Physicist: "What They Are Doing Is Basically Using Squirt Guns Against a Raging Forest Fire" ... Japanese Should Use the Chernobyl Approach Instead → Washingtons Blog
Physicist: "What They Are Doing Is Basically Using Squirt Guns Against a Raging Forest Fire" ... Japanese Should Use the Chernobyl Approach Instead - Washingtons Blog

Thursday, March 17, 2011

Physicist: "What They Are Doing Is Basically Using Squirt Guns Against a Raging Forest Fire" ... Japanese Should Use the Chernobyl Approach Instead

World-renowned physicist Michio Kaku (known for being a leading string theorist) told MSNBC that dropping water from helicopters is pointless, and advocates using the Chernobyl approach instead:

[Kaku] What they are doing is basically using squirt guns against a raging forest fire.


It's not effective, because the workers cannot get close enough to put water here. That's why I would personally advocate the Chernobyl option. Do what Gorbachev did, call out the Japanese air force, get the army to bring a fleet of helicopters armed with sand, boric acid and concrete, entomb it, bury it in concrete.

[Question] So the sand and -- the approach they use in Chernobyl . Is it too early to do that?

[Kaku] They keep saying that the thing is stable. That's like saying you're hanging on your fingernails and saying it's stable, stable, every six hours it gets worse. If I was the prime minister, I would put the air force on standby, get the helicopters in case they have to exercise the Chernobyl option.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


  1. Hi Geo,

    You had asked for people to create new detectors for Gamma/Beta radiation. I have done just that (great minds think a like ha) here is the link to my new device.

  2. I think both pressurized and salty water boils at a higher temperature anyways. But the problem in Japan’s compromised power units is that pressure was lost by excessive pipe hammering or water hammering, which eventually blew up. And the steam is now blowing open into to the environment at large. Pouring water like a firefighter would to in this situation will only compounds the situation further; or like putting more fuel to a blazing fire. Hot Rods of U235/238 oe worst, plutonium, will continue to produce steam. It is the radioactive steam the one that contaminates the soil and the environment at large which is further compounded by the weather factors. Thus, I'd be more worried or concerned about highly radioactive particles floating around everywhere in the world rather than by merely neutron or gamma emissions. Without water in the reactor at all there would not be anything to boil into the environment. It will only be heavy localized radioactivity and this can be managed by timing, by shielding and by distance. And I THINK THAT by dumping lots of sodium silicate or perhaps pillars of heavy salt instead of water will more rapidly deplete the water. Thereafter with time the area can be sealed of with concrete like Chernobyl, better yet, concrete mixed with sodium silicate as the article I came across plainly suggests.

    I asked myself if salt does burn and this is the answer . By a Lady Geologist.
    I assume you are asking for the melting point of salt. Since you did not specify which salt, I will also assume you mean table salt or NaCl. The melting point of salt is 800.8° C or 1,473.4° F
    Therefore it can be better used not only as a radiation shield but as a coolant rather than cooling than water.


  3. I asked one of my daughters how is Ice Cream made? They told me that besides the edible ingredients, it needs ice and salt. The reason sodium shields radiation is because of its elemental composition. As an alkali metal, it acts as a catalyst. And catalysts are not usually affected as they do their process. In other words, a catalyst changes the rate of the chemical reactions of determined chemicals or elements. This process may not alter the active rate of nuclear or ionizing reactions of uranium or plutonium. But since either of these are also chemical elements, it may alter its composition from what it is to what is isn’t by corrupting it or changing the way it behaves. And instead of emitting hot particles or radiation it absorbs it, inactivates it or encapsulates it like any corroded metal that has lost its conductivity or like a battery that would refuse to recharge due to impurities or overcharge. I understand that these unstable elements need first to be enriched, cleaned or purified with SF6 or other substances in order be apt to do its intended task. So by polluting these elements with the same algae or sulfur it will undue its ability to freely react. This is just a vague thought of insignificant me.
    “A catalyst may participate in multiple chemical transformations. Catalysts that speed the reaction are called positive catalysts. Substances that interact with catalysts to slow the reaction are called inhibitors (or negative catalysts). Substances that increase the activity of catalysts are called promoters, and substances that deactivate catalysts are called catalytic poisons.”

  4. My entire post was erased when I went to preview it... not good...


→ Thank you for contributing to the conversation by commenting. We try to read all of the comments (but don't always have the time).

→ If you write a long comment, please use paragraph breaks. Otherwise, no one will read it. Many people still won't read it, so shorter is usually better (but it's your choice).

→ The following types of comments will be deleted if we happen to see them:

-- Comments that criticize any class of people as a whole, especially when based on an attribute they don't have control over

-- Comments that explicitly call for violence

→ Because we do not read all of the comments, I am not responsible for any unlawful or distasteful comments.