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.
Originally posted by woghd
A controlled nuke fits the requirement, but if that seems too drastic, there may be other avenues. I can't remember who said it, but another tsunami might be just the ticket. Whatever is done, it will have to be on that kind of scale.
Originally posted by aaa2500
Originally posted by woghd
A controlled nuke fits the requirement, but if that seems too drastic, there may be other avenues. I can't remember who said it, but another tsunami might be just the ticket. Whatever is done, it will have to be on that kind of scale.
The objective at this point is to preserve and support the remains of the reactor, because the further degredation of the core and it's containment-vessel will cause an environmental disaster and make controlling other reactors on the power plant impossible. How is that purpose achieved by using a 'controlled nuke'?
A 'nuke' is not a solution to every problem that plagues mankind.
Originally posted by woghd
You need to understand that the reactor(s) are *gone*. Forget about them. They are wasted. Nothing is going to be preserved.
We are presently dealing with an uncontrolled series of meltdowns. They may take 200 years or more spewing radiation because these bars cannot be removed.
Vaporizing the entire complex will stop this reaction as the particles of plutonium are separated. All that 200 years potential radiation will be neutralized.
This amount is thousands of times more than what will be released from a small field-level nuke. Try to understand that the nuke will not ignite the rods or anything like that, it's impossible. What it will do is vaporize them and separate and destroy the molecules.
Yes there will be fallout, but there is fallout anyway and by controlling the nuke, we can control where the fallout lands. In other words we can make sure that it goes where it will do no harm.
Originally posted by aaa2500
Originally posted by woghd
You need to understand that the reactor(s) are *gone*. Forget about them. They are wasted. Nothing is going to be preserved.
The reactors are not gone. 3 reactors have melted down, one containment vessel has a leak and 4 reactors spent fuel rods are melting. The key is to contain the reactors and the spent fuel. meltdown and containment is preferable to radiactive material being spread.
Originally posted by aaa2500
We are presently dealing with an uncontrolled series of meltdowns. They may take 200 years or more spewing radiation because these bars cannot be removed.
You don't need to remove them, you simply need to contain them like what was done at Chernobyl. the core won't actually continue down through the ground for more than 10-15 feet, before it disperses into many smaller puddles and start to cool... There will be damage to the environment and nearby water will be contaminated, but the radioactive material will be contained.
Originally posted by aaa2500
Vaporizing the entire complex will stop this reaction as the particles of plutonium are separated. All that 200 years potential radiation will be neutralized.
You are saying that several thousands of tons of highly enriched uranium can be blown up and simply disappear.
Originally posted by aaa2500
This amount is thousands of times more than what will be released from a small field-level nuke. Try to understand that the nuke will not ignite the rods or anything like that, it's impossible. What it will do is vaporize them and separate and destroy the molecules.
Except that is not how it works. Thousands of tons of radioactive material being burnt at high pressure and high temperature, water being sucked up into the mix and and then hundreds of tons of highly radioactive particles and water falling on the whole of japan, some of china and south Korea, and then reaching the jetstream... Great plan.
Originally posted by aaa2500
Yes there will be fallout, but there is fallout anyway and by controlling the nuke, we can control where the fallout lands. In other words we can make sure that it goes where it will do no harm.
You can't control anything that has to do with weather. The fact that the fallout will be 10-20 times Chernobyl and the atomic detonation will ensure that the fallout reaches the upper athmosphere, means that you don't get to control it. You can hope that some of it disperses it into the pacific, but other than that it's just stupidity. It doesn't matter where it lands, it will always do harm, regardless of where it lands, and for many generations. Even if the atomic detonation is so small that the radioactive material doesn't reach the upper athmosphere, it will still fall over the immediate area and an area several thousands of kilometres across.edit on 22-3-2011 by aaa2500 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Khaaaaaan!!
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b21905f5bf3b.jpg[/atsimg]
This is a concrete pump/hose assembly delivery system used in regular contruction. This is only an example, they come in all sizes (as in much bigger). I bet a bigger model could be positioned to get water right on those rods. And if they get irradiated all to hell get a hundred of them in a line and use them all . Small price to pay for an entire country.
Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
reply to post by Khaaaaaan!!
Is it possible to freeze the land and water around this area preventing as much rad. as possible from entering ground water and sea water.