IIRC there are some elements that can absorb a neutron and not become particularly radioactive themselves. And then there are the elements that absorb a neutron but become extremely radioactive so the half life is very short and all you really have to do is wait a bit and everything is okay.
So, you could probably reduce the radioactive amount of material produced per given amount of blast yield by having a very small fission stage that fuses the largest possible fusion stage and have the whole thing surrounded by as much of said elements as possible.
Kind of an inverse neutron bomb I suppose.
Now whether that reduces the X amount of radioactive material per megaton of blast by a factor of 2, 10, or a 100 I have no idea.
Even if you got a megaton or two blast from a single-stage thermonuke design, that’s still one bigass boom. But yeh, seems like there’s no practical way around the radiation problem, but I don’t know how much less radiation you’d get from such a bomb, over what Fat Man or Little Boy (gun-type and implosion-type A-bombs) would produce, and what would be an acceptable amount depending on the type of excavation being done.
I don’t really understand the continued interest in this subject.
Nuclear explosives were never sought out by civil engineers as a solution for excavating. Such interest as did take place was entirely driven by what could best be described as aficionados of atomic bombs (such as Edward Teller) and military leaders with an eye on the emotional politics of nuclear weapons, looking for a nonmilitary use to distract the public from the megadeath implications of the atomic arms race.
It wouldn’t even be faster or cheaper than conventional excavating. The biggest reasons conventional construction takes so much time and costs so much money these days are permitting, safety compliance, and insurance. Does anyone think using a huge atomic explosive would result in fewer environmental impact studies? More lax safety protocols? (“Hell, Bob, it’s only a fusion bomb, it’s not a backhoe.”) Cheaper insurance? Is Flo going to bundle your hydrogen bomb liability with your auto coverage to save you some money?
There is no demand for atomic explosives and no advantage to using them.
Oh come on. Whats the problem with having an instant habour? Or instant new canal?
Hell, if the prevailing winds are favourable, majority of fallout can be outside your borders…great political slogan, we get an instant port, our enemies get cancer.
Seriously, why not. Edward Teller did not seem crazy.
