the entire..........BAG!  



 

That's all we need, Mutant Cows from Three Mile Island. If you think those fucking Chic Fil-a bastards are had to deal with....

This will get good

No. It will get out of hand and we'll be lucky to survive.

No, really, all of it. All of the kitty litter in the known universe. Plus all of the cats.

       




 

Thats real retarded, sir.

Chernobyl has essentially zero in common with any US or Western reactor other than nuclear fission.

Whatever happened there has essentially zero in common with what happened at TMI, or Fukushima, or would happen in a hypothetical future event at a US or other western power reactor.

It may be interesting historically but it's not particularly relevant to anything in the USA.

Here watch this video, it proves gasoline is dangerous, you shouldn't drive cars because they contain 2 to 3 times as much gasoline as this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VCT8ZpHEF5w

They say that there's no such thing as a stupid question........they were wrong.

I did lol at that one.  

Steer yourselves for udder destruction, or moove on and  pray for bovine intervention, I for one hope it's only calf as bad as it reported to be.

Don't you guys watch Macgyver? All you need is chocolate.

(Although chocolate milk may be even better)

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Wow, that has got to be one of the most retarded things I have ever read.

I think rather than blow it up to dilute the effects, we should start feeding everyone plutonium and other radioactive isotopes so we can all build up immunities to radiation.  Then when incidents like Fukoshima happen, nobody will get hurt!

Really? How are they different??

Well ... there's the highly radioactive isotopes .... so .... yeah, there's that.

What if Doc's Mr. Fusion melted down if his Delorean crashes.  That sucker can run on milk...would we all die?

Sometimes milk has a I-131 in it... and some people are lactose intolerant... so what? I mean, really, milk makes strong bones and reactor melt downs turn people in to the Incredible Hulk. Kudos all around.

Radiation is cumulative over your lifetime and does not heal.  Diluting the radiation throughout the world would give everyone a tiny dose of it everyday of their lives.  It may increase your chance of getting cancer maybe .0001%, but that small percentage may mean 10000 people in the world may get cancer because of this one incident.   This combined with solar radiation, radon, and other forms of radiation.

Of the three most notable meltdowns(Chernobyl, TMI, Fukushima), two were completely preventable, one is a testament to how safe nuclear power really is

Up until cherobyl and even a few cases after, most russian reactors operated with a neutron moderator that actually increases reactivity with increase in temperature. so the hotter it gets, the hotter it wants to make it, so it gets hotter, and so on and so forth until there is operator action to curtail the reactions and bring reactivity down to zero and retain stable operations. when chernobyl melted down, they were testing the reactor's response to a loss of power to the circulating pumps. so now you've greatly reduced the amount of cooling in a system that exponentially increases temperature. good luck.

every nuclear reactor in the non third world operates using a neutron moderator that reduces reactivity as the temperature rises, thus governing itself. the entire system is also designed to shut itself down if everything is not perfect. TMI happened because pressure was decreasing and nobody was doing anything about it. they had indications, they could have prevented it, but nobody wanted to operate anything. pressure decreased below the saturation point of the cooling water flashing it to steam, which doesn't remove heat within the core very well, so it melted down.

in fukushima, the plant was responding to an earthquake, a tsunami, and a power outage all at the same time. the "meltdown" that occured was the final result of a lack of cooling flow within an already shutdown core. the actual release radiation was far less than advertised and most of it went out to sea and fell into the ocean, the biggest "victims" of the "meltdown" were the navy ships we sent in to help them through the process and lab technicians that went over every inch of every ship that drove through the plume and found next to nothing above background radiation levels.

There is a huge difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb. there are two types of neutrons, fast neutrons, which are moving quickly and thermal neutrons which are moving slowly. a nuclear reactor runs on thermal neutrons, which are born from nuclear reactions and need to slow down, thus limiting the number of reactions that can occur at any given time. a nuclear bomb contains a fuel that is made to run on the fast neutrons, thus not limiting the number of reactions that can occur in a given time frame allowing the reactions to occur very quickly.

you can not detonate a power plant reactor, as nuclear operators, we love watching movies such as "the world is not enough" and laughing maniacally at everything that is not even remotely possible.

reactor plants are designed to contain the radiation and are placed a distance far enough away from anyone and anything to ensure the dose of radiation given to the people is low enough to not cause any problems. the "explosion" that occurs in reactors is a steam explosion when pressure gets too high and a part fails. if you want to limit your exposure to radiation just walk away. in almost every case, doubling your distance from the radiation, reduces your dose by over 5 times.

spreading out the radiation would not be good for anybody. you want to contain it and shield it.

There are enough smart-ass answers.....

The issue with your "solution" is the fact that Uranium 235 and Plutonium contaminate the environment in even trace amounts. What would happen in your hypothetical situation is the Uranium or Plutonium housed in the power plant ( a lot actually, if you count all the rods in storage/cooling pools) gets spread all over the world, with very high concentrations in the local area. Oh, and Uranium 235 only has a half-life of 703 MILLION years. Not to mention all the radiation released from the nuclear bomb......

See!? There's always a silver lining, even when we're talking about nuking reactor meltdowns with alien milk bombs carried by flying cows. And kittly litter, kitty litter is in there, somewhere.

Do some reading, then come back and ask a more intelligent question.

Thanks for the serious answers. I don't know anything about neuclear physics so I was under the assumption the radiation would be similar to that of a bomb test, of which there have been many in the last 70 years.

We are still absorbing radiation from the nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago, along with all the other nuclear disasters and bomb testing.

There is already uranium all over the world, it's a naturally occurring element, mining for it is where it all came from after all.

There's a minuscule amount of plutonium in a reactor, but it's frankly not much more of a hazard than uranium.

Half-life is inversely proportional to radioactive intensity and hazard.  Non-radioactive materials have infinite half live.  703 million year half live indicates a extremely low intensity and hazard.

People who don't actually know about radiation need to educate themselves before expounding on radiation.  Ignorance is why the public policies about anything nuclear are so completely messed up.

FWIW the main hazards are fission fragments and their decay products.  A low-altitude nuclear weapon detonation would include a lot of neutron activation products as well.

Think of the incredible boost in evolution!
Uberman wold be here within generations.

It is better to remain quiet and be thought a fool......................