It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Should I Be Concerned About the Igniting of Our Atmosphere Due to Fukushima?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: Bilky
You should be concerned very concerned, he he ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


nah don't worry about it.


Death by ignition of the atmosphere, I suppose, will be so quick that it will be completely painless. Actually, I can think of a lot of less desirable ways to go.

P.M.


The % based on the continuing chain reactions at Fukushima can be extrapolated right up to 100%, if nothing is done to stop them.





It's been said many times that no technology exists to address the problems brought about the catastrophe at Fukushima.

Dr. Bill Deagle says otherwise in Youtube video at www.youtube.com... starting at elapsed time of 12:45.

Dr. Deagle claims that Nichola Tesla, in a letter in the 1920s, told Marie Curie that he could shatter the radioactive isotopes in her body using scalar technonics (???, not too intelligible). Harmonic waves will shatter the nuclei of specific isotopes into non-radioactive dodder (???, not clearly enunciated) molecules.

Here's a famous quote by Nicola Tesla: “If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.”

Radioactive isotopes have become a big part of my universe.

How about yours?

P.M.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

A genuine fear?

Look -- if I lived in 1486, I might fear sailing off the edge of the world, to, but I don't. My planet is round.

Same goes for this: Teller's fears were laid to rest the moment they detonated the first bomb. Those who fear the ignition of the atmosphere due to fission in 2014 are flat-earthers.
edit on 24-7-2014 by 0zzymand0s because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: BGTM90
This is just completely nonsensical and your threads about Fukushima just keep becoming more and more uneducated. Really try researching things instead of making post trying to make the situation at Fukushima worse than it is,(It's already pretty bad) and now you've just taken it to a purely fantastical state. Also I feel as though this is not a genuine fear as poster above stated but a way for attention online. I truly had a genuine fear and interest in Fukushima the day it happened and spent hours upon hours whole days even researching nuclear power and the situation at the site. Something the OP is not willing to do as apparent in his last three threads on the subject. Any way can you provide your sources about the amount of power a chain reaction at Fukushima can create. Then look up the properties of nuclear fuel. Then look up the effects of high temperature and radiation on N2 molecules. Then look up how the sun works, Ill give you a hint (fusion) and then see if that is possible with nitrogen in our atmosphere do to a chain retain of nuclear fuel. Try doing some research on a subject before coming on here and asking questions like this because of a thought you had after watching a youtube video. If you do do this research and post it I would gladly have an educated discussion about it with you.



BGTM90, you're a fine one to be criticizing me.

So, Mr. Bigshot-Expert, need I remind you of what you said in the other thread? You admitted that the reactor buildings at Fukushima were sinking... SINKING! So, if buildings are sinking in mud, this means that they do not have an adequate vertical vector of support, and if they do not have an adequate vertical vector of support, how can you possibly imply, assume or conjecture that these buildings are stable with an adequate horizontal vector of support? I studied enough Physics to know that if you apply a force, no matter how weak that force be, against an object that does not have an adequate counteracting force like friction, then the object will move. The force of moving Fukushima groundwater against buildings' foundations is significant. To repeat: by your own words, the buildings at Fukushima are sinking in mud. I'd be truly amazed if those buildings are not moving laterally. Maybe the moving is at a rate of 1/16 of an inch per day... maybe an eighth of an inch... maybe 4 inches per day. I don't know, but to suggest that measurements can easily be taken to prove or disprove this using photographs absolutely astounds me. A person would need close up, high res before and after images of the buildings taken at the very same vantage point by the camera. Also, how do you compare an undamaged building in the before photo to a dilapidated building in an after photo? You'd really need before and after photos of the foundations of the buildings, and how do you obtain these?

Moving on to get this thread back on topic...

What you and the other respondents apparently choose to allow to fly over your heads is that Edward Teller's concerns about ignition of the atmosphere were CONFIRMED by his colleagues albeit at a low probability of happening.

So, this raises the question: back then, what were the calculated odds of an ignition of the atmosphere by a nuclear bomb test... one out of 1,000,000,000 or one out of 1,000,000 or one out of 1,000? Were people lying about the odds of such an event just to get the Manhattan Project back on track? Let me tell you: there's a lot of lying coming out of governments and the mainstream media these days. This, not to mention that Internet forums are reputed to be infested with shills.

Who knows? But if nuclear activity is associated with the possible ignition of the atmosphere, and it does not happen due to Fukushima, is it not still a possibility due to some other catastrophe at some other nuclear power plant or due to some loony North Korean nuclear physicists' screwing up, or perhaps due to our own nuclear physicists' screwing up?

P.M.


I said the buildings sank when the earth quake happened. not that they are currently sinking in mud don't miss quote me. Also don't call me names its just immature. I never stated I was an expert just that I researched the subject and you could benefit from doing the same. You still have failed to provide your source and still refuse to research the topic and present evidence of your findings. But to answer the question from your previous thread. Tepco is not only building an 'ice wall" they are also building a water bypass system to pump the water out from behind the buildings, which you could have easily found out by simply going to Tepcos web site.
edit on 24-7-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
PSA

You are free to attack theories, explanations, posts, etc. but not fellow members.



www.abovetopsecret.com...
16) Behavior: You will not behave in an abusive, libelous, defamatory, hateful, intolerant, bigoted and/or racist manner, and will not harass, threaten, nor attack anyone.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:16 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
fas.org...


It is shown that, what ever the temperature a section of the atmosphere is heated, no propagating chain of nuclear reactions is likely to be started. The energy loss to radiation always overcompensates the gains due to radiation. This is true even with rather extravagant assumptions concerning the reactivity of nitrogen nuclei in the air. The only disquieting feature is that the safety factor, i.e. the ratio of losses to gains of energy decreases rapidly with initial temperature, and decreases to a value of only 1.0 beyond a 10 Mev temperature. It is impossible to reach such temperatures unless fission bombs and thermonuclear bombs are used that greatly exceed the bombs now under consideration. but even if bombs of the required volume ( i.e. greater than 1000 cubic meters) energy transferred buy electrons to light quanta by compton scattering will provide further safety factor and make a chain reaction in air Impossible


sorry if there are any mistakes I had to hand type it sense it is a PDF

This is a paper by Teller him self and two other physicist, and shows all of the calculations and physics involved. And I might add is easily found on line with a simple search engine. So can this thread be closed now please?

edit on 24-7-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-7-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)

 

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
edit on Thu Jul 24 2014 by Jbird because: added ex tags



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
a reply to: Psynic

fas.org...

This is a paper by Teller him self and two other physicist, which state this is not possible and shows all of the calculations and physics involved. And I might add is easily found on line with a simple search engine. So can this thread be closed now please?


Why would you address that question to me?

I just posted it belongs in the 'Hoax' forum!



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Psynic

Im sorry I didn't mean to address it to you my mistake I will change it



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 01:24 PM
link   
So, people are citing paper(s) to discredit the proposition of the original post.

I am not a physicist. The paper(s) are probably way too technical to be comprehended by me.

But I have some questions: how current are these papers, and do they come from the 1940s?

I hope people will admit that there have been a good number of developments since the 1940s that should factor into a new analysis of the prospect/probability of an ignition of the atmosphere like:

1. the accumulation of tons and tons of spent and unspent nuclear fuel rods, which, I have been left to believe have to be kept cool at all times... or else;
2. much more powerful nuclear weapons and many more of them;
3. 300 nuclear bomb tests that must have left untold amounts of radionuclides in the atmosphere;
4. nuclear power plants that have proven themselves to be very much hazardous (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, Fukushima);
5. added chemical pollution in the atmosphere of both the old and new varieties;
6. declining levels of oxygen in the atmosphere with what to replace oxygen, increased levels of nitrogen, perhaps;
7. chemtrails, which, I have come to learn, are top, top-secret,
8. HAARP which has raised the hackles of suspicion among many;
9. not to mention a whole lot of other things that may not have been publicized in the least.

Do the paper(s) which were cited to knock me down take the above into account in their analysis(ses)?

Additionally, you have scientists who simply do not agree with each other, sooooooo... I guess I am left to do what other people do, to wit, listen to whom I want to listen to, and believe what I want to believe.

I'd like to add that there is this guy Dana on Youtube who does lengthy videos, seemingly daily, on the subject of Fukushima. He is calling for an official inquiry as to what's really going on with Fukushima Daiichi Reactor Unit 4 with its problem of spent fuel rods that have to be extracted from the pool there.

It's absolutely true that things are less than copacetic at Unit 4, and you have to wonder why TPTB would have you believe otherwise.

Well, Dr. Hellen Caldicott expressed an intention to evacuate her family to the Southern Hemisphere if things go bad, really bad with the spent fuel pool of Fukushima Daiichi Unit 4. And if things get that bad, can things go much further like igniting the Earth's atmosphere? Well, you do have to wonder what the TPTB are out to cover-up with their lies about Unit 4.

P.M.

edit on 24-7-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Added item 6 with renumbering of subsequent items.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough


3. 300 nuclear bomb tests that must have left untold amounts of radionuclides in the atmosphere;


P.M.


I don't know where you're getting your info but "300 nuclear bomb tests" is short by about 1753 detonations.

It seems this viral video must have slipped by you.

www.youtube.com...

Nuclear accidents would be in addition to these deliberate nuclear events.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Psynic

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough


3. 300 nuclear bomb tests that must have left untold amounts of radionuclides in the atmosphere;


P.M.


I don't know where you're getting your info but "300 nuclear bomb tests" is short by about 1753 detonations.

It seems this viral video must have slipped by you.

www.youtube.com...

Nuclear accidents would be in addition to these deliberate nuclear events.


Thank you for the correction.

I had read that there were 300 nuclear bomb detonations over the Pacific Ocean. This is the figure that I used.

P.M.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90
fas.org...



OK, the date that was typed on the cited PDF document seems to have been typed on Fred Flintstone's typewriter, and it seems to be August 14, 1946.

This was well before the things that I itemized in my prior reply post, above in this thread, and so, such things could not have possibly been taken into account.

This was also before the development of supercomputers that can do voluminous calculations or that, at least, can verify highly involved manual calculations.

The document is very old and probably well out-of-date, possibly totally obsolete and totally invalid, and, for all I know, someone's arm may have been twisted to compose it, sign it, and swear by it.

P.M.
edit on 24-7-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Afterthought added.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: BGTM90
fas.org...



OK, the date that was typed on the cited PDF document seems to have been typed on Fred Flintstone's typewriter, and it seems to be August 14, 1946.

This was well before the things that I itemized in my prior reply post, above in this thread, and so, such things could not have possibly been taken into account.

This was also before the development of supercomputers that can do voluminous calculations or that, at least, can verify highly involved manual calculations.

The document is very old and probably well out-of-date, possibly totally obsolete and totally invalid, and, for all I know, someone's arm may have been twisted to compose it, sign it, and swear by it.

P.M.


You can't just say a scientific paper is obsolete and invalid unless you prove other wise so please do Ill be waiting for you proof. Nor can you discredit it by making immature and childish remakes about superficial aspects of it. So tell me is a scientific paper that says that water is made up of Hydrogen and Oxygen and uses scientific methods to reach those conclusions but was written in 1900 not valid? You said your self you don't comprehend what is being said in the paper so being old is your only excuse for discrediting it. Also the list of things you presented most of them don't even relate to Fukushima igniting the atmosphere and some of them are not even real things. You don't need super computers to figure principles of physics like


The energy loss to radiation always overcompensates the gains due to the reaction. This is true even with rather extravagant assumptions concerning the reactivity of nitrogen nuclei in the air.


or even




energy transferred buy electrons to light quanta by compton scattering will provide further safety factor and make a chain reaction in air Impossible


Just because you don't understand the math dose not mean a super computer is needed.
Please present some kind of evidence other wise this is going to go no where and your hypothetical what if scenarios have no basis in reality. Hey if you want to listen to some guy named Dana on youtube and ignore three physicist go right ahead for what ever the reason.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: BGTM90

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: BGTM90
fas.org...



OK, the date that was typed on the cited PDF document seems to have been typed on Fred Flintstone's typewriter, and it seems to be August 14, 1946.

This was well before the things that I itemized in my prior reply post, above in this thread, and so, such things could not have possibly been taken into account.

This was also before the development of supercomputers that can do voluminous calculations or that, at least, can verify highly involved manual calculations.

The document is very old and probably well out-of-date, possibly totally obsolete and totally invalid, and, for all I know, someone's arm may have been twisted to compose it, sign it, and swear by it.

P.M.


remakes about superficial aspects of it.




Superficial?

You bet my examination of the paper was superficial.

I didn't look past the first couple of pages in order to just check out some of the dates on it.

There is another way of looking at things.

Do you know what it means to be impeached in a court of law?

It means that if you, as a witness, are caught in a single lie, then all of your testimony will be regarded as being false.

You know, your government hasn't told just one lie, but lie, after lie, after lie, after lie adding up to countless lies. So what is the credibility of anything that comes out of the government which has been known to falsify documents as if they were old having come off of Fred Flintstone's typewriter?

On to the document at hand: from what I know of the Edward Teller affair, he initially expressed a concern that there may be ignition of the atmosphere which is confirmed by his colleagues, THEN HE RECANTS with the document at hand as the proof of his recanting... a document that was classified??? Why would it be classified? It would seem that the government would want to make clear to the scientific community, which is probably like other communities, a rumor mill, that nuclear KABOOMS would not let the sky fall nor go up like a lit match.

Why was it classified? Why was it unclassified? Why would a really old, decrepit document come to the forefront of things, especially at this time? If I am so stupid as to raise a little ripple in the scheme of things about the possibility of ignition of the atmosphere, then why wouldn't the document about such a ridiculous proposition have been considered trivial and less than important, and so it should have become super obscure and gone down the memory hole... but it didn't. Why?

You, my man, come across to me as being as inconsistent as the circumstances of the Edward Teller affair and the supporting document that you dug up.

P.M. (Confidential to Psynic: hmmmmm, 1753 nuclear detonations and not a single ignition of the atmosphere. I'm kinda led to think of fireworks factories. Just give it time; eventually every single one will go ---------!!!!!)



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough
Your not even being logical. All of that might have been relevant except for the 14 pages of proof that come after the initial claim. Seriously come up with some evidance that what is in that document is wrong and post it. But I doubt that you will produce anything sense you have refused to every other time I have asked you.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:05 PM
link   
In the interest of completeness, I'd like to add item 10 to the list of things of the above reply post that were not concerns of nuclear physicists in the 1940's:

10. the magnetic field of planet Earth has been weakening ten times faster, and scientists are unsure why this is happening, but a weakened magnetic field will provide less protection to the Earth against solar radiation, and I bet that scientists cannot predict how increased solar radiation will factor into a nuclear event that may have the potential for igniting the atmosphere.

P.M.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

It is still not relevant because no nuclear event has the potential to ignite the atmosphere. The laws of physics don't allow it. No mater how many none related things you come up with unless they change the laws of physics are not going to change the out come of that scenario.



The energy loss to radiation always overcompensates the gains due to the reaction.




energy transferred buy electrons to light quanta by compton scattering will provide further safety factor and make a chain reaction in air Impossible

I mean hell I could say some one burped yesterday and the physicist didn't take that into account but that doesn't mean the laws of physics that they used to come to that conclusion has changed. Also you still have yet to provide any research or evidence discrediting that paper . . . Im still waiting.

edit on 25-7-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:30 PM
link   
a reply to: BGTM90


If the atmosphere could be ignited, I am pretty sure that one of the hundreds of meteorites that crash into the earth's atmosphere would have finished off the job a long long time ago. Utter nonsense to believe that the atmosphere is ignitable.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   
All of the bigshot physicists not so long ago categorically stated that cold fusion was an impossibility going against everything that was known in physics...

And then...

A teenager in America accomplished cold fusion for his science class, and a year later a tween in Britain did the same.

Well, there has been another development closer to home, my home. I came upon a Youtube video in which physicist Michio Kaku stated that lasers can be used to enrich uranium, and, with the advancements that are being made in laser technology, sometime soon in the future, just about anybody can enrich uranium in his basement with the implication that teens and tweens can build their own atom bombs... but just how careful will teen and tweens, who are more likely to smoke a joint than to smoke tobacco and who have been known to set themselves afire on the TV show "Jackass," be?

Guess what? The Youtube video featuring Mr. Kaku had a publish date of May 11, 2012, so we are more than two years closer to Little Johnny Genius' play time. (See: "The Dark Side of Technology" at www.youtube.com... )

So, now I add number 11 to the list, lasers which did not exist in the 1940's.

How will lasers with their ability to enrich uranium factor into the prospect of the ignition of the atmosphere?

P.M.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Again it won't. Because the atmousphere is not ignitable. Some evidance it is possible would really help your case. Also can I please see you source of physicists stating cold fusion is impossible and their proof that is impossible and provide your source that it is now possible with the proof that it is. With out that your story is completely irrelevant to this disscussion. You can add as many things to your list as you want but it won't make a diffrence unless you have evidance that the atmouspere is ignitable from nuclear fission. There is a bunch of evidance that it is not, some circumstantial some direct but you have absolutely no evidance to the contrary.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join