It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Solutions to assist Japan. FROM OUT OF BOX THINKERS.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:43 PM
I wonder if they could build a mote type of enclosure with debris and bulldozers. Then, dig a well with a new gas generator pumps. Maybe several wells and pumps. If there is a river near by, dig a route to the river and have the river run to the facility. Apparently at this point contaminated water run off is not of major concern.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:52 PM
If the rods are creating heat through nuclear fission you need to absorb the excess nuetrons and slow
the reaction.(with boron ( toxic)or graphite i think) .. I would maybe dump a powdered lead slurry into it( toxic)but the lead would act as shielding between rods and anything melting absorbs heat energy

whales &dolphins :

fill it with the carcasses of evil whales and dolphins.....

edit on 17-3-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 04:53 PM
Option 1. Nuke the plant. Neutron Bomb or something. Like pulling off a bandaid, itll be bad for for a short time, most of the fissile material would be destroyed.
Option 2. Giant dome, ala BP Gulf disaster. Drop giant reinforced domes over the reactors to contain the fissile material from open atmosphere.
Option 3. Blast a channel or canal to flood the facility.
Option 4 Drop thousands of tons of dry ice. The vapor should stay close to the ground.
Option 5. Godzilla
Option 6. Organize the military to drop sand and cement nonstop 24/7 till the plant in under a mountain of concrete.
Option 7. Salt rain clouds to rain down the airborne fissile material before it hits population centers abroad or otherwise..

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:10 PM
After watching the choppers try to pour water into the buildings, you could see it was not that easy because of the wind and the ammount of water.
To try to lower the temperature you need a constant source of water, more water that that of a firefight truck.

What you could use is some of those water cannons they used to try to extinguish the BP platform. Those were ships with thick metal walls, prepared for high temperatures and a lot more power than the trucks they sent. They have the means to launch a lot of water constantly and fairly away from the reactors.

I've seen how fast the guys at mythbusters have addapted radio controlls to use a car, they can do the same thing with a boat and the cannon. Cmon, this is the japanese we are talking about!
They are the masters of robots

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 05:20 PM
reply to post by sugarcookie1

Cement doesn't fix the problem. Same thing happened in Chernobyl, they built a sarcophagus of concrete and steel, and some years later they had to build another one. The temperature and the radioactive materials rust the concrete and steel.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:10 PM
i dont know if anyone mentioned dry ice yet?? maybe keep water going in there but at the same time add dry ice to the mixture?? i dont know, just a thought

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:21 PM
reply to post by rubbertramp

This would not work as the fire fighting foam is designed to smother a fire (taking away the oxygen needed to burn). It would not cool the reactors down, and would not stop a meltdown.

They are doing the right thing just now, keep it as cool as possible with what is available. The best they can do in the near future is get the cooling systems that where damaged back up and running. I believe I read something about the new generators are on site now.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:25 PM
reply to post by Jechu

it wouldn't fix the problem permanently but it would be better than whats going on right now

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:40 PM
We have modified C130s we use for firefighting purposes. We need to bury the reaction in sand and concrete like they did at Chernobyl. Fitting a few C130s or similar planes to carry sand/concrete instead of water or flame retardant like they usually carry would enable the pilots to make fewer trips into the hell mouth. Little helicopters aren't doing it. It's like dropping a piece of driveway gravel into the Grand Canyon one at a time and expecting to fill it up. The pilots of course would have to realize it is probably a suicide mission, but I am sure we would find pilots willing to give their lives for literally millions and maybe the entire planet.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 06:44 PM
At this point, I think a good option might be to blast a huge hole underneath the reactor with a series of missiles fired from the sea and just let the whole thing sink down into the Earth's magma. Uranium and Plutonium naturally will sink to the center of the Earth, given the chance. Yeah, things could go wrong.

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

I have been reviewing the events that are unfolding at the Fukushima Daiichi facility and I have always had concern about storage of spent fuel rods next to the reactors. The design and the close proximity of the reactor vessels, coupled with the use of the basins for storage of spent fuel rods, may in fact have lead to a unified fission reaction. Essentially the reactors begin to feed off each other through conductive spent fuel rods. The spent fuel rods contain great potential and are highly unstable. Under these circumstances, they act as a catalyst to the reaction. If I am correct these reactors are fast approaching the point of no return. If containment is not started in the next .. hours, you will see cascading increases in output, followed by systematic meltdown as coolant becomes irrelevant. This is of course followed by thermonuclear detonation. Not in months, in ….. Regardless, population irradiation is almost a given at this point.

Given that land transportation to site is too restrictive, I suggest you declare Force Majeur, and Seize/recall all Japanese vessels operating within a 2 day sail of Japan.
Select whatever vessels that are appropriate to fast discharge concrete, or can deck load rolling concrete pump trucks, or have water pumping capabilities, or electrical generation.

Container vessels should be used to back up emergency power to the grid.

The remainder should begin orderly evacuating by sea until the threat is over.

Make all haste to load as much concrete, and all the available lead, cadmium, carbon fiber, and ground steel from scrap automobiles to act as sacrificial elements.

Establish a beach head at the reactor facility; if necessary beach the vessels at high tide.

Fill the containment pools through overhead conveyance with sacrificial metals, follow quickly with concrete.

Have crews dredge a channel to direct seawater in direct surf exposure to the reactors, use explosives if necessary.

Crews should be rotated out of exposure range by helicopter, in 30 min intervals, and I recommend the use of small doses of sub Micronic gold for immediate radiation therapy.

We depend on your success, and mourn for your losses,

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:17 PM
So I was thinking about using some sort of cooling gel/paste instead of water as well, apart from that and cherishable money contributions from the UK and other countries ,I got this out of the box idea: Seal it all down in a dome. It took several days for the multiple reactors to blow and one is still up, why were there no radical prevention measures taken before or during the first disasterous impact. With our current technological progress I see a trappucino scenario coming quite handy. Seal it all up and from now on, build something around the nuclear reactors, why are they just sort of open air according to the photographs, wouldn't it be a good idea to also cover them up, make theem at least appear more indoor? With some good isolation and perhaps led framework, the contamination could be cut down dramatically. If we choose nuclear energy because it's more rewarding at this stage, why not invest a little more into safety measures. So think dome,-out.
not too great to have some nuclear reactors blow by the seaside..

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:17 PM
reply to post by Ophiuchus 13

if i read about it right, a reaction between matter and anti-matter would result in an initial ,explosion/implosion, and that would be it. anti-matter passes through the earth all the time, but not at levels for us to take notice of with the naked eye, its happening on an atomic level. but with enough AM you could make it something we all could see

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:10 PM
Seriously, Look at picture 14. We could finish damming off that area of sea right in front of the reactors and with the largest bulldozers set up with remote control and hardened for the Rads shove the reactors in the darn water and then bring in pumps to replace the water as it evaporates.

This is the only idea that will One work and Two save the whole Island. The Sea will be fine if the barrier is made of enough earth. 91949734f1dc131

Every other idea would blow more Rads into the atmosphere and continue the disaster. They need to get moving with this idea before the molten material is to far into the ground to do anything.
edit on 17-3-2011 by Sky watcher because: (no reason given)

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:25 PM
how many people died when they first discovered fire?

wow! fire in the cave and block the entrance! nice and warm, we go to sleep.

something ain't right. i think we need a chimany. after how long?

same with nuke power. this is a learning experience.

let it melt down and bury the piss out of it so the magma doesn't surface.

but think of this, it is not hotter than magma so i think it would be no more dangerous than that.

it will get mixed in with the vastness and dispersed throughout the world.

i don't see it being a problem if we let it go.

who the hell knows what stuff is in there anyway? where do we get uranium? from the ground?

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:41 PM
reply to post by Sky watcher

Excuse my lack of knowledge with regard to this.. but is the steam generated from these rods radioactive ?>

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by Sky watcher

Like skywatcher said. Into the sea with it, then dredge drag bucket it right off the continental shelf.

Back to the mantle where it came from...

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 09:55 PM
wow some of these ideas are far out lol
Dry ice, icebergs, domes, liquid nitrogen ha-ha truly funny stuff i have been reading here lol...and this isnt all from new members just trolling pmsl
I think you should move this to jokes and puns as the quality of replies is anything but practical or serious imo

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:05 PM
construct a large lifting ballon and a ducted fan assembly for control
and construct a large box to lower over each reactor assembly
to contain the emition of particles
have a pressure release filtering system on it and surround in concrete


posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Ophiuchus 13
My idea-----

I seen one of the problems with one reactor or more was overheating and water loss. So is it possible to place a freezing agent with neutralizing material embedded within it on inside or cover reactors core with to freeze rods before they melt or catch fire? Like a liquid nitrogen type agent of some kind that will freeze everything preventing air contamination and ground contamination. I see like a freezing ooz or gel type mixture so it leaks into open areas and freezes everything to brittleness then after everything is frozen knock it all down in frozen parts and gather and remove...

I like you're thinking! I'm no physicist, and certainly know nothing of nuclear reactors, but I did read where the Russians dumped tons of Bentonite Clay into their reactors to absorb leakage. Clay is a remarkable "sponge" for radioactive materials. So I had wondered the same thing, since Bentonite Clay also comes in liquid form. I had wondered if it could be mixed with some type of super coolant and poured into the containment vessels.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in