A Clever Plan to Fix the Reactor Problem
Private Party
Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
and provided the wind is blowing the right way
the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
area in under a year rather than have this drag on
for years!
NO, I am not kidding.
--
Private Party
"Though lovers be lost love shall not;
And death shall have no dominion."
Mac
<usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
>Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>for years!
>
>NO, I am not kidding.
Deinstitutionalization has its price.
John Hatpin
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
Fans of Blackadder will tell you it's supposed to be a *cunning* plan.
Oh, and it's supposed to be cunning, or even clever.
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
>I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
>Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>for years!
I think that H had about a ton of uranium and that N had somewhat less
than that of more-poisonous plutonium. Power plants have hundreds of
tons of either Uranium or mixed Uranium / Plutonium.
Scale would be vastly different.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Private Party
Little Boy had about 64 kilograms of U-235 The rest was explosive
and tamper used for inertial containment. Fat Man had about 13.6
pounds of P-239 with the great majority of the weight being the
explosive lenses used to compress the physics package. I think
your estimate of power plant uranium/plutonium fuel is also
way off. The "Demon Core" was not much bigger than a softball.
If you want to read about a nasty accident, Google that. Two men
were killed by momentary criticality incidents of the same
physics package.
In any event, when you consider what is going to be involved
if they fail to calm this situation down, a NUDET would be
far easier to manage in the long run. If they keep up the way
they are going it might not be resolved in our lifetimes.
dilbert firestorm
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
>
I think you're a very good candidate to get fragged.
--
<---=««-Dilbert Firestorm-»»=--->
Zizzle that Fire - it's Zizzle Time !!!!!!!
Shawn Wilson
priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
critical.
danny burstein
>But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
>weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
>critical.
I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
of plutonium...
I'd have to pull out some envelopes and scribble
enough figures to get some eyebrows raised
in my direction.
(I doubt it would be an issue, but I'm not quite
so quick to say it can't possibly be).
--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dan...@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
Zbicyclist
Heck, why don't we just send the nuclear plant an eviction notice? Or
a cease-and-desist order?
Shawn Wilson
> >But you don't know about nuclear power. No, detonating a nuclear
> >weapon will not cause radioactive materials in the vicinity to go
> >critical.
>
> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
> of plutonium...
Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
will not detonate be mere 'example'.
danny burstein
[snippeth]
>> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
>> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
>> of plutonium...
>Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...
>Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
>can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
>will not detonate be mere 'example'.
Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
I doubt it's a real possibility, but as I said before I'd
have to sketch out some calculations that would get people
very interested in me...
>>
>> I'd have to pull out some envelopes and scribble
>> enough figures to get some eyebrows raised
>> in my direction.
>>
>> (I doubt it would be an issue, but I'm not quite
>> so quick to say it can't possibly be).
>>
>> --
>> _____________________________________________________
>> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
>> =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0dan...@panix.com
Private Party
I never said it would make them go critical. It would vaporize the
whole mess and disperse the problem into the upper atmosphere.
But I guess it is a bad idea. We can see how the forthright and
competant Japanese are quickly and efficiently dealing with the
situation.
Private Party
> On Mar 17, 12:18 am, "Private Party" <usenetcontact2011-
> priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>>
>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
>> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
>> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
>> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
>> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
>> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
>> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
>> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
>> for years!
>>
>> NO, I am not kidding.
>
> a cease-and-desist order?
Well yeah! Our stern admonitions have stopped Gaddafi!
Bob
priv...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
Private Party
You know, I bet you might be right.
Greg Goss
>Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...
... and ...
>Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
>for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
Doesn't it turn into something else that takes several days to turn
into plutonium? So the conversion doesn't "help" the blast being
examined.
Greg Goss
I think that this argument would have been helpved if PP had actually
provided a verb in that sentence. Different people are inserting
different implied verbs, with differing resulting arguments.
Snidely
Which sentence? "Take out" is a verb, as is "fission". And that's 2
sentences.
/dps
Greg Goss
Withdrawn. I was reading it wrong. The verb is present, but the
statement is now wrong.
Rick B.
@f2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
art...@yahoo.com
Back when I was in college, there was an earthquake awareness day.
Some people were passing around a petition to ban earthquakes.
Tragically, nobody took them seriously.
Lee Ayrton
What will your superpower be?
Lee Ayrton
No, it is a bad idea in the same way that dispersing a pot of flaming fry
oil evenly over the kitchen floor is a bad idea.
Peter Boulding
wrote in <ilvq8k$ac5$4...@reader1.panix.com>:
>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>
>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>
>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>
>What will your superpower be?
The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
electron microscope.
--
Regards, Peter Boulding
pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal Music and Images: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/ and
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=794240&content=music
Rick B.
news:4pr6o6tu8p5g7gkgk...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.nul>
> wrote in <ilvq8k$ac5$4...@reader1.panix.com>:
>
>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>>
>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>>
>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>>
>>What will your superpower be?
>
> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> electron microscope.
As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
Peter Boulding
<Xns9EAC7145F...@130.133.4.11>:
>>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
>>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>>>>>
>>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
>>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>>>>
>>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>>>
>>>What will your superpower be?
>>
>> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
>> electron microscope.
>
>As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
Jerk.
art...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:29:40 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.nul>
> wrote in <ilvq8k$ac...@reader1.panix.com>:
>
> >>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
> >>>> All the fissionables fission at once
>
> >>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
>
> >> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
>
> >What will your superpower be?
>
> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> electron microscope.
That's quite SEM superpower you got there.
Peter Ward
>
> On 18 Mar 2011 15:08:22 GMT, "Rick B." <deep...@sprynet.com.aq> wrote in
> <Xns9EAC7145F...@130.133.4.11>:
>
> >>>>>> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical nuclear strike.
> >>>>>> All the fissionables fission at once
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You couldn't get that many neutrons from all the neutron bombs on
> >>>>> Earth, even if you modified all the other bombs for max neutrons.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think I'll change my name to Max Neutron.
> >>>
> >>>What will your superpower be?
> >>
> >> The ability to produce jerky freeze-frame wit when viewed through an
> >> electron microscope.
> >
> >As opposed to my current ability to produce jerky wit on Usenet.
>
> Jerk.
Mmmmm, chicken!
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Home is where the cat is.
- Greg Goss
John Hatpin
The Most Dangerous Man in the Universe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n3TsWRpLrk
--
John Hatpin
Charles Wm. Dimmick
to be inertia.
Charles
Bill Turlock
> as is "fission".
not in my dic. I'd use "fiss".
Peter Boulding
<cdim...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
>to be inertia.
For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
Boron Elgar
<pjbn...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
><cdim...@snet.net> wrote in <im0n0u$vi1$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
>>to be inertia.
>
>For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
Why did I read that as Tranny Wynette?
Boron
Paul Madarasz
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Hence, "little fission" = "fizzle"
Paul Madarasz
I was thinking about buying his first album.
Paul Madarasz
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
Pre-op country singers aren't exactly a dime a dozen.
D.F. Manno
"Private Party" <usenetcontac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I have A CLEVER PLAN (tm)
>
> Take out the entire plant with a low-level tactical
> nuclear strike. All the fissionables fission at once
> and provided the wind is blowing the right way
> the radioactivity will be less of a problem than
> having a leaking piece of shit for the next 20 years.
> People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, don't they?
> They would likely be able to start rebuilding the
> area in under a year rather than have this drag on
> for years!
>
> NO, I am not kidding.
"There is always an easy solution to every human problem - neat,
plausible, and wrong."
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
D.F. Manno
<7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
> But you don't know about nuclear power.
And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
--
D.F. Manno
dfm...@mail.com
Mac
wrote:
>In article
><7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
>And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
There's no end of subjects you can gain mastery of by not having a
degree in them.
Bill Turlock
essen/fessen
art...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 23:16:43 +0000, Peter Boulding
>
> >On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:40:30 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
>
> >>Well, since neutrons have mass but no charge, his superpower is likely
> >>to be inertia.
>
> >For the Tammy Wynette earworm, no charge.
>
> Why did I read that as Tranny Wynette?
>
> Boron
Does she (he?) cover "A Boy Named Sue"?
Paul Madarasz
fressen, no?
Shawn Wilson
> >> I wouldn't be quite so certain. If you irradiate
> >> the uranium isotopes sufficiently to get lots
> >> of plutonium...
> >Detonate a nuke on it and what you get is uranium gas (well, plasma).
>
> Neutrons travel much faster than the shock wave...
At yet slower than gamma rays. Uranium plasma.
> >Intentionally designed nukes sometimes fail to go off properly, you
> >can't get one to go BANG! casually. Uranuium is not gunpowder. It
> >will not detonate be mere 'example'.
>
> Uranium + neutrons => plutonium. (I'll leave the isotopes
> for the student). A lump of plutonium can undergo criticiality.
What we are dealing with HERE is a lump of URANIUM.
> I doubt it's a real possibility, but as I said before I'd
> have to sketch out some calculations that would get people
> very interested in me...
No one would care. it's a homework problem in physics.
Shawn Wilson
> Back when I was in college, there was an earthquake awareness day.
> Some people were passing around a petition to ban earthquakes.
> Tragically, nobody took them seriously.
People STILL sign petitions to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide though...
Shawn Wilson
> > But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
> And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
Compared to YOU I am the god of all knowledge...
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>In article
><7456a81a-a0fb-44f4...@s18g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But you don't know about nuclear power.
>
>And you're some kind of nuclear physicist?
I bet he knows as much about nuclear physics as he does about econ.
art...@yahoo.com
Water you talking about?
Charles Bishop
Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
Or fishin'
Charles
Tim Wright
That's just damp foolish.
--
Tim W
art...@yahoo.com
Yeah, but I am the God of Hellfire
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOErZuzZpS8
Much cooler
And his name is Arthur