Nuclear Weapon almost accidentally explodes in TX !!

Originally posted by Iblis
Please do not criticize a large majority of posters who call this impossibility, without providing evidence yourself.

For the second time tonight, the burden of proof rest with the person making the assertion. The assertion in this case is that it is impossible.

Where is the proof?

I found a different source for this story, posted here.

I may as well ask the same questions here.

I wonder, if this bomb had exploded, what impact it would have had on humanity's view of nuclear weapons. After all, the bombs dropped on Japan at the end of WWII are but a fading memory.

Apparently this particular weapon had 100 times the destructive potential.

Maybe if a large swathe of Texas was wiped out, attitudes towards nuclear weapons would have shifted. How could any government manage a disaster of this scale? It would make Katrina look like a birthday party.

Does this news concern anybody now that, apparently, the current US nuclear arsenal is due to be dismantled and replaced?

And please, if you think that this is impossible, instead of pointing to your "credentials", how about you post some proof, or at least, some indicators as to why you think this?

Thanks.

[edit on 25/1/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by Implosion
Maybe if a large swathe of Texas was wiped out, attitudes towards nuclear weapons would have shifted. How could any government manage a disaster of this scale? It would make Katrina look like a birthday party.

I really don't see any humor in this remark. I live close to Austin. I worked in New Orleans and felt really bad for those people. I don't want to see another disaster as bad as or worse than Katrina in Texas or anywhere else.

There was no humour intended, I feel bad for those people too, what exactly is your point?

First: When six or seven people say the same, stating why -- Simply not with outside evidence, then it is no longer their burden. NFL guidelines say this, about a debate. The minority always must assume burden.

Further, if you read my articles, most state safety mechanisms, and how they affect the complete hardware.

First: And again, the bomb could not have exploded.
Second: I would doubt they were disarming a one point five megaton device. More likely, the MIRV's are being included, in which case the explosion would be just as large as a single detonation, though with more reactivity, and the occassional refraction of a pressure wave causing additional damage further out. It is not 'scalable', with a single, large-megatonage device.

Further again: A large swathe of Texas would not have been wiped out. While I do not know about the facility, I would imagine the reprocessing was done either underground, or in a similarly reinforced area. Even had the device gone off, containment would have been relatively simple -- Only the radioactivity would be of concern. Depending on wind, a town may be left alone, given pills and scrubbed, or entirely evacuated. That is all.

And there is no reason for concern. This was a single isolated incident, most likely brought about by human error, if the report itself is accurate at all. Please note that it's intention, first, is to 'shock' the reader, and second, it's only source 'cannot be divulged'.

This is the equivilant to having me say,
'Someone I can't tell you about, but is high-level in the Pentagon, says the U.S. Military is about to stage a coup. In four days. Be prepared.'

And the Katrina comment was off-hand and crude. Please watch your language in the future.

It's unclear (as most details are classified) about what could or could not have happened.

However, since it is a facility devoted to disassembling weapons, there are probably some issues that could be somewhat more frightening.

First, the W-56 is an older warhead and does not have all the safety systems of a modern warhead, and as disassembly proceeded the outer electronics etc, will have been removed first, so any protection provided by them would not be operative.

At the worst, potentially, the chemical explosives for the primary could have been set off. However, I am not so confident that this couldn't cause a significant detonation or criticality accident in the primary.

One thing which is very likely to be the case is that there is no tritium boosting in the warhead---tritium would mostly have been decayed and presumably they removed it from whatever canister it was stored in first.

This would mean that any primary detonation would not be sufficiently large or clean (lots of x-rays arriving well before debris) that the thermonuclear secondary could have been ignited. Yield would likely be 1-2kt if everything absolutely went wrong ( and I doubt it was anywhere near this bad).

But I can definitely believe that there are huge management problems in these plants.

Thats partially what you get when you have aggressive profit-oriented privatization on one side mixed up with government bureaucracies.

Sound science and engineering is almost always the loser and hardworking honest people get the shaft.

Originally posted by Iblis

And the Katrina comment was off-hand and crude. Please watch your language in the future.

To clarify

NEW YORK (AP) -- Hurricane Katrina already has the tragic notoriety of being among the 10 deadliest natural disasters to strike the United States, even with some of the dead apparently still uncounted.

So far, the official toll across five states is at 659, with New Orleans accounting for two-thirds of the dead. Those numbers, while horrific, raised the possibility that earlier fears of fatalities reaching 10,000 or more might not prove true.

Source.

In Hiroshima, of a resident civilian population of 250 000 it was estimated that 45 000 died on the first day and a further 19 000 during the subsequent four months. In Nagasaki, out of a population of 174 000, 22 000 died on the first day and another 17 000 within four months. Unrecorded deaths of military personnel and foreign workers may have added considerably to these figures.

Source.

Do you understand my meaning yet? This device was supposedly 100 times more destructive than either of the bombs dropped on Japan. Katrina would pale in comparison, and we all know how well that situation was handled don't we?

I understand that there are children on these forums who use it as their playground, but please, you're talking to an adult; let’s discuss the topic at hand, instead of arguing petty semantics.

Thanks.

[edit on 26/1/07 by Implosion]

Steps to dismantle a nuclear device:

a. Disconnect wiring leading from battery or trigger - timer, to the detonator.

b. Remove the neutron trigger. Depending on design, this will be shaped as a small discus, or ball, and once removed, the weapon is entirely inoperable as an explosive device.

c. Removing the conventional explosives. If at all true, this is where the story began. And ended. At this point, a reaction cannot be achieved. The DWP is no longer accurate, and the neutron trigger does not exist to initiate chain reaction.

d. Seperation of U-235 masses.


Believe it or not.
There was never any danger.

Regarding your U2U:

Please watch the personal attacks, else a moderator will come to give you a warning, as was done in two recent threads.

This is not a threat, merely a reminder that such discussion is reneging on the Terms and Conditions signed by you, as a member of ATS, and because of another member on this same board, the moderator's are quite fond lately, of passing out warnings and minor punishments.

Please point me in the direction of a personal attack.

Thanks.

Originally posted by Iblis
First: When six or seven people say the same, stating why -- Simply not with outside evidence, then it is no longer their burden. NFL guidelines say this, about a debate. The minority always must assume burden.

This is not a debate where you have a winner and a loser, but a discussion forum, so please, pugilistic instincts at the door. If I was a pedant, I'd ask you who in a courtroom assumes the burden of proof. Is it the minority?

Originally posted by Iblis
Further, if you read my articles, most state safety mechanisms, and how they affect the complete hardware.

First: And again, the bomb could not have exploded.

Second: I would doubt they were disarming a one point five megaton device. More likely, the MIRV's are being included, in which case the explosion would be just as large as a single detonation, though with more reactivity, and the occassional refraction of a pressure wave causing additional damage further out. It is not 'scalable', with a single, large-megatonage device.

Further again: A large swathe of Texas would not have been wiped out. While I do not know about the facility, I would imagine the reprocessing was done either underground, or in a similarly reinforced area. Even had the device gone off, containment would have been relatively simple -- Only the radioactivity would be of concern. Depending on wind, a town may be left alone, given pills and scrubbed, or entirely evacuated. That is all.

And there is no reason for concern. This was a single isolated incident, most likely brought about by human error, if the report itself is accurate at all. Please note that it's intention, first, is to 'shock' the reader, and second, it's only source 'cannot be divulged'.

This is the equivalent to having me say,
'Someone I can't tell you about, but is high-level in the Pentagon, says the U.S. Military is about to stage a coup. In four days. Be prepared.'

This is all great information; it’s a damn shame you couldn't have posted that without resorting to thinly veiled threats via U2U.

Originally posted by Iblis
And the Katrina comment was off-hand and crude. Please watch your language in the future.

It offends me that you would think Katrina is in anything like the same league as the devastation brought to the shores of Japan by two small atomic devices. You cannot compare the two. IMO, if you are offended by that, then the fault lies with you. I picked the comparison with Katrina, because I have been led to believe by threads right here on our beloved ATS, that it was an example of an administration mismanaging a crisis. I would have though, that the larger the crisis, the greater the scope for mismanagement. I guess that went over your head.

mbkennel - Great post, thank you for sharing.

I can't imagine how much devastation a device of this nature could unleash. When you look at figures for the amount of casualties but just one of those bombs dropped on Japan,the mind boggles at the thought of a device 100 times more powerful. Obviously, it's not going to be an airburst above a city, but is it really so simple to contain the effects of such a blast?

Also, the overworked employees angle is obviously a factor in this story, or at least, the spin put on this story, and I appreciate that, I guess to sum up though, I'm damn glad there is no work of this kind going on anywhere near me.

Implosion I am having difficulty believing you are going off on the other posters here concerning an article with so little information in it concerning either side of this debate.

What astonishes me is that they dont even name the "Nuclear Watch Dog Agency" It could be the Camp Fire Girls."

To what agency do they refer and what are their qualifications.

You do know that they fined the tobacco industry much much more yes??

Some $100,000 is not a large fine now days. I dont know what you are thinking here. Has it occured to you that if you come anywhere close to the kind of situation you are panicking over ...you get shut down..not fined. THese government inspectors and DOE people will literally come in and shut you down. You will lose your certification to do this kind of work. To begin.... not many companys even want his type of certification/licence category because of the politics involved in handling this material.

By the way Implosion..have you ever worked with any nuclear proceedures yourself?? Have you ever been around any nuclear or radioactive material?? And I dont mean a smoke detector!!
I am curious about your qualification here outside of panic which is what I see in most of your posts.??

The very scant lack of information on either side of this article leads me to believe this is a political panic article..as aptly stated by earlier posters. It is used to put people on the string in panic just as you are doing here. This type of article also gets people all emotional sufficient to pull the right levers or push the right buttons on election day.

Thanks,
Orangetom

For the love of God, when did asking posters for sources become an indication of panic?

I take exception to the insinuation that I in any way meant to belittle what happened to people in NO when Katrina hit, I take exception to thinly veiled threats, and I ask for sources to back up information.

I am perfectly calm, thank you very much.

Any idiot can post lies on the Internet, take a look around. I would like sources that I can review. I always post my sources, all I ask is the same in return.

Is that really so much to ask?

[edit on 26/1/07 by Implosion]

Since the user has decided to bring this thread down through:
a. Personal complaints.
b. Misinformation.
c. Misquoting.
d. Personal attacks.

I'm going to spend a moment to clarify the entirely off-topic discussion he has chosen to make, and continue with the topic at hand.

This is, copy-paste, what I had sent him:
Please watch the personal attacks, else a moderator will come to give you a warning, as was done in two recent threads.

This is not a threat, merely a reminder that such discussion is reneging on the Terms and Conditions signed by you, as a member of ATS, and because of another member on this same board, the moderator's are quite fond lately, of passing out warnings and minor punishments.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I admit the first line may seem threatening, due to the finality of the statement -- However, at the end I clarify, as well as during the second paragraph. I'm referring to the two 'Nuclear' threads, which, due to StellarX, garnered a strict warning from UK Wizard regarding personal attacks.

And, so he doesn't feel, again, like misrepresenting our discussion:
I followed this up with calling him immature, in a second message, for placing a private U2U on the public forum.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. I provided several links, all of which contained evidence. The issue is that you cannot continue asking for more, let alone, have done so in the first place, when it is not our duty. Do not use the term 'Burden of Proof' when you refuse to abide by its rules. It is not some 'rule' you can bring up, it is a term and policy utilized by the NFL, for debate.

And further personal attacks, insults, etc. ..

Lastly, I never said anything about Katrina, besides that you were crude in your analogy, and language. There is no 'fault' earned by thinking as I did -- For you appear, to me, the only person here who thinks it was a fine, legitimate analogy, while two members have lodged complaints.

And more personal attacks..
[Insults, rather.]

And, again, the entire point is moot. Unless you feel like beginning your own topic, instead of hijacking another's, and complaining about how yours was shut down, then do so, regarding the effects of a 'what if' scenario. In the end, as I stated, as the evidence stated, it could not have occured.



Edit: Besides the dismantlement process, as described above, here is the main reason no explosion more than a KT would have occured:
The utilization of Insensitive-High-Explosives as the 'conventional-compound'. This, too, is still dependent on the accuracy of the all-ready questionable article.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Iblis]

The US has conducted many tests, to see if their safety devices would prevent a nuclear yield if accidentally set off without the arming codes. All their tests were successful with only yileds of a few hundred kg's og TNT and with the newest weapons that has been reduced to a tield of less than 1kg of TNT.

Here is one example of safety testing if a nuclear weapon in 1957.

The Pascal-A test occupies a significant place in the history of nuclear testing since it was the first test to be that could be called a contained underground test.

Pascal-A (originally named Galileo-A) was a one-point safety test, an attempt to verify a primary design that would have a small maximum energy release if accidentally detonated. Accidental detonations can only initiate the detonation at one location instead of the multi-point initiation of a deliberately fired multi-detonator system, hence the concept of the "one point safe" criterion. Even as planned, Pascal-A was unsafe by current safety standards since a nuclear yield of 1-2 lb was expected, compared to current standards of zero yield. But for safety sake, they tested the device near the bottom of a deep open shaft. This was the first US nuclear test to be conducted in an underground shaft, and thus qualifies as the beginning of US underground nuclear testing.

As it happened the test yield was about 50,000 times greater than expected and created a sizable explosion, catching everyone off guard. Official listings of the yield for this shot still describe it only as "slight", even though every other test in Plumbbob has a specific yield published. It is possible to calculate the yield though from normalization data given in UCRL-53152 Part 6 Results of Calculations of External Gamma Radiation Exposure Rates from Fallout and the Related Radionuclide Compositions; Operation Plumbbob, 1957 (by Harry G. Hicks, July 1981). This report provides comparative test product information, and if Pascal-A is compared with other low yield (and thus pure fission) tests, a consistent value of 55 tons is obtained.

nuclearweaponarchive.org...

If you cxare to go hrough the entire US testing, you will find mnay tests like this, alhtough this was somewhat unsuccessful it still prduced a small explosion compared to what the full yield would hvae been.

Originally posted by Implosion
For the love of God, when did asking posters for sources become an indication of panic?

I take exception to the insinuation that I in any way meant to belittle what happened to people in NO when Katrina hit, I take exception to thinly veiled threats, and I ask for sources to back up information.

I am perfectly calm, thank you very much.

Any idiot can post lies on the Internet, take a look around. I would like sources that I can review. I always post my sources, all I ask is the same in return.

Is that really so much to ask?

[edit on 26/1/07 by Implosion]

I dont think you understood my interrogatorys I was directing at you so I will clarify. I am asking for your bonadifes...your qualifications for your statements other than the unnamed "Watchdog group" in this article.

I am also asking if you know how nuclear proceedures are done or carried out.?? Have you ever worked around materials of this type??

You are asking alot of questions and asking for sources but you dont seem to understand the nature of what you are reading in the article since it is obvious that you have never been around this type of work.

Certain knowleges of this type of work ,coupled with the lack of information in this article ,sheds light on the intent of the writers. Understand now??

I know this information because I am involved in this type of work and have and continue to work to these types of proceedures...I have worked around this type of material. I have also been in work situations which have been shut down for weeks for infractions much much smaller than what is vaguely implied in this article.

It is the very vagueness of this article which makes it suspect to those of us who have worked in or are working in this field.
The ordiinary public without this background would do and respond precisely as are you. This type of response I see from you I call...panic..uninformed panic.

I am not saying this to be rude or smart in tone. It is just something I know. When you do this kind of work you do not get panicky. You must be cool blue...or the work stops.

This is also how I know the position I stated concerning the fines. You do not seem to comprehend this when you compare this to New Orleans and thier recent hurricane .

Thanks,
Orangetom

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I dont think you understood my interrogatorys I was directing at you so I will clarify. I am asking for your bonadifes...your qualifications for your statements other than the unnamed "Watchdog group" in this article.

I am also asking if you know how nuclear proceedures are done or carried out.?? Have you ever worked around materials of this type??

You are asking alot of questions and asking for sources but you dont seem to understand the nature of what you are reading in the article since it is obvious that you have never been around this type of work.

Neither my credentials, nor anyone else’s should be the issue here. I appreciate what you are saying, but all I am asking, is that those supposedly "in the know" post sources to back up claims.

It's painfully obvious to me, that there is some sort of back slapping circle-jerk mentality in operation on this forum, so I will just apologies for disturbing your little clique of "experts", and let you get on with it.

What is wrong with people, do I really have to threaten again for this thread to be closed, surely its not that difficult for people to keep on topic, arguing is fine but petty off topic arguing insults yourself much more than it does your opponent.

The thread has potential, so I'll let it slide but serious people, grow up.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by UK Wizard]

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by orangetom1999
I dont think you understood my interrogatorys I was directing at you so I will clarify. I am asking for your bonadifes...your qualifications for your statements other than the unnamed "Watchdog group" in this article.

I am also asking if you know how nuclear proceedures are done or carried out.?? Have you ever worked around materials of this type??

You are asking alot of questions and asking for sources but you dont seem to understand the nature of what you are reading in the article since it is obvious that you have never been around this type of work.

Neither my credentials, nor anyone else’s should be the issue here. I appreciate what you are saying, but all I am asking, is that those supposedly "in the know" post sources to back up claims.

It's painfully obvious to me, that there is some sort of back slapping circle-jerk mentality in operation on this forum, so I will just apologies for disturbing your little clique of "experts", and let you get on with it.

Sorry Implosion..but this technique of yours does not do you justice. Name calling and such. I think you can do much better.

I merely ask if you have any knowlege of these proceedures for handling material like this.

I make no claim to be an "expert" this is your supposition. Nor is is the claim of others on this thread.

I also point out from experience that if you approach anything like a nuclear detonation...or severe proceedural violation you can have your buisness shut down and your license under review or revoked.

$100,000 ....there are higher fines for EPA pollution violations. You do know this right?? I am pointing out to you to look at your thinking and analysis process here.

I also illustrate in my postings that I have worked with this type of material and proceedures. I am not an expert. I merely make reference to this and ask have you ever worked with this type of enviornment or material so as to have a concept of what proceedures are used. This being your bonafides by experience..not some "un named watchdog group."
You are asking for sources based on the panic and speculation from an article which is in itself questionable by the information and knowlege I have posted. You do not need to be an "expert" if you understand and have seen the simple things I have posted and know. This is not a line of thinking you will get from the media or other "Watchdog groups/experts."
They will never offer you this much information.

IN this manner I clarify to the other posters and readers of this thread in how to take a closer look at the article in the original poster. How they can be very vague and still grab people like setting a hook on a striking fish.
An emotional fish.

You have clarified/confirmed this emotional position by your reaction in your last post.

Sorry Implosion...but I think you can do much better.

Thanks,
Orangetom

If you'd bother to read my posts, you will see that my comments are concerning this article. I posted another thread about it, but it was closed, despite being posted more than a fortnight after this one, and being a different source.



The "unnamed" watchdog group is "The Project on Government Oversight".

Please, before you jump so quickly to criticism, check your own facts first.

Now, I'm done here. No sources posted, nothing learned about this incident, but a fair bit learned about the people I am sharing webspace with, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

a. Please stop complaining about the closure. I am willing to bet, that duplicate threads are closed based on whom has less replies, or has has the least-recent supply. Nothing to do with age, so it as not as though someone has made a 'stupid decision', or is out to attack you, personally.

All-though the 'watchdog group' is listed, and looks entirely credible, it remains that no nuclear weapon could have exploded. At that stage during process, at all. Or even accidently, with anything more than a kilotonnage yield. Radiating quite a bit of the facility, and the death of several personnel would be it. And this is presuming that the source is correct --- I'm rushing to write this, so I do not have time to read the articles beyond basic skimming.

Lastly, stop the immaturity, and the name-calling. For all of your complaints, I've pointed out several times a set of four links, posted on the first page. Before any of this. And you continue to ignore it all.

If the limit of your argumental skill is ignoring people's sources, whining about your own downfalls, and continually insulting the members of this forum, than you do not belong here.

This is not an insult, this is a view based on the actions you have decided to take, and are present in this forum.

Thanks for the source of the unamed watchdog group...

That explains much. Why was this not made clear in the article by the original poster?? Strange omission.


Thanks,
Orangetom