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.

 

This Guy Says Fukushima Almost Ignited the Atmosphere BEFORE the Quake and Tsunami

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 07:46 AM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Bing and YouTube: ah, the university libraries de nos jours.


Here's a handy hint: HAARP works* in the ionosphere, about 50 - 200 miles above the surface of the Earth.

Earthquakes, as the name suggests, work in the Earth. Specifically, in the case of the Tohoku quake, about 20 miles below the surface of the Earth.

One of these things is not like the other.

* (or worked, as it's no longer in operation)




posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Yeah... explain to us again how HAARP triggers earthquakes?


I have too much on my plate right now.

I have been told time and time again by detractors to do Bing searches to check on things.

I tell you to do the same.

Look into Youtube videos, too.

P.M.


LOL!

Too much of what, is the question.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: funkadeliaaaa

Houston, we have ignition.

Abracadabra, B!




posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough



Here's a handy hint: HAARP works* in the ionosphere, about 50 - 200 miles above the surface of the Earth.

Earthquakes, as the name suggests, work in the Earth. Specifically, in the case of the Tohoku quake, about 20 miles below the surface of the Earth.

One of these things is not like the other.



This is precisely why I advised you to do your homework utilizing Bing and Youtube...

unless you have a better reference source like the United States Government Top Secret files.

P.M.
edit on 8-8-2014 by theworldisnotenough because: Fix a typo.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

So in your world, the reliability of sources goes...

US Government Top Secret Files >>> Bing and YouTube >>> Basic science and common sense?

You don't create earthquakes by firing a couple of megawatts of microwaves 100 miles into the air.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

So in your world, the reliability of sources goes...

US Government Top Secret Files >>> Bing and YouTube >>> Basic science and common sense?

You don't create earthquakes by firing a couple of megawatts of microwaves 100 miles into the air.


Just read the other post by this poster and you'll get an Idea of how they like to get their information. And OP we have already discussed this topic and I proved to you that a chain reaction of the atmosphere is not sustainable because



t 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 the reaction. 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


fas.org...

which you never came close to proving invalid so why are you doing this again? I also proved to you that any Plutonium Nitrate decomposes after a day or two.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8-8-2014 by BGTM90 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
so um when the above ground tests of fusion bombs happened repeatedly up until the ban what did they do? use giant fire extinguishers to put it out? and with the millions of lightning strikes, the temperatures of which are hotter than the sun (something like 54 thousand degrees to 58 thousand degrees...) ah never mind.


stormbringer, thank you for responding.

Are you aware that 70+ years ago, during the Manhattan Project, a scientist by the name of Edward Teller expressed concerns that a nuclear blast could ignite the atmosphere? As a matter of fact, it was reported that nuclear bomb physicist Oppenheimer, himself, expressed the same concerns.

Recalculations related to the premise determined that, while there was a real prospect of the atmosphere being ignited, the probability was small, and...

the controversy swirling around this proposition continues to this day. If you don't believe me, then check out the All Experts online forum.

You mentioned "the ban." Maybe one of the motivating factors behind "the ban" was the elimination of the risk of igniting the atmosphere.

P.M.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

So if a nuclear bomb cannot ignite the atmosphere, why do you think that 0.6 grams of plutonium spread over a wide area, could?



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

So if a nuclear bomb cannot ignite the atmosphere, why do you think that 0.6 grams of plutonium spread over a wide area, could?


Uhhhh, aren't you the guy who needs to bone up on the difference between a reaction and a chain reaction?

P.M.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   
And while I have the time and opportunity....

I am very disappointed that I haven't gotten any feedback about how it makes more sense that the Daiichi nuclear plant workers fled before the tsunami and not after it, and how this would support the premises of the Finnish guy in the Youtube video.

P.M.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

And how do you propose that 0.6 grams of widely dispersed Pu can undergo a chain reaction?

I might remind you that I have a chemistry degree. I know a bit about reactions.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Rob48

He's claiming that the N2 in the air can but as I have proven time and time again to him it can not. but it just does not seem to get through to him. I've even shown him that chemical Pu only has one nitrate and it decomposes very quickly but nope he's going to believe what he wants to. Also don't asked for sources or facts because you won't get them. What kind of Chem degree do you have Gen. or Organic? I'm thinking about Chemical engineering or Nuclear Eng, but Organic seams a lot easier and fun to me than Gen. but when I look at career paths for Masters and PHD in Org. Chem. it all seems to lead to the Petroleum industry.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You don't create earthquakes by firing a couple of megawatts of microwaves 100 miles into the air.



frandeaquino.org...
^Peer Reviewed Study

Excerpt:
The High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP) is currently the most important facility used to generate extremely low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic radiation in the ionosphere. In order to produce this ELF radiation the HAARP transmitter radiates a strong beam of high- frequency (HF) waves modulated at ELF. This HF heating modulates the electrons’ temperature in the D region ionosphere and leads to modulated conductivity and a time-varying current which then radiates at the modulation frequency. It is shown that high-power ELF radiation generated by HF ionospheric heaters, such as the current HAARP heater, can cause Earthquakes, Cyclones and strong localized heating.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: theworldisnotenough

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
so um when the above ground tests of fusion bombs happened repeatedly up until the ban what did they do? use giant fire extinguishers to put it out? and with the millions of lightning strikes, the temperatures of which are hotter than the sun (something like 54 thousand degrees to 58 thousand degrees...) ah never mind.


stormbringer, thank you for responding.

Are you aware that 70+ years ago, during the Manhattan Project, a scientist by the name of Edward Teller expressed concerns that a nuclear blast could ignite the atmosphere? As a matter of fact, it was reported that nuclear bomb physicist Oppenheimer, himself, expressed the same concerns.

Recalculations related to the premise determined that, while there was a real prospect of the atmosphere being ignited, the probability was small, and...

the controversy swirling around this proposition continues to this day. If you don't believe me, then check out the All Experts online forum.

You mentioned "the ban." Maybe one of the motivating factors behind "the ban" was the elimination of the risk of igniting the atmosphere.

P.M.
yeah i am aware of that. however it didn't happen. and it continued to not happen right up to the test ban even though the U.S. and the russians exploded successively more powerful fission and then fusion bombs. the biggest were thousands of times more powerful than the one Oppie was worried about.

noble gases can react to other elements but only under the most extreme and contrived circumstances. even in a full melt down plutonium and uranium just melt through the reactor vessel and shielding. they don't get hotter than a nuclear explosion. not anywhere near as hot. no where near as much pressure either.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Eunuchorn

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

You don't create earthquakes by firing a couple of megawatts of microwaves 100 miles into the air.



frandeaquino.org...
^Peer Reviewed Study



Fran de Aquino!

Oh dear God.

When will people on this site learn to be more discriminating with their sources?

The man is a crackpot, and if that is a reputable peer-reviewed paper then I'm a microwave oven.


Previous Fran thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
You know, you guys can say what you want about the Finnish guy and his Youtube theory-presentation, and you can say what you want about me and my posts, too, but one thing is indisputable.

It's the issue and question that arise from all of this, to wit, was it a prudent decision to use MOX fuel in Fukushima Daiichi reactor #3, or was this some kind of experiment promoted by some kind of mad scientist to some kind of greedy nuclear power plant operator?

You know, it was some kind of experiment at Chernobyl that led up to a category 7 disaster at that nuclear power plant, and it's kind of funny that while the word "experiment" was used early on in the news stories about Chernobyl, that word, over time, has euphemistically morphed into "test."

So, back to Fukushima: was there some kind of "test" going on there to see if it was practicable to use cheap and available adulterated nuclear fuel, meaning MOX fuel contaminated with plutonium, as a substitute for the good stuff?

The next question is this: how many other mad scientists are there around the world whispering into the left ears of greed nuclear plant operators: "Hey, you can get away with using the cheap moxy stuff, and don't worry about the atmosphere exploding. It ain't gonna happen."

Eeeeegads! There are over 400 nuclear power plants in operation around the world. Do we, as outsiders, have any real idea of what is actually going on in the deep, dark bowels of the cores of those reactors? Is our survival hanging by a thread over this MOX fuel issue, here, there, and maybe everywhere?

Why, we don't even know what's making our tap water much warmer than it used to be.

While I am at it, someone accused Einstein of ruining the world of physics.

Do you know what? The world of physics didn't need Einstein to ruin the world of physics.

Physics ruined the world of physics.

Physics has morphed into a perverse hobby-diversion for twisted brainiacs, and the only bottom-line things to come out of physics are bigger and better bombs, highly dangerous nuclear power plants, and looming extinction level events.

As I watch "The Big Bang Theory," with the players tossing around heavy mathematical equations and technical terms, I ask myself, "How is all of this making my existence better?" I am at a loss for an answer.

For example, who needs satellites and satellite communications? The people at the time of the Pony Express and, then later, telegraphs were no less happy than we are today.

Those brainiac physicists possess the genius gene, all right. Too bad that it's been said that the gene that makes us smart is the very same gene that makes us crazy.

Those brainiacs are possessed, all right.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

P.M.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:14 AM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

The fact that you refer to scientists as "they" speaks volumes. I prefer to say "we". Some of us understand at least the basics of nuclear reactions. True, I didn't specialise in that field in my degree but what you are proposing is clearly nonsense even to an A-level physics or chemistry student.

If you dislike science and technology so much, I suggest you switch off your computer.
edit on 9-8-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

The fact that you refer to scientists as "they" speaks volumes. I prefer to say "we". Some of us understand at least the basics of nuclear reactions. True, I didn't specialise in that field in my degree but what you are proposing is clearly nonsense even to an A-level physics or chemistry student.

If you dislike science and technology so much, I suggest you switch off your computer.


While I believe that your suggestion is sincere and made in good faith, the fact of the matter is that I cannot revert to the Pony Express.

BTW, I will have you know that I received straight A's in all my high school-level and college-level math, physics and chemistry classes, but that was at a time when I was young and naïve and lived my life based on a set of false assumptions... and a whole lot of false propaganda!

P.M.



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

Some of us understand at least the basics of nuclear reactions.


Since you are into reactions...

What do you get when you blend the chemistry of a psychopathic scientist with a the chemistry of a psychopathic world leader?

ANSWER: Explosion of the atmosphere.

P.M. (P.S. Read The Psychopath Test: A Journey Through the Madness Industry wherein it says that psychopaths rule the world.)



posted on Aug, 9 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

All operating nuclear reactors contain plutonium its a by product of fission. Uranium 238 absorbs a neutron. So I don't know why you keep referring to MOX fuel as if it some how leads to the disaster. Also Unit 1 melted down first so how could using MOX in unit three have been a root cause of the disaster. Also a test is part of an experiment and the disaster at Chernobyl happened during the test part of the experiment.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join