You're viewing the old website

Free Energy is all about freedom:
Power to the people -- literally and figuratively

 "Free Energy" 

News XML
- PESN Specials
- About
- Pure Energy Blog
- Daily FE News
- Features
- Free Energy Now
- This Week in FE
- Newsletter
- How you can help
- Submit  
- Subscribe


Energy Topics

• Alt Fuels
• Anti-Gravity
• Batteries
• Betavoltaic
• Biofuels
 - BioDiesel
 - BioElectricity
 - Biomass
• Body Electric
• Brown's Gas
• Cold Fusion
• Conservation
• Electrolysis
• Electromagnetic OU
• Fuel Cells
• Fuel Efficiency
 - Electric Vehicles
 - Engines
 - Hydroxy
• Fusion
• Geothermal
• Gravity Motors
• Human Powered
• Hydro
• Hydrogen
• Joe Cells
• Lighting
• Magnet Motors
• Nanotechnology
• Nuclear
• Nucl. Remediation
• Oil
• Piezoelectric
• Plasma
• River
• Salt Water Mix
• Solar
• Solid State Gen.
• Tesla Turbines
• Thermal Electric
• Tidal
• Vortex
• Waste to Energy
• Water
 - Water as Fuel
• Wave
• Wind
• Wireless Electricity
• Zero Point Energy
• MORE . . .

Open Source
• Freddy's Cell
• Bedini SG
• Safe Haven Villages
• MORE . . .

• Awards
• Conservation
• Conspiracy
• Directories
• Investment
• Kudos
• Legal
• Organizations
• Plastic and Energy
• Recycling
• Suppression
• Tools
• Trends
• MORE . . .

• OverUnity Forum
• Employment
• Events
• Humor
• Magazines
• Movies
• Newsletters
• Discuss. Groups

• Store
• Buyer Beware
- - - - - - - - - -
- Donate
- Contact




You are here: > News > September 26, 2013; 12:30 pm Mountain

Shortcut url: 

A Neutron Bomb would NOT Neutralize Fukushima

Proposed: By detonating a 25-km radius neutron bomb at the Fukushima plant, it would turn off the nuclear reactions taking place, while also neutralizing the radiation emitting from radioactive particles that have been emitted within that radius. NASA nuclear physicist says "not".

September 26, 2013; 9:45 am Mountain update

The preliminary indications from the nuclear scientists we talked to were encouraging. However, a leading nuclear physicist from NASA weighed in this morning with the following:

*x* says that yes, neutrons do transmute uranium. The problem is that it will take a lot more than a neutron bomb will deliver. To do anything with that uranium, you would have to steadily bombard it for years with a high degree of neutron flux in a very specific part of the neutron spectrum. And in the process you will be creating radioactive products in the rest of the environment.

He says the bomb idea is not good because the neutron flux will not be large enough and last for a long enough time to make much difference, you'll only get about 10% efficiency of the nuclear material contained in the bomb because the rest of it will be thrown all over the place, and you'll create a huge number of new unwanted nuclear products in the environment.

So the word from these nuclear experts from NASA is: No go on the nuclear bomb idea.... unless *Y* has information that would convince us otherwise. Uranium operates for years in a high neutron flux environment in a reactor. That is an indication of how tough it would be to bombard it with enough neutron flux to transmute it to a safer material.

CAVEAT: An expert who works at NASA has provided an opinion in response to an informal request and not as part of any official capacity on this matter within the space agency

The following story is being presented as it was composed in "draft" form, prior to receiving the above info from a leading nuclear physicist at NASA.

by Sterling D. Allan
Pure Energy Systems News

On the September 5 SmartScarecrow show, as I was talking about a story I did about someone who knows a simple and only solution to turning off the radiation-emissions from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi Nuclear Power Plant, Gary Hendershot made a comment to the effect: "We all know what the solution is. It's just a question of having the political imperative or will to implement the solution: Detonate a neutron bomb over the site." (10:06)

As I've talked to a few people, it turns out that he's right. 

For example, I talked to a  friend in the engineering staff at NASA who knows Nuclear Physicists there {{1 of 3 linked in have responded so far}}, and they agree that there is some merit to this idea

Another nuclear physicist, who is well known in the world, preliminarily said:

"I will say it is a bold idea and might work to reduce the nastiest of the radiations. Needs checking, though, with thorough calculations, to see what is de-activated and what is activated in the process."

My dad, who is an atomic clock physicist, formerly with NIST, also thought it sounded plausible. "It's essentially doing the opposite of what a fusion or fission bomb does, so it makes sense that it would neutralize at least some (because there is more than one kind of emission), if not all radioactivity." [Following the additional disclosures about the reasons why a neutron bomb would not be appropriate, my dad said: "I fully concur."]

Strategically-speaking, neutron bombs kill people without destroying structures. They kill all living things within a certain radius. According to,

"A neutron bomb is type of nuclear weapon designed to release massive amounts of neutron radiation instead of explosive force. Though these weapons do produce large explosions, the radiation they release is able to permeate armored vehicles, buildings and bunkers, killing targets who would have otherwise been protected."

More importantly, for this application, they neutralize radioactivity. A 25 kilometer radius nuclear bomb would turn off the nuclear reactions taking place in the Fukushima plant, stopping the process while also neutralizing the radiation emitting from radioactive particles that have been emitted within that radius. It would also neutralize the spent reactor fuel that is stored at the site.

For this peace-time application, you just clear the people and non-radioactivity-emitting animals from a given radius in vicinity of the detonation, then detonate the bomb via remote control, with some reflectors to focus the neutrons toward a specific target.

The neutron bomb radius would penetrate into the ground, neutralizing the radioactive particles down there, too. Unfortunately, the radius would also penetrate into the nearby ocean waters, killing all the fish, seaweed. It would also destroy bacteria, worms, bugs, etc.  The whole ecosystem in the area would have to be re-populated afterward.

Obviously, you don't want to deploy this solution unless the remedy is worth the impact of implementation. And it seems that in the case of Fukushima, this is indeed the case.

What's crazy is that most every nuclear engineer knows about this, but it is such a closely guarded secret in that industry that none even dare talk about using it in cases like these, even though it would work elegantly.

I don't get why the secrecy, but here is a possible reason. If, for example one country that has nuclear weapons knew that a neutron bomb could clean up the radioactive waste following a nuclear bomb, then they might be tempted to use it for conquest. But I would argue, if you've got a neutron bomb, and you're intentions are conquest, then why bother with the nuclear bomb? Why not go straight to the neutron bomb which only kills living things, while leaving the structures in tact?

But in sending a review link out to a few people, I got the following response, which may come much closer to the reason why this solution isn't floated beyond nuclear engineer circles:

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:05 PM [Mountain]
Subject: I think France has the neutron bomb too.

Didn't the French invent the Neutron bomb in the first place? If what you're saying is true couldn't Israel just drop the neutron bomb on Iran and neutralize all the nukes there. Note [that] their President will probably be in Jerusalem next week apologizing to them so it won't be necessary. But still. 

[And] something else: it wouldn't take Japanese engineers that long to build their own neutron bomb if they really wanted to.

If a neutron bomb neutralizes all nuclear radiation, then it would neutralize nuclear bombs (and any people and other living things around). A low-yield neutron bomb could be very surgical.

I was told by a source who wishes to remain anonymous that the United Stated used neutron bombs following Hiroshima and Nagasaki to clear those areas of radiation, so that today they are completely clear of radiation, which would not be the case if they had not done this. [Very improbable: 1) neutron bomb wasn't developed for a decade, 2) the alternative radiation would have been a problem.]

Apparently neutron bombs are engineered to have a particular radius of effect. The nuclear engineers could chart out what a safe distance would be for people. If I understand correctly, simplistically speaking, the neutron bomb sucks the moisture out of a person. The same anonymous source said that the U.S. military has an 8-foot radius neutron grenade that turns people to dust.

Japan doesn't have neutron bombs, but China, Russia(?), France, and the United States do. I would imagine if they asked nicely, China would be more than happy to assist in selecting the proper size of weapon to deploy. It is certainly in China's interest to have this radiation emission stopped, since they are nearby and directly effected.

I don't know why Russia did not deploy this solution at Chernobyl -- maybe for the same reasons it hasn't been deployed yet at Fukushima.

From what I can tell, the primary objection will be political, not scientific. The neutron bomb would work. But what about the politics of Japan asking China or Russia or the United States to help, admitting that the problem is dire enough to warrant this level of intervention. And what about PETA's objections to the poor animals and fish that will die (just remind them of all the animals and fish that are dying from radiation). Clearing a 25 to 50 km radius of people in a highly-populated area of Japan will not be an easy task, either. Most will evacuate easily, but some will have handicaps that will make that challenging, and others will be stubborn, not wanting to leave. How much of a window of time do you leave for checking to make sure everyone is out? How much advance warning do you give? How many days, weeks, or months?

How much in tact will their homes and businesses be when they return? Will the wood disintegrate to powder? What about plants, leather, cotton, etc.? How much rebuilding and repair are we talking about? What about plastic, will its properties change? Will something that today is an insulator become a conductor?

Who's to say which animals get to be evacuated, and which need to remain? Who's to say that a radioactive human gets to be evacuated, while a radioactive animal must stay behind to be purged?

Will the removal of water (if that is indeed one of the effects of a neutron bomb) for a (diminishing effect) radius of 25 km create a tidal wave from the inrush of ocean to replace the removed water?

We just need to remember that the remedy, in this case, is much better than the problem. If you have a bruise or rot in an apple, you just cut it out and enjoy what remains. Yes, when you cut the bad spot out of the apple, you must include some surrounding good tissue, otherwise you get the taste of the bruise or rot. But if you don't cut it out, the rot takes over the entire apple. The good tissue next to the bruise or rot is the next to go, anyway, if you don't cut it out. You might call it "inevitable collateral damage." And in the case of Fukushima, the poison being emitted from the plant is at such a rate that we must do something to stop it.

Furthermore, while we're at it, we might as well ship all the spent reactor rods from around the world to Fukushima for this once-in-a-lifetime (hopefully) bonfire operation, to neutralize them all.

September 26, 2013; 9:00 am Mountain

After a night's sleep, I spoke again with my friend at NASA. He had a lot of good information about this as well as questions that need to be addressed in tackling a solution along these lines.

One thing that would have to be known for the Fukushima solution is where the primary nuclear reactions and radiation generation are taking place. How thick is the concrete in front of them? That would effect the required yield and the effected radius above ground.

He did not recommend trying to invite nuclear pollution from around the world to be shipped to Fukushima for this event because "it creates a moving target; and there is no better way to kill a project than not have a fixed goal." [I would argue that they could have a "receiving area of x size" for this purpose, and once that is filled, then no more could be accepted. That would give them the "fixed component {{This was prior to receiving the info from a leading nuclear engineer at NASA.}}.]

There may be an alternative to a neutron bomb. NASA is developing space propulsion systems that utilize neutrons. They have ways of producing a continuous stream of neutrons as well as reflecting and directing them. Maybe something like this could be used over the Fukushima plant. It would not be a millisecond approach like the neutron bomb would be, but would need to be activated over a longer period of time. [But on second thought, he said: "Not enough flux. It would take years.
It's just not a good option. Well, let me state it another way. The amount of nuclear material needed and the length of time required would need to be understood. This is not something that you try without extensive knowledge of the consequences. I don't like the idea of trial and error with Japanese assets and Japanese lives.]

From what he understands (not sure), the reason a person turns to dust in a neutron bomb event is that the neutron hits hydrogen and thermalizes it, essentially evaporating the water in an instant.

Just F.Y.I., the background radiation in the area of the Fukushima disaster is less than background in IRAN where there is no disaster and never has been a disaster. This is a fact.

So pass this on to your nuclear engineer friends in Japan. Get them on board. And have them contact the politicians in Japan, to get them on board.

Together, the nuclear scientists and the politicians can come up with a plan that will work, minimizing the blast strength while maximizing its neutralization capability.

Let's solve this problem.

And really quickly, while I've got your attention on the subject of the Fukushima fiasco, for those of you who don't usually follow our news, directory, and networking service, let me inform you that there are a myriad of very promising clean energy solutions very close to being ready for market. See our listing at And follow our news and directory at 

There are many reasons and solutions, including clean nuclear (LENR), to phase out fission power so that we don't have more problems like this. For example, Brillouin Energy Corporation in Berkeley, California, is developing an LENR reactor that could replace the boiler in coal plants that have been shut down due to compliance issues, as well as nuclear boilers, so we don't have more problems with nuclear events like Fukushima and Chernobyl. 

In the U.S., there were 14 "near misses" in 2010 (Reference; Reference); and 15 in 2011 (Reference; Reference). The former NRC Chair says we should shut down all nuclear power. (Reference) Experience-rocked Japan is shutting down its last functioning nuclear reactor. (Reference)

I'm looking for nuclear engineers and physicists who would be willing to write statements regarding this proposal, which I can publish, preferably with their name and credentials.

I'm looking for a nuclear engineer or physicist who would be willing to go on Coast to Coast AM with me to talk about this solution and answer the myriad of questions about how neutron bombs work, and how they would neutralize radiation and shut down a run-away reactor; and collateral damage to humans, animals, plants, wood, leather, cotton, etc.

I've changed the domain name to point to this present page, but we could build it out as a separate site, to flesh out all these questions and solutions, as well as to address the question of remedying the radiation that has been emitted worldwide from the plant. If you're a webmaster with the necessary understanding and skills and are willing to head this up (as a volunteer task), let me know.

# # #

Related Coverage

Related Links


You can comment down below. Here are a few highlights.

This one is from Gary Hendershot, the one whose comment instigated the above article, following a triggering response from someone else who for now will remain anonymous. I should first remark, though, that my understanding of neutron bombs is that their effect penetrates into the ground, perhaps attenuated some by the ground, but not profoundly attenuated. So the underground components of Fukushima's reactor, as well as the deep underground seeped water would be neutralized.

Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2013 8:46 PM [Mountin]
Subject: RE: A Neutron Bomb would Neutralize Fukushima

I am not a nuclear physics but I did stay at Holiday Inn Express for a night a few years back …

yes, a neutron bomb could be used to tidy up the immediate area of the Fukushima disaster … however, the molten reactor cores that are now somewhere underground beneath the site is another story … about the only thing that would solve that one is an underground thermonuclear detonation … no telling if Mt Fuji or the nearby fault line would tolerate that one … so cleaning up the molten cores underground is not something this addresses …

no, a neutron bomb would not be pretty … nothing in the immediate area of the blast would stand … … no organic materials would survive … even steel reinforced concrete buildings in the area would be severely damaged by exposure to the intense neutron radiation …  it's not a pretty thing … it's downright ugly … it’s a 2 minutes until end of game 80 yard hail Marry pass …  but if it works, instead of it being a dead zone for thousands of years, you might just be able to reclaim the area in a hundred years of so …

desperate times require desperate solutions and frankly, I am surprised that this option is not be discussed by the so called experts …


On September September 26, 2013 1:17 PM [Mountain], Robert E. Godes, President and CTO of Brillouin Energy Corp., wrote:

While it is true that a neutron bomb MAY REDUCE the emissions from the melted down core in the local vicinity, it will also neutron activate every thing else with in a 25KM radius and make it uninhabitable for a few months, best case. Not a good idea. While the blast effect of an Enhanced Radiation Weapon (Neutron Bomb) is less than a standard nuclear weapon, it is still a nuclear bomb with a blast of more than 1000 and as much as 10,000 tones of TNT. Also the blast may well lift much of the core into the atmosphere with out converting it to short lived radio isotopes.

They are not just sitting on there hands over there. Here is a story I picked up from the IEEE.

A Video Tour of Fukushima Daiichi - New TEPCO video shows the crippled nuclear plant's current status 

* * * *

On September 26, 2013 11:58 AM [Mountain], Jed Rothwell of wrote:

That is completely ridiculous.

Neutron bombs do not "neutralize radiation" and the reactors at Fukushima are not in a run-away condition. They have many problems there, but that is not among them.

- Jed

Gary Hendershot responded:

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2013 2:05 PM
Subject: RE: A Neutron Bomb would Neutralize Fukushima


it seems that so far, no really good solutions to the mess in Fukushima have been put on the table … while a neutron bomb is certainly not a "cure", might the use of such a device, or perhaps multiple devices over a year or two, reduce from thousands of years, to maybe one or two life times, the ongoing contamination ???

one of my concerns is that bombarding the molten cores with high intensity neutrons just might cause them to go critical and we might end up triggering a bit larger boom than we expect … and yeah, if that happened, it could toss glow in the dark goodies all over the place as a side effect …

no good answers as far as I know … but I am of the impression that neutron bombardment could at least transmute some of the longer lasting constituents to somewhat shorter lived isotopes … certainly not a good solution, but maybe better than doing nothing … the idea being this is a problem that this generation caused and should solve … it should not be left to our great grandchildren to come up with a fix for a problem they did not cause …

appreciate your opinion on this issue … thanks for weighing in …


On September 26, 2013 4:26 PM [Mountain], Professor Steven E. Jones wrote:


For starters, I looked at the medium-lived radioactive fission products (see attached), then what these would turn into upon neutron-capture. 

One example: Cesium-137 absorbs a neutron to become Cesium-138, which decays in about 33 minutes (half-life) to become Barium-138 which is stable! So far so good... but one has to consider also the neutron-capture cross-section (for Cs-137 and all radioisotopes of interest) -- and what these become upon neutron irradiation. 

Then there are the actinides in the reactor and the activated material -- what does a neutron bomb do to EACH of these? 

Think of this -- in the reactor, there are lots of neutrons, yet we find that cesium-137 and strontium-90 and so on are BUILDING UP, making radioactive waste. So just throwing more neutrons at the waste (from a neutron bomb) is not likely to solve the problem!  But one could go ahead and analyze each radioisotope of interest (along the lines outlined above) to be quantitative.

What You Can Do

  1. See Suggestions for How to Get Involved with the Roll-out of Exotic Free Energy 
  2. Pass this on to your friends and favorite news sources.
  3. Click to Tweet:  
  4. Donate to PES Network to help us keep this news and directory and networking service going.
  5. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay abreast of the latest, greatest developments in the free energy sector.
  6. Let professionals in the renewable energy sector know about the promise of this technology. 

See also

Resources at

Page composed by Sterling D. Allan
Last updated November 26, 2013




"It is harder to crack a prejudice than an atom." // "I'd rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right." -- Albert Einstein

ADVISORY: With any technology, you take a high risk to invest significant time or money unless (1) independent testing has thoroughly corroborated the technology, (2) the group involved has intellectual rights to the technology, and (3) the group has the ability to make a success of the endeavor.
All truth passes through three stages:
   First, it is ridiculed;
   Second, it is violently opposed; and
   Third, it is accepted as self-evident.

-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

    "When you're one step ahead
of the crowd you're a genius.
When you're two steps ahead,
you're a crackpot."

-- Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, (Feb. 1998)

Submit • Privacy • About • Contact

PESWiki Departments:
Latest • News •XMLFeed • Directory • Congress • Top 5 • Open Sourcing
Copyright © 2002-2015, PES Network Inc.