Slashdot Mirror
Better Living Through Nukes?
perkonis writes "So, you've got 23,000 nukes laying about and no one to use them on. What to do with them? Well, you blow up stuff for fun and profit. Some of the ideas range from good on paper (such as mining oil shale) to just downright bad (such as making a new Panama Canal). Making a big ditch by blowing up nukes — what could possibly go wrong?"
blowing up geological faults to 'ease the tension'. Better a small slip than a full-blown earthquake.
Or maybe if it's just for fun, give it to the Mythbusters.
how long until
I always wanted to get back at John for that prank!
It was tried back in the 60's with "project Plowshare". Blowing up new harbors, blowing up gas wells, etc, etc, etc. Did not pan out. Radioactive gas spewing into your home through the cooktop, not a big win. Radioactive dust and water from making a new harbor, not too keen either, and this was before peta and greenpeace et al.
What about creating mutants?
"Radioactive waste is dangerous and toxic so we need a safe way of disposing of it without the possibility of it leaking into the ground. I propose pumping it into the ground."
Sell them to Iran, North Korea or whoever wants some and use the cash obtained to finance various economic stimulation packages. Then as soon as the money, gold, diamonds or whatever is in the bank have them self destruct via some CIA,NSA bit of trickery. Seen it in a James Bond film so it must be possible.
There is a Treaty banning Nuclear Weapon Tests In The Atmosphere, In Outer Space And Under Water (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PTBT), which would probably hold and prevent this from happening, even though the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NNPT) still allows nuclear explosions for "peaceful purposes". Anyway, the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CTBT), which stands on much better fotting again since Obama supports it, would definitely prevent it.
I don't get what the big deal is. How can they lead to healthy living? They don't exactly have a lot of nutritional value---just a smidgeon of vitamin C. Don't get me wrong; they are yummy and all---especially the hot house variety, with fewer seeds and the flavor...oh, the flavor is wonderful.
Wha? Oh. *N*ukes.
Sorry.
Life is short; think quickly.
Mutant bass? With lasers?
I find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
...anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare
Several years ago, the Brits published a study that even a small scale nuclear exchange would kick up enough crap in the atmosphere that it would cool the planet. Here's a way to get rid of a few nukes and stop global warming at the same time! Hey! You could call this... are you ready... Glow-ball cooling! Whaaaaat? You want me set to the damn things off with a match?
Megatons to Megawatts Program
Even if this was deep enough to contain the radioactivity do we really want lots of civilian uses for nuclear explosions? This will mean demand to make more and, rather than being stored on high security military bases, they will be looked after by companies hiring security guards. If we want to get rid of them the safest option is to disassemble them and either burn the fissionable material in a reactor or render it non-weapons grade. Developing commercial uses will only encourage us to build more.
The majority of the "23,000 nukes" have essentially been deactivated and are only counted because they have not been fully disassembled yet. The link itself says only 8,000 are operational globally. On the other hand, if you count plutonium cores, trigger assemblies, and miscellaneous spare parts lying around that could be engineered into a functional weapon if required there are significantly greater than 23,000 potential nukes.
What does or does not constitute a nuclear weapon for accounting purposes does not necessarily match common sense understanding.
You must be new here. Stick around; I'm sure something dumber, more henious or dangerous will be posted soon - probably by a reader!
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to cook and dye some Easter eggs so I can leave them out for hours in the warn weather for kids to find tomorrow...
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Radioactive waste is dangerous and toxic....
As are many of the items in use by people on a day to day basis.
You puncture a big hole in the earth's crust, and let the ocean flow in. You use the electrical output from the turbines to re-smelt the turbines (because they get coated with salt), and you use the steam as fresh water.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
The classic book on this is "Engineering with Nuclear Explosives". I have a copy, discarded from the Stanford engineering library, and I had the Internet Archive digitize it. It has the Panama canal plan, plus several other proposed projects.
The California Department of Highways seriously considered using 22 nuclear bombs to excavate for I-40 through the mountains between Barstow and Needles. Here's the environmental impact statement: The cloud resulting from each of the two row shots would be cylindrical in shape, about 2 miles high, and 7 miles in diameter. The density of dust in this cloud might be such as to obscure vision during its passage within the first 100 miles. While radioactivity levels in the cloud would not present a hazard, it might be necessary from a traffic hazard viewpoint to close any highways in the path of the cloud during passage within the first 100 miles.
Based on the Sedan experience, it is estimated that access to the channel for limited periods of time for inspection purposes would be possible within about 24 hours. Entry for an 8-hour work day or 40-hour work week without unusual safeguards should be possible within about 4 days.
Things were so much simpler then.
you have to implement all these schemes from orbit
its the only way to be sure
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Isn't there some way to use the fissile material in there as non-explosive fuel? Build a nuke plant in Panama and use specialized electrically powered earth-moving equipment to dig. Then when you're done you have a clean new canal and a nuke plant instead of a toxic canal.
Or better yet, build several of the same types of reactors they use on aircraft carriers, and install them in enormous digging machines. Retired naval personnel could even be used to run the nuke operations on the diggers. Then when you're done you have several small reactors and a clean canal.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I say dig up the old Project Orion files and let's start getting serious about space exploration and colonization.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
With all the hub-bub about "man made global warming" why not counter it with man made nuclear winter.
A weird weapon, it only works if you don't use it... shades of WarGames.
Nuclear weapons have solved the problem of national defense, but at a stiff price. In the past, there was always someone out there who thought that they could just come to your country or piece of ground, kick your ass, steal everything of value, rape your women, and turn your (and your women's) children into their slaves to buy, sell, fuck, or work to death as they please.
Hell, we even did it ourselves and got away with it for a long time. Your ancestors did also to your neighbors. And your neighbors did it to you. It's quite possible that you are thinking right now about doing it to someone.
It's not a bad idea, actually. You get all the benefits and you get to kill off all the assholes and bullies in your society that would make your life miserable if they weren't occupied by raging, raping, and pillaging someone else, somewhere else. Excuse me, I meant to say "turn all our brave boys into heroes or martyrs, proudly serving in our nation's defense..." Same thing.
However, there are some countries that no-one imagines or seriously plans to conquer and enslave. These countries have, at great expense, developed refrigerator-sized machines that convert hydrogen into helium in the most environmentally-insensitive way imaginable. When someone shows up at the border for a little bit of the old in-out, they get met with a few of these hydrogen-to-helium converters thrown their way, along with a few tossed through outer space to the folks back home.
What a mess. Basically the consequences of having to deal with having hydrogen-to-helium machines thrown your way far exceeds the joys and profits in ravishing and pillaging your neighbors. So you find something else to do. And we have world peace. Peace through machines. Not microprocessor-controlled dildos, or cool stereos playing groovy music, but through hydrogen bombs.
One small problem: If you have a few of these hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines, it's real easy to get your friends and neighbors to give you their stash and daughters. Without having to go through the trouble of violently taking it. Just go to their embassy with a list in one hand and picture of the H2H machine in the other. Don't say a word; they'll get the message.
So they want a few of the H2H machines themselves. And the more that there are around, the more likely that some one, somewhere, for some reason, under some God's direction, justified by some ancient holy book, is going to set them off. Which is bad for business.
So an elaborate game evolves. You pretend that you are going to use them if it were to happen that someone might assume that they could pretend to do something that would piss you off, if it were possible that it could ever happen.
And, success, you get world peace. Civilized people don't fuck with each other any more. Giant corporations can pretend that chickenshit things like trading MP3 files are a major issue, and other fantasies.
The only problem is when weirdos and fanatics get the H2H devices. And you don't know if they are going to be willing and able to play the 'pretend that we use them' game. So you can ignore them and hope for the best, as we do with nuclear powers like Israel and Japan ( please don't insult our intelligence by telling me that the Japanese don't have hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines), or you can threaten to kick their ass in advance if they cross a certain line that you and the other civilized nations have drawn in the sand (Pakistan and Korea). Or, if you're lucky, you can just buy them off and get them to surrender their H2H machines (and their U238 little brothers), like South Africa and the Ukraine.
Anyway, back to the point. You don't want to use the H2H converters for anyt
...back in the day.
Project Chariot was a program to blast a new harbor near Point Hope, led by none other than Ed Teller.
Alaska was also the site of several nuclear test blasts, among them the largest one the U.S. ever conducted: Amchitka's Nuclear Legacy.
- Alaska Jack
You mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Wouldn't that necessitate abandoning the so-called monogamous form of sexual relationship?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Not on a scale of tens of thousands of years. Nor do very many "daily" use items have a tendency to destroy reproductive qualities immediately. Radiation attacks the fast growing cells first (or more rapidly) and therefore renders any biological exposure fatal to the blood line.
The testing in the 50's caused a noticeable legacy. Most of the test sites are still unsafe for human occupation, and the planets background radiation level still hasn't dropped to pre-nuke levels.
I don't have a problem with nuclear power plants. They have proven that they are more or less a safe (acceptable risk) use of the technology. The same can NOT be said for nuclear bombs. Air bursting causes most of the radioactive fallout to go into the super-sphere, but it comes down eventually, some if, if not all. Ground shots tend to destroy any local ecology and permanently irradiate environments. Read up on Bikini Atoll, and the Baker test.
Edward Teller would love this article. Since he spent his remaining years clinging to the idea that his hydrogen bomb was a useful invention.
Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
Detonated far enough below the surface results in almost no environmental damage.
Right, and the house and city you live in, they haven't changed the environment at all. Nor do the roads, rail and seaports that get you the PC you use to talk to slashdot, or the power plants that power that PC.
Unless you're living in a cave that already existed, pretty much everything about modern civilized human life changes the environment in a long term way. What you do in that cave will forever change the enviroment in the cave. The planet is constantly changing. New species are coming into their own, and others are disappearing. This is the way its always been and the way it always will be, regardless of how special you think you are, we're not doing anything that wasn't done long before we existed, nor will it stop when we cease to exist. Wind and rain change the environment, destory mountains, make valleys and change shorelines, are you going to stop them as well?
You don't believe this, or your just a twit, not sure which really. If you had a clue and believe it you wouldn't be using a PC or electricty in general as it has massive effects on the enviroment, from the mines that the coal comes from to the pollution produced, to the power lines cutting across the country side right down to the heat used to cool and warm your home. You sir are a hypocrite.
You really need to get some perspective. Change will happen regardless of what we do. Our children can not possibly inherit the planet in the exact same state as we did. It is not possible for you to live on the surface of the planet without changing it. If you truely believe what you say, you need to kill yourself now otherwise you are just perpetuating the problem, that too will change the planet however.
I really can't stand this level of ignorance. You have no clue and live in a dream. Building a dam does not destroy the environment, it changes it. Its going to change no matter what happens. By building a dam we can actually help protect areas of the river downstream from the change that results from massive floods. We can prevent the deaths of people due to those floods. We can provide a more consistent source of water for everything involved in the rivers ecosystem.
I grew
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
I remember a seeing an article in Popular Science or Mechanics or such about using an open-face reactor to build highways, using a critical mass of nuclear fuel to directly melt dirt into glass. Is that crazy enough?
To understand the alternative to this dilemma, look up Operation Downfall, the plans for the land invasion of Japan.
Revive the Constitution.
Not on a scale of tens of thousands of years.
Morbo says: Half-lives do not work like that!
The stuff that'll be around for "tens of thousands of years" is not that radioactive. It's the stuff that only hangs around for a few years that puts out a really dangerous amount of radiation. But, then, it's only dangerous for a few years.
> One small problem: If you have a few of these hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines, it's real easy to get your friends and neighbors to give you their stash and daughters. Without having to go through the trouble of violently taking it. Just go to their embassy with a list in one hand and picture of the H2H machine in the other. Don't say a word; they'll get the message.
So, the US hasn't fought a war, excuse me, armed conflict in the last 50 years?
Nuclear weapons aren't good for small things. They are an all-out-weapon. They may help avoiding an all-out war, as it is M.A.D., but do next to nothing in small cases. Any threat is void, if you can't realise it. The usage of tactical nukes would generate a diplomatic and economical outfall, which would far outweigh any positive benefit you might possibly expect from the usage of said weapon. Even the hint at using a nuclear weapon will create a backlash from other nations.
> please don't insult our intelligence by telling me that the Japanese don't have hydrogen-to-helium conversion machines
Aside from experimental reactors in laboratories? Or is that your euphemism for hydrogen bombs? If not going as far as questioning your intelligence, I have at least doubt your knowledge on foreign nations. Look up the Japan's non-nuclear policy. It already created a severe discontent in the general populace, that the Japanese government allowed the US to dock a nuclear driven military vessel in a Japanese harbour.
IRC, the last notable Japanese politician that suggested in context of the build up of nuclear power in North Korea, it might be a good idea to have a own nuclear weapons had to resign due to public outrage.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
I have thought that if we blow up some of that wonder CO2 that is frozen on the poles, we could start the Global warming occurring there. Obviously, it would not last that long, BUT, it would certainly bring up the equator a number of degrees. From there, we could push some ammonia based meteors into mars increased dense atmosphere.
Also, I would not mind blowing one or two near several locations that appear to have some heat. Perhaps, we could tap a bit of volcanic action to create a SECURED source of heat, read energy.
Now, as to the issue of fallout, well, let me point out that with a weak magnetosphere , a lot of radiation is already getting through. I would suspect that the amount of extra radiation would not matter.
Of course, in the end, I would rather see us send several nuke reactors there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Al Gore has made many millions of dollars off of fearmongering.
Al Gore has also made a lot from oil. He has had a long relationship and been an investor in Occidental Petroleum.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program
The Megatons to Megawatts Program is the name given to the program that implemented the 1993 United States-Russia nonproliferation agreement to convert high-enriched uranium (HEU) taken from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into low-enriched-uranium (LEU) for nuclear fuel.
From 1995 through mid-2005, 250 metric tons of high-enriched uranium (enough for 10,000 warheads) were recycled into low-enriched-uranium. The goal is to recycle 500 metric tons by 2013. Much of this fuel has already been used in many nuclear power plants in the U.S., as it is indistinguishable from normal fuel.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
2) nuclear waste remains deadly for 10,000 to 100,000 years.
I'll oppose nuclear power until it can be proven to be environmentally friendly, which I doubt will ever happen, but by reprocessing nuclear waste into more fuel the amount of waste and the length of tyme needed to store it can be significantly reduced.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Let's resurrect Project Orion, and use this stuff to put a few 100 people on Mars and prospect the main belt asteroids.
After all, this was one of the original rationales for Orion. In all of this time, I don't think that anyone has come up with any better ideas, and we sure aren't getting into the solar system very fast with chemical rockets.
Coal contains trace amounts of uranium, typically at around 3ppm.
However ordinary soil contains trace amounts at concentrations ranging from between 1-5ppm.
May the Maths Be with you!
Pumping it into the ground 1500 feet down into the earth's crust in the middle of a tectonic plate and far below any water tables is perfectly safe. Leaving it above ground waiting for some weird freak accident to allow contaminates to somehow get into the water table is a tiny bit less so.
It should be noted though that the casks they use at US nuclear power plants to store spent rods are really really freakin' tough. So it's really more just a problem of the stuff taking up space and not having a permanent home. That, and uneducated hippies hearing "nuclear" or "radioactive" and going off their rockers.
Do you even know anything about perl? -- AC Replying to Tom Christiansen post.
Lake Chagan was created by a nuclear blast purposely sited so its crater lip would dam the river, which created both a lake upstream of the river (and prevented downstream flooding), and a lake in the crater itself. Downside: the lake is still radioactive, 40+ years later.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Things like radon that are radioactive, and created by uranium have a shelf life of 2 days. So basically if you separate out leftover uranium, in 2 days I would expect your extracted oil would be radiation free.
Sorry but this is completely wrong. First uranium itself is not very radioactive (although it is toxic). The half-life for U235/238 (what you find in a Uranium bomb) is 0.7/4.5 billion years respectively. This means that even in large non-critical lumps the radiation is low. Secondly radioactivity after a nuclear explosion comes from the fission products of Uranium (or what they very rapidly decay into) like Strontium, Xenon, Caesium etc. which have varying but generally medium half lives (of order decades). Radon is a decay product of Uranium (after several steps), not a fission product.
Finally radioactive nuclei, particularly heavy ones, usually decay into other radioactive nuclei. Hence the fact that one isotope of radon has a short half-life does not mean that "all the radioactivity" will be gone because there is a decay chain. For example Radon-222 which has a half-live of 3.8 days (there is no Radon isotope with a 2d half-life that I could find) will eventually decay into Lead-210 which has a half life of 22.3 years.
So because the wind will do it eventually, we should grind down all the mountains in the hunt for minerals? We should strip mine the earth, pollute the seas and rivers with toxic materials and kill all the animals for food? Other predators kill all they want, so we should too?
Not all change is good. While good (for humans) can come from change, sometimes the bad outweighs the good.
Ignoring the long-term costs to the environment for short term benefits is what leads to air pollution causing asthma and respiratory diseases, heavy metal toxicity in our food supply and loss of species diversity and sustainability through over-fishing and habitat destruction, not to mention our energy-heavy society that's causing increasingly damaging climate change.
Science-driven environmentalism is just long-term planning, for the benefit of the human race instead of its detriment.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Ok, do you mind if I shoot you in the head with this nail gun? Don't worry, I'm not going to hurt you, I'm only going to change your skull. Also, great job on the ad hominem criticism, because we all know that only perfect people have valid things to say. Sure a lot of environmentalist hippies may have obvious hypocrisies, but you're an apologist, and that is much, much worse. Now that I think about it, I really can't see the difference between the environmental impact of posting on Slashdot and nuking the planet. It's all so clear now thanks to your amazing ontological semantics! Thanks!
You seemed to be missing a vital point so I'll spell it out for you - an argument favoring environmental or ecological initiative a over b due to personal or moral considerations can not immediately be inflated to an argument calling for the dismantling of all technology that effects the planet.
Maybe, just maybe, it's possible that some clean renewable source of energy could be harvested to power our Ipods, but I'll be darned if I can think of it! I guess we might as well stick to building aircraft carriers and mountaintop removal, because it's simply impossible that we could live any other way that the way we do right now, and besides it's not like we're fucking anything up. Just changing it, you know. By the way, how much research do you think a trillion bucks, about the estimated amount pissed down the drain in Iraq, would buy? Fuck it, let's get into that Alaskan wildlife reserve ASAP!