Where are melted Fukashima cores going?

  1. 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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  4. 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.
     
  5. Drakkith

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  6. SteamKing

    SteamKing 9,618
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This video shows what a conventional blast from 500 tons of TNT does:



    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2014
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. SteamKing

    SteamKing 9,618
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. Borek

    Staff: Mentor

    Fatal [STRIKE]flow[/STRIKE] 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.
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2013
  12. Now that sounds like a bad volcano movie...
    :tongue:
     
  13. Borek

    Staff: Mentor

    Sigh.
     
    1 person likes this.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

0
Draft saved Draft deleted