Good news! Nuclear bombs do not work/exist.

[Romulox]

I am curious as to how one goes about veriying anything that is decreed by the high priests of big science, what with their particle guns and gold foil, cyclotrons, large hadron colliders, rockoons, red shift radio listening devices (thank goodness for that pigeon poop), etc.  (The rockoons are my favorite!)

 

The fact that I can spend 40 hours a week a few hundred yards from two 2900 Megawatt nuclear reactors and come home with as much hair as I left with is enough to convince me that those high priests got something right. 

 

I guess it might be too early to tell how President Obama will use the Higgs Boson take away my few remaining freedoms, but if you can give us a heads up when you figure that out, it would certainly be appreciated. 

[boethius]

For those of you who are confused by my posts: NUCLEAR WEAPONS DO NOT EXIST

 

Let's take a look at the "blast" that great big explosion. What, exactly is exploding? Does the 1.25 kg of uranium exploding make enough of a blast to billow the cheeks of people standing miles away?

 

No. It's the energy isn't it? Those subatomic particles flying out with so much kinetic energy. But wait, subatomic particles don't push the air, subatomic particles don't create pressure, which is needed to push air. Subatomic particles either completely miss the atoms in the air or they are absorbed by them. If a molecule in the air absorbs an atom the molecule becomes hot. What does hot air do? It rises. And it's invisible when it does rise.

 

How you can personally verify the above:

Think of the last time you had an x-ray, the government claims atom bombs produce x-rays (among others). Can you feel x-rays? Do they create a whoosh of air? No. They are subatomic. They pass through the air (mostly) and are absorbed by dense matter. they do not push the air nor do they push dense matter.

 

Think of hot air. Does it start blowing all by itself or does it rise? Turn on the burner on your stove and watch the air around it. It simply rises causing wavy lines where it bends the light. Heated air goes up, not to the side. And the atom bomb cannot push the air because it emits subatomic particles which either pass through the air or are absorbed by air molecules. A real nuke would turn the air into a plasma in-place, without creating a shockwave effect.

 

The official story of nuclear weapons is a hoax/boogeyman based on TNT/chemical bombs. Hence they're measure in terms of TNT. A real nuclear weapon, if it existed would not have created a mushroom cloud when detonated in the air over Nagasaki. A real nuke would create a plasma, like you see in lightning, not a cloud. A real nuke could not produce a shockwave because the subatomic particles emitted do not move larger molecules. 

 

The hoax worked great right after WWII. There was an arms race within the war (the German supergun et. al.) and audiences were living in fear of the next great weapon, so the government gave them one based on a few calculations by a team of theoretical physicists. The government then set off a giant block of TNT and claimed the resulting mushroom cloud was an atom bomb. When anyone got to close the government said "state secret" or "bad guy trying to find out how to hurt us" and nobody looked any further. Today, with the consolidation of Science under the State (any state) as complete as the consolidation of Christianity under the Pope in the Middle Ages. Yes, we are in the dark ages of science where logic and reasoning lose out to what the man on the TV says.

[MrCapitalism]

What does hot air do?

Expands.

 

They're called gas laws.

 

 

Think of hot air. Does it start blowing all by itself or does it rise?

 

 

Question: Why does it rise?

 

Answer: Buoyancy

 

 

So why is hot air buoyant? Because it is less dense. And why is hot air less dense than cooler air? Because it expanded.

 

 

 

And the atom bomb cannot push the air because it emits subatomic particles which either pass through the air or are absorbed by air molecules.

So atomic energy is "absorbed by air molecules"? How does air react to absorbing energy?

 

It's temperature increases.

[pretzelogik]

One way is that they release the data of basic research for others to view after a time. I can only hope they do something similar with all nuclear research, but a lot of data from earlier quantum research is available for anyone to sift through. Even the LHC provides data if you can handle it. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/computing

 

Obligatorycredibility: I used to coordinate responses to customer problems with systems used for data dumps like this.

 

So, if I am understanding correctly, the message here is that there is no difference between that which happens in reality and is readily verifiable by the senses, and reports about what happens in reality that can be verified by reading the reports.

 

I am not sure how much stock I would put in government reports (cough CPI...). 

 

I would prefer to have a look at these particles colliding with my own eyes, thank you..  And seriously, did you even look at the rockoons?  A Gieger counter tied to a rocket tied to a ballon is how we kow about the Van Allen Belts.  The ones the astronauts could see or couldn't see through their closed eyelids...

[pretzelogik]

The fact that I can spend 40 hours a week a few hundred yards from two 2900 Megawatt nuclear reactors and come home with as much hair as I left with is enough to convince me that those high priests got something right. 

 

I guess it might be too early to tell how President Obama will use the Higgs Boson take away my few remaining freedoms, but if you can give us a heads up when you figure that out, it would certainly be appreciated. 

 

I'll keep you advised.  In addition to the Higgs Boson curfew and travel restrictions there will be Easter Bunny captial containment and burning bush communications censorship.  I am sure there will be many other fanciful stories and the laws they foster being issued by the men in white coats or black robes or what have you emanating from the marble edifices erected in homage to the triumvirate gods of religion, state and science.  But I repeat myself.

[shirgall]

So, if I am understanding correctly, the message here is that there is no difference between that which happens in reality and is readily verifiable by the senses, and reports about what happens in reality that can be verified by reading the reports.

 

When science is attacked for not-easily-reproduced results because of cost, the destructive nature of the experiment, or the sheer difficulty of getting a useful result, they publish the heck out of the methodology and results... and then the other makes disingenuous claim that I'm calling it equivalent to direct experience and so discounts it. What purpose is there in talking further? 

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

 

 

It is a very good feeling to accept that there is no real evidence for nukes. You all should just accept that too imo.   I know most of you probably have'nt accepted that there is no evidence that humans have been on the moon. It is 100% guaranteed humans have not been on the moon.  That is why noone will find any legitimate evidence for it. And I think the same is true for the story around the capabilities of 'nuclear bombs' at this point.

 

You are in on it. Why else do you keep repeated the claim over and over again? You are part of a double bluff. By making such preposterous and incompetent arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons and the moon landing you are making the proponents of those lies seem credible. You are a shill and you've been caught. 

[boethius]

Expands.

 

They're called gas laws.

 

 

 

 

Question: Why does it rise?

 

Answer: Buoyancy

 

 

So why is hot air buoyant? Because it is less dense. And why is hot air less dense than cooler air? Because it expanded.

 

 

 

So atomic energy is "absorbed by air molecules"? How does air react to absorbing energy?

 

It's temperature increases.

 

 

I believe the subject of "hot air rising" was covered in 6th grade earth science.

 

Hot air...rises...see "hot air balloons" or turn on your stove and see how much hot air rises vs expands outwards.  

 

Heat rises. Covered in 8th grade science. 

 

Hot air rises. As seen in the earth's convecting weather system...where hot air rises to cool and form clouds. 

 

People. You cannot come up with a scientific explanation for the pictures and movies they tell us are "nukes" without going against everything we know about science. Those images the government shows us are 100% lies. 

In the 40's people knew nothing about atomic physics so the government could pass anything as the truth.

 

In the 50's it was a state secret so the droves of people entering universities couldn't study it.

 

By the 60's it was hysteria and the idea that evaluating the reality of a nuke required years of study when I have shown that the things they say a nuke does can be dismissed using an average person's everyday experience. 

 

Today everyone who believes in nukes (basically 100% of the population) does so because their parents were afraid of nukes, their teachers were afraid of nukes and the media kept telling them to be afraid of nukes.

 

Parents learned from their parents

Teachers have to say nukes exist or they're fired

Media is in no way a credible source of information

 

And so it goes that if you were raised to believe in nukes you believe in nukes. It's kind of like a global religion.

[A4E]

...By making such preposterous and incompetent arguments against the existence of nuclear weapons and the moon landing you are making the proponents of those lies seem credible. You are a shill and you've been caught.

 

Even if all of your post was ment as a joke, Its hard for me to not take offense when you say I have preposterous and incompetent arguments against the moon landings.

 

I get very motivated when someone challenge me on something I have spent alot of time on and know to be a hoax, so I am ready to go if you so desire. You say that nuclear bombs and the moon landings are lies, but I have a feeling you might hold the other side.

 

It is ofcourse up to Nasa to prove that they have been on the moon, and you might have all this sorted out, so then I would like to hear all your good arguments for a moon landing. Because you surely had all the details explained to you by either Nasa or someone who had high knowledge of what went on in Nasa. So I await your list. You dont have to write much if you dont want to, you could forexample just write, "moon rocks, reflectors, photos", but you could also just find pro moon landing websites like this, and copy their lists.

 

In any case I have gone through it all before afaik, but I would love to do some dismantling again if you are up for it.

[pretzelogik]

When science is attacked for not-easily-reproduced results because of cost, the destructive nature of the experiment, or the sheer difficulty of getting a useful result, they publish the heck out of the methodology and results... and then the other makes disingenuous claim that I'm calling it equivalent to direct experience and so discounts it. What purpose is there in talking further? 

 

It comes down to believing something based on credentials and consensus.  If I were receiving umpteen billions of dallars in government grant money to produce results favorable to the cause of my benefactors, I would publish a lot of reports as well.

 

But popularity and documents do not make something so, otherwise there would be no atheists.  I am an atheist regarding scientism (as opposed to science and the scientific method) and have no more confidence in any the narratives that issue from the hallowed halls of Berkeley, MIT, NASA, the Royal Society, et al. than I do in climate change.  Hint - they are all in. 

 

Also, the relationship between the black robes and the white coats is historically a lot more cozy that we have been led to believe.  i mean, the fact that the  Vatican owns the most powerful telescope in the world could only be a demonstration of the church's commitment to the dispersion of unbiased scientific discoveries, right?

[shirgall]

It comes down to believing something based on credentials and consensus.  If I were receiving umpteen billions of dallars in government grant money to produce results favorable to the cause of my benefactors, I would publish a lot of reports as well.

 

But popularity and documents do not make something so, otherwise there would be no atheists.  I am an atheist regarding scientism (as opposed to science and the scientific method) and have no more confidence in any the narratives that issue from the hallowed halls of Berkeley, MIT, NASA, the Royal Society, et al. than I do in climate change.  Hint - they are all in. 

 

Also, the relationship between the black robes and the white coats is historically a lot more cozy that we have been led to believe.  i mean, the fact that the  Vatican owns the most powerful telescope in the world could only be a demonstration of the church's commitment to the dispersion of unbiased scientific discoveries, right?

 

Meh. Transparency is harsh light for pharmacology and humanocentric climate change, but it's been great for gravity, evolution, subatomic physics, and billions of other sciences.

 

Bottom line is that basic research takes three or so decades to produce actionable science. Product development around subatomic science has been brisk and profitable. I'm not seeing any profit in doubting that it works.

[boethius]

The story behind fake nukes and fake moon landings and all the fake Science of the last 100 years (i.e. almost all the Science of the last 100 years) is that Science has been changed from a process based on observation to a Religion based on belief.

 

We are supposed to simply believe what we're told. If we ask our scientists for proof of their discoveries, they either show us videos or tell us we wouldn't understand. Real science is based on observation: what you can see, and what you can prove through a repeatable experiment performed by someone other than you. Real science is incredibly simple and straightforward to explain because it is based on how the real world functions. If you look closely at the results of the Religion of Science you will find violations of the laws of nature everywhere. Real science works with the natural laws, which are immutable and inviolable. 

 

The corruption of science is not by accident. Neither is the consolidation of all science under the government. In the 1800's scientists were independent, working in private labs they either paid for themselves or were supported by a patron. Today every working scientist works for the government directly or indirectly. 

 

So of course nukes are fake. 

[shirgall]

We are supposed to simply believe what we're told. If we ask our scientists for proof of their discoveries, they either show us videos or tell us we wouldn't understand.

 

Are you deliberately ignoring the numerous examples where complete data, methodology, and other evidence are shared that I pointed out?

[shirgall]

https://reason.com/blog/2015/06/19/climate-wars-and-the-damage-science

 

Climate Wars and the Damage Done to the Credibility of Science

 

These [green advocacy] scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous...

[FriendlyHacker]

We are supposed to simply believe what we're told. If we ask our scientists for proof of their discoveries, they either show us videos or tell us we wouldn't understand. Real science is based on observation: what you can see, and what you can prove through a repeatable experiment performed by someone other than you. Real science is incredibly simple and straightforward to explain because it is based on how the real world functions. If you look closely at the results of the Religion of Science you will find violations of the laws of nature everywhere.

You're using a computer right now, do you understand how it works? Can you see the entangled particles on your cd burner? Why do you think it should be easy to understand entangled particles?

 

If everything you can't understand is supposedly fake, I suppose you must be the smartest person that ever was and ever will be.

[pretzelogik]

You're using a computer right now, do you understand how it works? Can you see the entangled particles on your cd burner? Why do you think it should be easy to understand entangled particles?

 

If everything you can't understand is supposedly fake, I suppose you must be the smartest person that ever was and ever will be.

 

This could be another opprortunity to use the groovy animated Straw Man graphic that was posted earlier, but it is rather large. 

 

The problem is not understanding but reliance on narrative in drawing conclusions, which is a matter of faith, not science.  I do not need faith in the computer, I have experience.  There is need for entangled particles or spooky action at a distance to describe a machine that is a function of mechanics and binary logic.  The speed and efficiency of these machines have been increased in a linear fashion over a number of decades in a way that can be traced without any reliance on what could be described as supernatural phenomena.

 

Contrast the computer with the atom bomb, an once upon a time event that is riddled of plot holes and must be taken on faith.  The entire  hoax was stage managed by the state; they created it and provided the demostrably contrived evidence for it.  It's ironic that on an anarchy forum there is such unwavering trust in the narrative provided by the state when it comes to the bomb.  Or other such unverifiable, institutionalized science.

 

I don't know if you have heard the news but the latest papal encyclical on climate change has once again put the church and state (and science) in lock step with yet another justification to fleece the flock.  It's as old as history.  As the state is a religion itself, there should be no surprise in the new public alliance.  In many cases (especially in large institutions where unverifyable and complicated experiments that have to do with the origin of the universe and such are performed) scienctism is simply doing the bidding of the church/state.

 

I do not confuse scientism (Berkeley, Royal Society, NASA, big bang, dark matter, etc.) with the scientific method or scientists who  discover innovative solutions to problems in the real world.

[Romulox]

pretzelogic, boethius,

 

Do you believe this image to be a piece of state propaganda as well?  Yes or No?

 

[pretzelogik]

Tineye reveals this image to be associated with the Cherenkov reactor, thus the blue light.  I found it on a Raw Science article page which describes the apparent blue glow of Cherenkov radiation.  The same article also featured an image of the Oak Ridge Lab's Molten Salt reactor which, when subjected to ELA via Fotoforensics showed signs of digital manipulation.  That article can be found here.  (You're welcome for sourcing the image)

 

http://www.rawscience.tv/the-best-reactor-youve-never-heard-of/

 

The few additional images associated with the blue glow that I looked at also showed signs of digital manipulation.  The image above appears to be an entirely digital creation (a rendering or cartoon), as opposed to a manipulated photograph.  Perhaps you could direct me to some images of the Cherenkov reactor that are not manipulated.

 

Is this state propaganda?  Perhaps.  Does it mean nuclear power is a fantasy?  My verdict on that is still out.  I find it supicious that unadulterated photos seem to be in short supply. 

 

If in fact, the nuclear power story is accurate and the deterioation of uranium or plutonium over time generates heat that can be harnessed to spin turbines, it does not follow that striking pieces of these metals together would vaporize a city.

[Guest Gee]

A look at nuclear science and technology, an online course by coursera.

 

https://www.coursera.org/course/nuclearscience

 

Included in the course is how nuclear weapons work, the course is free.

[Romulox]

I couldn't care less about the photo, I picked a random image off of Google.  I'm asking if you believe that nuclear power generation is state propaganda.  If so, please explain to me how the governments 31 countries have collaborated in perfect harmony to fool the population into believing that there are 435 nuclear power facilities operating around the globe, generating 375,000 MW of electric power.  Note that the world population includes the tens of thousands of workers who build, operate, and maintain these facilities.  As one of them, if you have some information that would lead me to believe that my professional career as of now has been an elaborate state-created lie, I would be forever in your debt, and will certainly start pursuing alternate career paths.  

 

If in fact, the nuclear power story is accurate and the deterioation of uranium or plutonium over time generates heat that can be harnessed to spin turbines, it does not follow that striking pieces of these metals together would vaporize a city.

 

It absolutely does, as both processes are two predictions made by the same set of physical laws with different input parameters.  Though 20 gallons of gasoline burning in a controlled manner inside an engine may not look the same as dumping 20 gallons of gasoline on the ground and lighting it on fire, the same laws of chemistry and thermodynamics can predict the results of both outcomes. 

 

If you conclude that nuclear power is in fact not the greatest hoax in the history of mankind, then you accept that the laws that govern nuclear reactions are valid, as reactions must be controlled in order to produce electrical power.  These same laws that predict the fission rate inside a nuclear reactor predict the fission rate inside of an imploded ball of plutonium in the center of a nuclear bomb, as well as the resulting release of energy.  88 Trillion Joules (output of the Fat Man bomb) released instantaneously is certainly enough to destroy a city.   

[pretzelogik]

I couldn't care less about the photo, I picked a random image off of Google.  I'm asking if you believe that nuclear power generation is state propaganda.  If so, please explain to me how the governments 31 countries have collaborated in perfect harmony to fool the population into believing that there are 435 nuclear power facilities operating around the globe, generating 375,000 MW of electric power.  Note that the world population includes the tens of thousands of workers who build, operate, and maintain these facilities.  As one of them, if you have some information that would lead me to believe that my professional career as of now has been an elaborate state-created lie, I would be forever in your debt, and will certainly start pursuing alternate career paths.  

 

 

It absolutely does, as both processes are two predictions made by the same set of physical laws with different input parameters.  Though 20 gallons of gasoline burning in a controlled manner inside an engine may not look the same as dumping 20 gallons of gasoline on the ground and lighting it on fire, the same laws of chemistry and thermodynamics can predict the results of both outcomes. 

 

If you conclude that nuclear power is in fact not the greatest hoax in the history of mankind, then you accept that the laws that govern nuclear reactions are valid, as reactions must be controlled in order to produce electrical power.  These same laws that predict the fission rate inside a nuclear reactor predict the fission rate inside of an imploded ball of plutonium in the center of a nuclear bomb, as well as the resulting release of energy.  88 Trillion Joules (output of the Fat Man bomb) released instantaneously is certainly enough to destroy a city.   

 

As I said before, I haven't drawn conclusions about nuclear power.  There are too many issues with the evidence provided for the bomb for me to ever be taken in by that hoax again, and I derive absolutely no benefit from you believing in it or otherwise.  It was a relief for me to let go of the notion that a single psycho with his finger on a button could vaporize my family remotely, thank goodness.

 

But since the idea that power and the bomb are inextricably linked in the minds of many and you seem to be very well informed on the nature of this source of power, perhaps you could help me resolve a couple of engineering riddles.  From what I can gather about Fukushima, it was a general power failure that stopped the cooling systems of the reactors that melted down, so the reactors rely on external power for the most fundamentally critical aspects of their performance and safety.  Interruption of that external power is catastrophic, to say the least.  Evidently, this has happened elsewhere, as well.

 

Why build a perpetual power machine (where "a tiny fuel pellet less than 0.2 cubic inches will provide the energy equivalent of approximately 2,000 pounds of coal" - according the the nuclear power course curriculum,  recommended above) and not have the power it generates cool itself, first and foremost? I mean if these machines are generating 375,000MW of power, surely they could cool themselves.  Since you work in industry, maybe you could offer an explanation, I could not find one.

 

The other curious thing: almost all of the nuclear reators in the world are situated in areas that already have fully integrated electrical grids, very few are in remote areas where the demand and convenience would make more sense.  Apparently they are still working on getting small reactors to Antartica and such, but at present it's still a bridge too far.  Perhaps it's just a question of money.

 

BTW, is your job top secret or anything?  Are you at liberty to discuss what you do?  Can you bring doughnuts into the control room?

[Romulox]

I am always more than happy to answer questions about nuclear power to anyone who is interested.  Contrary to what most people think, most of what we do is completely public and is available on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's website. 

 

First off, here is a link to a simple description and diagram of a Fukushima type plant.

 

You are correct that the Fukushima reactors melted down because the cooling systems for the reactors were not functional, and that they rely on an external source of power to operate.  External power to operate these systems comes from two sources; 1. the electrical grid, and 2. backup diesel powered generators (literally locomotive engines inside of a protected building).  Each reactor has two diesel generators, each of which are capable of powering 100% of the safety systems required to shut down and cool the plant.  I assume that the 9.0 earthquake quite easily took down the grid; however, the diesel generators survived the earthquake intact.  Things started to turn ugly when the tsunami overcame the seawall around the plant and simultaneously flooded all the diesel generator buildings, which were located underground for reasons I will never understand. 

 

In order for a nuclear reactor to produce power, it must produce steam which is directed to a very large turbine-generator.  In order for the turbine-generator system to operate, a series of support systems, such as lube oil for the turbine bearings and cooling for the generator coils, must be functional as well.  Since the safety and cooling systems must be protected against earthquakes and tornadoes, cost much more to construct, and undergo a more rigorous maintenance schedule, sticking two locomotive engines inside of their own protected buildings is a much more reliable and cost effective plan than protecting and maintaining the entire turbine-generator system. 

 

If something such as a large earthquake happens, you want to shut the plant down as soon as possible in case there is a problem, such as a broken pipe or a fire.  After you shut down, the waste products left over from fission continue to undergo radioactive decay, and thus generate heat.  The amount of heat generated due to radioactive decay of the waste products is relatively high at first, but decays exponentially over time, so the sooner you shut down the easier it is to cool later (though it never reaches a point where it generates zero heat, so some amount of cooling is always needed).  However, a reactor that is shut down produces at most about 3% of the heat of a reactor operating at full power. 

 

As for location of nuclear plants in general, it is a question of both money and wishes of the population and politicians.  Populated, industrial areas will have more demand than remote areas, and there is a significant cost to transmitting power across long distances.  However, people generally don't want nuclear reactors in their back yards, so you will rarely find a nuclear plant inside a large city (though they make small/medium sized towns very happy with lots of jobs and tax revenue).  Small commercial reactors are currently in the design process and may start popping up in the next decade or so, but I don't think the financial incentive is quite there in Antarctica. 

 

I've brought several things to the control room, but doughnuts haven't been one of them.  Maybe they would be much happier to see me if I did.  I've heard more Homer Simpson jokes than I can count, so go ahead and get them out of your system if you must

 

I hope this helps, and I will be more than happy to answer any other questions you might have. 

[GregMerwe]

I am not a certified scientist. As far as i understand it, nuclear power stations actually use steam to turn the turbines that generate the power. The reason they call it nuclear power is because as a part of the reaction that goes in to generating the steam they use uranium. The danger comes not from the uranium itself but the pressure required to create the reaction. This is why thorium reactors have been considered such a breakthrough. In that sense nuclear power stations are not actually magic nuclear reactors one step away from a bomb, they are just utilising uranium to generate steam.

 

On thorium reactors to replace uranium.

 

Do i think it is possible to make a bomb out of uranium? I would say it is highly likely technically possible. Considering the pressure required to make the reaction in the steam power plants i doubt it would be practical though. I know that US have uranium war head missile. Do they use the uranium in the rocket reaction? i don't think so, do they use it in the explosive? I am not sure, i think it is more of a payload.

 

hxxs://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Depleted_uranium

 

Read up there is says that it is actually used in various ways. In missiles it used to for its density and armour piercing qualities. That i did not know.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong on this.

[Romulox]

I am not a certified scientist. As far as i understand it, nuclear power stations actually use steam to turn the turbines that generate the power. The reason they call it nuclear power is because as a part of the reaction that goes in to generating the steam they use uranium. The danger comes not from the uranium itself but the pressure required to create the reaction.

 

You are correct that nuclear power stations use steam to turn turbines that generate the power.  They are exactly the same as coal or gas fired power plants except that they boil water in a different way.  However, the high pressure that is used in a nuclear plant has nothing to do with the nuclear reaction itself.  The pressure is elevated so that water reaches a higher temperature before it boils.  As steam pressure and temperature increase, the efficiency of the turbine increases significantly.  Some of the high-end coal power plants can reach nearly twice the pressure of the highest-pressure nuclear plants.

 

The danger of nuclear power is not technically the uranium, but the radioactive elements that are left over from the fission process (referred to as "fission products").  As you saw in the video, a human can safely hold an unreacted uranium pellet in his hand with no consequences whatsoever.  However, anyone exposed to a recently spent fuel assembly that isn't covered by several feet of water would receive a lethal dose of radiation in a matter of seconds.  Its these fission products that continue to generate heat after the fission reaction is shut down that will cause a meltdown if cooling capability is lost. 

 

The problem with the pressure required for a water cooled reactor, as explained in the video, is that if a pipe breaks and suddenly releases 650 degF water into the airtight containment building, the water will instantly flash to steam and increase the pressure inside the building.  If the pressure exceeds the structural limits of the containment building, and the containment cracks, there is now a path for radioactive gases and particles to escape to the atmosphere in an uncontrolled manner (given that the fuel is damaged or melted), at which point you would have to evacuate the area.  Since a thorium reactor is not pressurized, and the salt would not turn to vapor in the event of a pipe break, cracking a containment building as a result of overpressure is extremely unlikely. 

 

Thanks for posting the video; it's an excellent introduction to thorium reactors for those without a nuclear or even a scientific background.  The only thing I see missing from the video is how you actually get power without boiling any water; I expected that the heat from the molten salt would be used to boil water and generate high pressure steam for a turbine-generator.  Not sure how the heat could be converted to electricity on the moon. 

 

I personally would love to see innovative new reactor designs such as a thorium-molten salt reactor.  We easily have enough thorium to last until human civilization moves off the planet (I've heard you can actually extract it from seawater), and it doesn't require enrichment like uranium reactors do.  I expect the regulatory hurdles are far to high for any commercial power generation company to overcome though.  The thorium reactor in the video is only one of many of the new and much safer nuclear reactor designs; the pebble bed helium cooled reactor is one of my favorites.

 

Do i think it is possible to make a bomb out of uranium? I would say it is highly likely technically possible. Considering the pressure required to make the reaction in the steam power plants i doubt it would be practical though. I know that US have uranium war head missile. Do they use the uranium in the rocket reaction? i don't think so, do they use it in the explosive? I am not sure, i think it is more of a payload.

 

hxxs://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Depleted_uranium

 

Read up there is says that it is actually used in various ways. In missiles it used to for its density and armour piercing qualities. That i did not know.

 

The only uranium based bomb I know of is the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima; the Fat Man (Nagasaki) and subsequent bombs were made of plutonium.  Plutonium bombs do require immense pressures in that a sphere of plutonium is crushed/imploded to initiate the explosive chain reaction.  This is easily accomplished by surrounding the plutonium with conventional explosives, which will raise the pressure to hundreds or thousands of times higher than that of a power plant.  I'm pretty sure there are a ton of links for how a plutonium bomb works in earlier posts.

 

Since they don't really use uranium in nuclear weapons anymore, I imagine the uranium tipped missile you are referring to is likely a bunker buster type missile that is designed to penetrate deep underground before exploding.  The uranium shouldn't have anything to do with the rocket or explosive itself. 

[GregMerwe]

I heard that the indians already have a working thorium reactor. What I would like to see is a mini thorium reactor that can installed in a neighbourhood and provide power for 100-1000 people at a low cost with minimal risk. Or even an extremely small mini-thorium reactor, one that works with the tesla battery to supply a one off energy cost to houses and off the grid power. Even if you are not convinced that the nukes are fake, do you admit that all the videos of nuclear explosives are fake and that there has been a major propagandic element to the nuclear weapons story?


hxxp://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/india-turns-to-thorium-as-future-reactor-fuel


I guess it is a difficult discussion to have without actually start discussing the science behind explosives. Which i am sure is not such a good thing to start discussing on the internet. (my guess as to why the nuke lies forum was closed) Basically, as far as i am aware one type of bomb is like fireworks, where they have a chemical reaction in a pressurised container which gains its explosive capacity from the pressure generated during the reaction and the pressure or concealment of the container. Then there are explosives that react explosively even without pressure. Such as thermite or thermate or other types. If uranium and plutonium are in fact less effective as explosive as dynamite in terms of a pressure container type explosive then they would be considered quite ineffective. It would make a lot more sense practically to use fire bombing like in dresden, than try to develop a bomb that use uranium or plutonium.

I think it was more likely that it was a type of napalm that was used in japan but by 1000s aircraft. More advanced forms of napalm was used extensively 25 years later in vietnam. They were already using incendiaries in dresdan.

[notjam]

Meh. Transparency is harsh light for pharmacology and humanocentric climate change, but it's been great for gravity, evolution, subatomic physics, and billions of other sciences.

 

Bottom line is that basic research takes three or so decades to produce actionable science. Product development around subatomic science has been brisk and profitable. I'm not seeing any profit in doubting that it works.

what part of the "church of evolution" is scientific?   other than *(micro evolution) aka *(variations/mutations). see "kent hovind debates".

what part of the "imaginary force of gravity" is scientific?  ask any physics professor "what is gravity?" and you will see that we have no idea. 

[notjam]

 

Good news! Seems like nuclear bombs do not work. Which means nuclear bombs dont exist, which means there will be no nuclear war.

 

http://heiwaco.tripod.com/bomb.htm

 

https://www.google.no/?gws_rd=ssl#q=do+nuclear+bombs+exist

 

I would spread far and wide if I were you since it is not cool to scare people like this, but ofcourse it benefits those in power, so they dont care, whether they would know its a hoax or not.

 

I got the lead from a guy stopping by the "THE END OF THE WORLD" video on youtube, and I've informed myself about all the other lies in society, and have minimal trust in popular claims to begin with, so it was easy for me to be open to the idea.

 

Personally I am not 100% sure yet, need to do more research, but I think it is important to get the message out fast because it changes alot and takes away a strong grip that states have on people imo.

 

great topic. I've recently been going thru the eric dubay flat earth info and he aslo has some videos about nukes not existing. 

again great topic. one would expect to get a bunch of status quo so called "rationalists" that stand on their faith based religion of "science" . aka their child hood indoctrination that is further perpetuated by the MSM and peer pressure of other sheeple. 

 

 

check out some "kend hovind debates" on the church of evolution. 

"if you kiss a frog and it turns into a prince, that is a fairy tale, but give it a MILLION YEARS and that is SCIENCE" . Kent Hovind quote. 

[shirgall]

what part of the "church of evolution" is scientific?   other than *(micro evolution) aka *(variations/mutations). see "kent hovind debates".

what part of the "imaginary force of gravity" is scientific?  ask any physics professor "what is gravity?" and you will see that we have no idea. 

 

What is the "church of evolution"? Evolution is a label given to a family of theories including speciation, natural selection, and others. All of the encompassed theories are backed up by evidence, and the associated scientists in each domain actively look for evidence that would require the theories to be changed. Scientists like finding results that break theories, because updating a theory to include new evidence (and therefore be a better theory) is how scientists get famous.

 

If you think gravity is imaginary please demonstrate its non-existence. The theory of gravity works and there has been no evidence to require that it be changed despite the best efforts of a lot of people. You don't have to know how it works to see that the force of gravity has real, predictable effects on the world around us.

[Romulox]

I heard that the indians already have a working thorium reactor. What I would like to see is a mini thorium reactor that can installed in a neighbourhood and provide power for 100-1000 people at a low cost with minimal risk. Or even an extremely small mini-thorium reactor, one that works with the tesla battery to supply a one off energy cost to houses and off the grid power.

 

hxxp://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/india-turns-to-thorium-as-future-reactor-fuel

 

The type of reactor in that story is not the same as the one in the video; it's water based like the rest of the commercial reactors in service.  However, it is different than most, as it is a type of "breeder" reactor that makes more fuel than it consumes.  The thorium is added around the core, and as it absorbs excess neutrons that are not consumed in the fission reaction while the reactor is operating at power, its converted to uranium which can then be used as fuel.  The upside is that you don't have the costly step of uranium enrichment, but does have all the problems of the water cooled reactors that were explained in the video.  The neighborhood nuclear reactor would be amazing and is totally feasible; I would look to places like India for these new innovations as the regulatory burden to make something like this happen in the US hurts my brain to even think about.  

 

I guess it is a difficult discussion to have without actually start discussing the science behind explosives. Which i am sure is not such a good thing to start discussing on the internet. (my guess as to why the nuke lies forum was closed) Basically, as far as i am aware one type of bomb is like fireworks, where they have a chemical reaction in a pressurised container which gains its explosive capacity from the pressure generated during the reaction and the pressure or concealment of the container. Then there are explosives that react explosively even without pressure. Such as thermite or thermate or other types. If uranium and plutonium are in fact less effective as explosive as dynamite in terms of a pressure container type explosive then they would be considered quite ineffective. It would make a lot more sense practically to use fire bombing like in dresden, than try to develop a bomb that use uranium or plutonium.

 

I think it was more likely that it was a type of napalm that was used in japan but by 1000s aircraft. More advanced forms of napalm was used extensively 25 years later in vietnam. They were already using incendiaries in dresdan.

 

The simple explanation for an explosion is that it's what happens when air tries to expand faster than the speed of sound.  When this happens, you don't need a container to build up the pressure, as the pressure builds up behind the leading edge of the expanding air (better known as a shock wave).  As discussed a few posts earlier, your basic gas laws show that one way to cause an expansion of air is to increase its temperature.  For example, when lightning strikes, the air is heated to about 50,000 degF, and the resulting shock wave/explosion is better known as "thunder". 

 

When you take an amount of energy equal to the output of a nuclear reactor over 8 hours (in the case of Fat Man) and release most of it instantaneously in the form of thermal radiation, you heat the immediate area to somewhere in the neighborhood of the sun's core temperature.  As you can imagine this sort of temperature increase will cause a shock wave with a huge pressure drop which will propagate for miles and destroy a lot of stuff along the way.

 

I think everyone on this board will agree that if this sort of weapon is possible, the state will pursue it at all costs in order to be able to impose its will on other states that do not possess this weapon.  The laws that govern the operation of nuclear reactors show that imploding a plutonium sphere can result in the destruction of a city, so I have no reason to believe the various states, by their very nature, haven't produced as many of these weapons as possible.  I see no reason why they wouldn't then test a few of them and videotape the results for further study. 

[notjam]

Just because some people say something is fabricated does not make it so. I rather believe in experts on a given subject than some quacks on the internet.

 

 

I taught maths for physicists. One of the topics was Nuclear Physics. Study Physics and do some research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

What is the "church of evolution"? Evolution is a label given to a family of theories including speciation, natural selection, and others. All of the encompassed theories are backed up by evidence, and the associated scientists in each domain actively look for evidence that would require the theories to be changed. Scientists like finding results that break theories, because updating a theory to include new evidence (and therefore be a better theory) is how scientists get famous.

 

If you think gravity is imaginary please demonstrate its non-existence. The theory of gravity works and there has been no evidence to require that it be changed despite the best efforts of a lot of people. You don't have to know how it works to see that the force of gravity has real, predictable effects on the world around us.

the church of evolution is the faith based religion that something can come from nothing aka the big bang, life can come from non life aka abiogenesis, one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal aka macro evolution.  

[shirgall]

the church of evolution is the faith based religion that something can come from nothing aka the big bang, life can come from non life aka abiogenesis, one kind of animal can brith a different kind of animal aka macro evolution.  

 

That has little resemblance to anything I'm familiar with. Did you come up with it yourself? It's quite novel. 

[AynRand]

That has little resemblance to anything I'm familiar with. Did you come up with it yourself? It's quite novel. 

I laughed so hard when I read this. Thank you Shirgall.

[notjam]

That has little resemblance to anything I'm familiar with. Did you come up with it yourself? It's quite novel. 

it's derived from kent hovind debates

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6988326B6B0D9F1A

 

Dr. Michael Shermer vs Dr. Hovind

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6988326B6B0D9F1A

[AynRand]

it's derived from kent hovind debates

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6988326B6B0D9F1A

 

Dr. Michael Shermer vs Dr. Hovind

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6988326B6B0D9F1A

Just saying that maybe Kent Hovind might not be an expert on evolution, or even have a most basic grasp of the concept of evolution.

 

"Adolf Hitler, for instance, was an avid evolutionist. In order to comprehend Hitler's reasoning, one must go back to evolution to understand why he did the things that he did, and thought the way he though." - Kent Hovind

[notjam]

Just saying that maybe Kent Hovind might not be an expert on evolution.

he usually debates the so called "experts" with logic. 

 

expert = an impressionable child that was indoctrinated with a "state religion" and grew up to then promulgate/perpetuate that same "state religion" to the next generation. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

Argument from authority, also authoritative argument and appeal to authority, is a common form of argument which leads to a logical fallacy when used in argumentative reasoning.^[1]

In informal reasoning, the appeal to authority is a form of argument attempting to establish astatistical syllogism.^[2] The appeal to authority relies on an argument of the form:^[3]

A is an authority on a particular topic

A says something about that topic

A is probably correct