Register to reply

Where are melted Fukashima cores going?

by Skip Hawley
Tags: cores, fukashima, melted, project gnome, wtcenter 911
Share this thread:
Skip Hawley
#1
Oct23-13, 11:30 PM
P: 3
Project Gnome 1961: "Construction industry officials, used to large-scale projects being accomplished by blasting away rock, saw this as an opportunity. People talked of setting off nuclear bombs as a way to hollow out mountains to make vast caverns to be used as living quarters, or to construct roads through otherwise impassable hills. People thought nuclear explosions could be just one more tool, to be used in any number of public works projects."
A somewhat similar application of nuclear bombs was proposed in a "conspiracy theory" of 911 where the WTC buildings were said to have collapsed because mini nukes were set off underground resulting in the loss of foundation support for the buildings and they collapsed or imploded.I'm wondering if mini nukes could be used under Fukashima to create a cavern or series of caverns,one under the other,where what's left of the the Fukashima Reactors and cores would fall into and then be covered up?
Phys.Org News Partner Science news on Phys.org
Scientists discover RNA modifications in some unexpected places
Scientists discover tropical tree microbiome in Panama
'Squid skin' metamaterials project yields vivid color display
Drakkith
#2
Oct24-13, 01:36 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,997
No! That's about the worst thing you could possibly do. Not only would you just add more radioactive waste/fallout to the environment from the nukes, the cores would come into direct contact with the ground and release a far greater amount of much more hazardous radioactive waste into the environment through the groundwater.
Crazymechanic
#3
Oct24-13, 03:53 AM
P: 853
That is like trying to crash an already crashed car and hoping that somehow the next hit will make the geometry better than the last one :D:D

the bombs for hills and rocks thing is kinda different because they used it deep underground for rock breaking purposes not for radioactive waste sitting at the seaside problems.
Those are totally different things.

The WTC trust me hasn't seen a nuke near it under any circumstances.Don't be fooled by a bunch of lunatics on the internet.
If one would have set off a nuclear detonation at the basement of WTC we would not have seen a collapse we would have seen the destruction of all the lower financial district of manhattan.
Last time I checked nuclear bombs don't come in the sizes of "mini" , or in other words you cant make a little boom , the smallest possible booms are big enough to destroy parts of a city.

Drakkith
#4
Oct24-13, 04:45 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,997
Where are melted Fukashima cores going?

Quote Quote by Crazymechanic View Post
If one would have set off a nuclear detonation at the basement of WTC we would not have seen a collapse we would have seen the destruction of all the lower financial district of manhattan.
Last time I checked nuclear bombs don't come in the sizes of "mini" , or in other words you cant make a little boom , the smallest possible booms are big enough to destroy parts of a city.
According to wiki, the B61 nuclear bomb has a variable yield with a low end of 0.3 kilotons. I'm not really sure how much damage that would do, but it's considerably less powerful than the 16 kt blast on Hiroshima. Still, I doubt it would be easy to dismiss as anything other than a nuke.
SteamKing
#5
Oct24-13, 06:07 AM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 6,723
This video shows what a conventional blast from 500 tons of TNT does:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xenvVw6sl2I

This is more or less in the range of a small nuke.

The small yield devices are known as 'tactical nukes'. There were a variety of tactical nuke designs produced in the 1950s primarily for use in artillery shells. The W48 device was fitted into a 155 mm shell and weighed between 50 and 60 kg. It had a yield of 72 tons of TNT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W48

Before anyone gets confused, this is not to say that somebody set off any nukes in Manhattan on 9/11. While tactical nukes are small, they also leave radioactive fallout behind, just not as much as their bigger brothers.
nikkkom
#6
Oct24-13, 11:39 AM
P: 622
Quote Quote by Skip Hawley View Post
I'm wondering if mini nukes could be used under Fukashima to create a cavern or series of caverns,one under the other,where what's left of the the Fukashima Reactors and cores would fall into and then be covered up?
Something like this - namely, isolating melted cores for a longer time (hundreds of years) instead of dismantling them in 10..30 years - does not need any bombs.

There are not many rational reasons to hide damaged reactor buildings underground, they can be completely covered with concrete ("cocooned") perfectly fine where they are now. Most other buildings on site then can be dismantled - they aren't heavily contaminated.

Hanford reactors already underwent this "cocooning" procedure.
nikkkom
#7
Oct24-13, 11:42 AM
P: 622
Quote Quote by SteamKing View Post
Before anyone gets confused, this is not to say that somebody set off any nukes in Manhattan on 9/11. While tactical nukes are small, they also leave radioactive fallout behind, just not as much as their bigger brothers.
Exactly. Anyone who pushes that theory is much loonier than Moon landing deniers. Any nuke detonation under Manhattan, however small (even a few tons TNT) would be easily detected by now. If not by US govt, then by someone else. Such event can't possibly be consealed.
SteamKing
#8
Oct24-13, 12:31 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 6,723
To be sure, anyone proposing that Fukushima be cleaned up by using nuclear explosions, tactical or otherwise, does not realize what a political upheaval that would create in Japanese politics. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still sensitive subjects to the Japanese, and the mere visit to Japan by a nuclear powered warship causes protests to break out. The US has always based a conventional carrier battle group in a Japanese port; now that no conventionally powered carriers are in service, the USS George Washington (CVN-73) was selected to be based in Japan in 2005. Much PR by the US Navy was required to quell any potential unrest by the Japanese before the ship docked in Japan. When the reactors at Fukushima melted down, the GW happened to be at Yokosuka, providing relief efforts for the tsunami, where it detected some of the radiation released by the reactors. The vessel was ordered to sea with a reduced crew until the situation became better understood.
Rive
#9
Oct25-13, 03:20 AM
P: 357
Quote Quote by Skip Hawley View Post
I'm wondering if mini nukes could be used under Fukashima to create a cavern or series of caverns,one under the other,where what's left of the the Fukashima Reactors and cores would fall into and then be covered up?
It's a terrible idea.

Till now only relative low percentage of the core material were released from the containments to the environment.
If anything breaks the containments then 100% of the cores would be out. It would be far much worse than Chernobyl.

That stuff should be cleaned up with time and moved to a location where all of it is accessible and under control. That's the only acceptable solution.
Borek
#10
Oct25-13, 03:58 AM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 23,711
Fatal flow flaw number 1 - explosion would not create a cavern. After explosion rocks will be still left where they are. Shaken, stirred and melted - but they would not miraculously disappear.
Enigman
#11
Oct25-13, 04:46 AM
Best Humor
Enigman's Avatar
P: 560
Quote Quote by Borek View Post
Fatal flow...
Now that sounds like a bad volcano movie...
Borek
#12
Oct25-13, 05:07 AM
Admin
Borek's Avatar
P: 23,711
Sigh.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Fukashima: The Effect of Sulphuric Acid on Plutonium? Nuclear Engineering 3
Are there any nuclear power plants on oceanic coastlines like Fukashima? Nuclear Engineering 25
Footage of Fukashima reactor Nuclear Engineering 16
If all of the ice melted... Introductory Physics Homework 2
Soda with melted ice Chemistry 7