me summarize badly:

In a bomb, the radioactive material used is decaying at the atomic level. So atom1 decays and releases a bunch of neutrinos. Those neutrinos will smash into other atoms (because the material is packed tightly to critical mass) in turn making them decay and release more neutrinos which in turn hit more atoms and the chain reaction is a go. Each time an atom decays some of it's mass is converted into energy (the blast).

This is nuclear fission for bombs and power plants. Because a power plant needs to be controlled, the material isn't compressed to critical mass, it's sent through large amounts of fissile material to increase it's chances of hitting an atom.

The compression is the key and the material used at most power plants simply isn't good for bombs, it's needs to be highly enriched (98% for uranium) then compressed with conventional explosives to reach critical mass, ensuring the neutrino will hit another atom.

Since the fuel at a reactor isn't compressed to critical mass, AND neutrinos are captured using graphite, a nuclear chain reaction explosion isn't possible, regardless of how many nukes you dump on it.
edit on 15-3-2011 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Maths for retards.

Radioactive material + radioactive material = lots and lots and lots of radioactive material.

Question

If the heat from a thermonuclear explosion is able to vaporize the radioactive material in a nuclear power plant, where does it's own radiation come from and why is it too not simply vaporized?
edit on 15-3-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)


When you nuke a reactor, you use the reactor's fuel as fissile material in addition to the nuclear weapon and use it all up increasing the nuclear weapon yield. This not only increases weapon yield but it also uses up all nuclear fuel in the reactor so that it will not spread. So it is actually pretty ingenious.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Isn't uranium vapourized during certain methods of enrichment (AVLIS)? Does it automagically become non-radioactive? No. Vapourization would achieve nothing and would only serve to make the problem a million times worse.

AVLIS
edit on 15-3-2011 by quackers because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:10 AM
link   
It is defiantly an option worth exploring. It sounds like they are just pumping raw sea water in to stop a meltdown, which would be leaking back into the sea as the seals are gone by the sounds of it. No matter what is done this stuff is already an environmental disaster, now it is just a matter of how much. I have heard of nukes the size of a hand grenade that can take out a battleship, have something like this right next to the rods may help neutralise some of the harmful effects. If the bomb is too small you will just end up with a dirty bomb and make matters worst, if the bomb is too large then there there is excessive collateral damage. Perhaps there are other types of ordnance that could also be employed, not sure.

The problem does sound like one of those sticky band aids. Do you pull it of quickly in one short burst or go slowly and really drag out the suffering? It will really come down to what the professionals in the area know about the issue and ways to shut it down. As a plan B it should be on the table and preparations under way. If no other valid options present themselves quickly then something has to be done. I have not fully researched this area, but a nuclear weapon does appear less harmful in the long term than a nuclear meltdown.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by quackers
Isn't uranium vavourized during certain methods of enrichment (AVLIS)? Does it automagically become non-radioactive? No. Vapourization would achieve nothing and would only serve to make the problem a million times worse.


Once again with nuking it they don't plan on 'burning' it and vaporizing the uranium. They plan to use the nuclear bomb to set off a chain reaction and cause the uranium fuel to undergo nuclear fission and using itself up before spreading.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:13 AM
link   
Why are people disputing this? I'm no nuclear engineer but I've heard of this before. I don't know how it works and really don't care just as long as it works.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 





When you nuke a reactor, you use the reactor's fuel as fissile material in addition to the nuclear weapon and use it all up increasing the nuclear weapon yield.



no you don't because the reactor material isn't at critical mass and can not sustain a chain reaction.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:18 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


But is it even possible? The heat from a nuclear blast would far exceed the vapourization point of uranuim by a couple of thousand degrees so would it cause a chain reaction or would it simply vapourize whatever fuel is there? Just sound like a bit like trying to put out a chip pan fire using rocket fuel.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:22 AM
link   
This comes from watching all these stupid Hollywood movies where always at the end the last option is simply nuking the problem (no matter what kind of problem it is) and magically everything is ok again afterwards. The american way of solving every kind of problem: Just nuke it.

It is frightening to see that people actually believe such BS.
edit on 15-3-2011 by prof7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   
What about a neutron bomb, if they currently exist? That would cause all the fuel in the rods to get used up. Just throwing some ideas out there.



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:29 AM
link   
This method wouldnt work as well as some might hope.I believe that there is too much material to be totally vapourised, as well as the chance that if total fission was achieved with the nuke setting off the fissile materials at the complex, wed have the mother of all nuclear explosions.
remember the spent fuel rods stored in a pool above the reactor?
Theres ten yrs worth of them underwater just cooling.This material would make the dirtiest bomb of all....there is materials form 6 reactors stored in these cooling pools.
The whole island could be affected by earthquakes started by a nuke explosion as well.......



posted on Mar, 15 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by stirling
 


With all that spent fuel nearby you are right, very messy situation. It is not weapon grade stuff so would not be a massive bang if it got caught up in the chain reaction, but still a lot their and would be a big explosion to vaporize and avoid it going dirty. It would be easier to move the spent fuel rather than the active fuel and take that out of the equation.

Is there some other way to help stop this reaction, what about freezing the active rods to near absolute zero? It would slow them down a bit.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join