With a judicious A-Bomb blast? Suppose we get a warning that the lava dome is rising under Yellowstone-We drill a mile-deep hole over it, and insert a small nuclear bomb. We set it off, and open a big hole-voila-the pressure dissipates, and we have a minor volcanic eruption (just lava-no pyroclastic flow).
Should this be done?
If there’s an exit for the pressure, doesn’t that mean there’s also an exit for the radiation? Is there enough radiation for the westerly winds to carry toxic levels to Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, etc?
It would not work.
[ul]
[li]You would never be able to drill into the magma chamber. It’s been tried already (by accident) and the result was the magma sealed up the hole. Of course, there’s that pesky issue of heat and corrosive magma to deal with, too.[/li][li]There a few political/social issues to address.[/li][li]What about the radioactive residue?[/li][li]Finally, what’s so wrong about a natural volcanic event? Mother Earth needs cleansing every so often.[/li][/ul]
The US and USSR blew up a bunch (dozens if not hundreds) of large atomic bombs above ground, and many hundreds below ground.
That shit aint healthy, but it taint the black plaque.
I get sooooo tired of the modern meme that an atomic bomb or three is sooooo bad.
Rant over.
No.
How would adding a small amount of energy to the system reduce the total amount of energy in the system?
Also, we are talking about a lot of energy here. Billions of carloads of the stuff, unimaginable amounts. A nuke would have as much effect as pissing into a hurricane.
The OP has the right idea. If you can reduce the pressure in a controlled (and the proper) way it would in theory prevent the big bang.
But offhand IMHO, with our current technology and understanding of how these things work, we probably couldn’t do it and could just as well make it happen sooner by doing it wrong rather preventing it by doing it right.
Where would the energy go?
Because we’d all be doooooooooomed! (Broomstick describes the worst-cse scenario, if you want the bejeebers scared out of you.)
The question is, is there anything we can do to prevent (or at least mitigate) disaster? If the movies have taught me anything, they have taught me to look for a last-minute heroic effort to rescue humanity from utter destruction.
If, say, 100kt bomb can make 100m in diameter underground chamber, then if we string dozen of 100kt bombs in one shaft in 100m intervals and blast them simultaneously, we probably could make artificial volcano crater in (semi) controlled way. But it still be eruption with all fireworks all-right - just in place chosen by us.
Plus, radioactive volcanic ashes kinda ruin the atmosphere of National Park. “Welcome to Glowingstone! Take a look at wonderful blue Cherenkov geyser!”
Edward Teller, is that you? I thought you were dead.
Problem is, if something goes really wrong, we might wind up with a supervolcano spewing large amounts of radioactive volcanic ash over much of the continent. Congratulations, now you’re even more doomed (though I doubt it would make much difference, practically speaking).
This happened by accident in the pilot for Space: 1999. A controlled release would probably shove the planet out of its orbit and either out of the solar system, into the moon, or into the sun.
This makes about as much sense as all the LHC hysteria.
Short answer: Yeah, nuking Yellowstone Park would get all sorts of approval.
We’re talking about trying to prevent an explosion that’ll make a crater the size of the Gulf of Mexico. Releasing it slowly might make a crater only the size of Texas.
Yeah, what’s a few thousand cases of cancer…
compared to 20 to 50 thousand car deaths a year, every year?
Or a million deaths a year or so just from the dangers of overall living.
Or the tens to hundreds of millions if not more than a billion deaths worldwide if a super volcano DOES blow?
And you do know volcanic ash IS naturally radioactive too as well? Not to mention the very bad health effects (often permanent and cancer causing as well) of it not due to radioactivity.
Talk about worrying about eating the high fat crackers on the Titanic while it sinks…:rolleyes:
On a magnitude of a Yellowstone supervolcano eruption event? Nope.
Ummm, nope. This is GQ. Not gonna touch this one.
Volcanic ash is not radioactive (and in fact often becomes the basis for very fertile soil relatively soon after an eruption), but volcanoes do release great volumes of radioactive materials. Generally speaking, most of the radiation from nuclear weapons is of the short half-life variety, meaning that they release a great deal more energy in a much shorter period of time.
Super-volcano eruptions are thought to be a series of events that take place over thousands or millions of years. It is unlikely that we could create a vent large and stable enough to relieve the pressure, even were we willing to use nuclear weapons. It’s important not to underestimate the sheer volume of material we’re talking about moving. Nuclear weapons are devastatingly potent, but individually, they’re a hiccup compared to what you’d need.
:rolleyes:
So the ash is pristine as it enters the earths atmosphere, yet the other “non ash” radioactive materials vanish into wormhole leading to another dimension?
Either you are being pendantic, or missing the point, or both.
Do the calculations on how much radioactive stuff a volcano (much less a supper volcano) releases, how much radiation THAT stuff releases, then compare that to a nuke.
Then get back to us.
The difference between the type of radioactive materials from a natural volcanic event and a nuclear blast is the absence of highly dangerous short lived isotopes. Even so, radioactive fallout is often exaggerated. The short term problem can’t be denied though.
Cubic MILES of mildy radioactive “natural stuff” versus cubic INCHES of manmade radioactive stuff.
Anybody gonna do some calcs?
And again, the physical (non-radioactive) properties of the ash(and other stuff)make it some nasty ass stuff to inhale with serious short term and long term health consequences.
Donald Trump worrying about a missing penny lost somewhere in a sofa probably makes more sense than this line of worry.
Volcanic ash refers to one by-product of an eruption, formed through several different processes. It is the lightest material (hence it being referred to as ash). Some volcanoes release relatively little volcanic ash, particularly basaltic eruptions (like Kilauea Volcano, Hawaii) and dacite magma (such as Mount Saint Helens). Levels of U[sub]238[/sub] have been found as high as 0.002 mg/Kg, in ash, but that’s not considered significant. No other radioactive elements have been found in measurable quantities that I’m aware.
Dissolved gases, which may be one of the major causes of eruptions, are released in great quantities during an event. The majority of the gas is in the form of sulfur dioxide, which then produces sulfate aerosols and sulfuric acid. The surrounding geology of the volcano can also introduce gases as the magma etches its way through the crust, and this can be a cause of the more toxic components released. Some radioactive gas is also released during a volcanic eruption in the form of Radon[sub]222[/sub] and Radon[sub]226[/sub] (Radon emits alpha radiation, which is not generally harmful to humans if not inhaled as it does not penetrate skin).
Nuclear weapons release a variety of high energy radioactive materials, including a significant volume of irradiated ejecta from the explosion. These are much nastier than anything produced by volcanic activity, although mostly much shorter lived (which is what makes them more dangerous). If you’re using nuclear weapons in a mining scenario, you must either evacuate the crater with the explosion (a Really Bad Idea), or subsequently dig out the loosened material (much of which will be highly radioactive).
All of which may be in vain, since “releasing the pressure” on a volcano may result in massive releases of poisonous gases.