Nukes, Nukes and More Nukes!

page: 6
70
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 09:12 PM
link   
No wonder the ET's are drawn towards the south west of the United States, its like a flashing beacon throughout this hole depiction. I wonder if the Polynesian islands, which had a great number of tests, have also had a similar number of UFO sightings as Nevada and New Mexico.

Chilling video! Thanks for sharing




posted on Jul, 12 2010 @ 10:33 PM
link   
nice post threadfall...its true though the way you explained it makes those scientists sound so stupid its almost funny...couldn't have been said better...



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I've been keeping an eye on this thread since its beginning and I have come to the conclusion that no matter how many times somebody explains 'issues' to the wider public, they don't want to or seem to be able to understand that relatively easy to understand subject.

For a start, we were told by CND that if a nuclear war was fought by the then superpowers, Russia and America, we would all die during the nuclear winter that would occur, as surely as night follows day. Well, we just watched the video posted and guess what? There was no nuclear winter and we are all still here!

Now, starting at the beginning, forget about life and half life of fissionable material. A nuclear device when detonated, produces a 'yield' or 'energy' which is measured on the Sub-Kiloton [ 1000 lb] or Megaton [> 1 M lbs] power of destruction as compareed to the equivalent tonnage of TNT detonated at the same time.

This was Einsteins theory that E=MC2.

Nuclear weapons - just like volcanos, produce ultra fine, dust-like particles which are irradiated by the fissionable material, at the time of detonation.

But as we all know, everything has an opposite. The opposite of E=MC2 is the 7 & 10 Rule [Law] in that as time [T] increases by a factor of 7, Radiation [R] reduces by a factor of 10.

Thus if [H] Zero Hour is at 0100 hours on 1st January when the detonation occurs and the weapon releases a 'yield' of 1,000,000 Rontgens, Rads, or centiGrays per hour. Thus we have the equation ([R] divided by [H] x [T])

[H] x [T] 7 hours later at 0800 hours, the radiation [R] has decreased to 100,000 cGys/hour.

Thus as time multiplys by 7 [49 hours or 2.6 days] radiation has decayed to 10,000 cGys/hr.

In approximately 6.5 years, the radiation would be reduced to just 1000 cGys/hr and 67 years later the background radiation would be about +/-
1 cGy/hr.

That is the natural rate of decay.

Wind, rain and the power of the sun would play an enormous part in the destruction [or life] of the radiation. This is called weathering and just as shielding or distance can protect us from the effects of the radiation, weathering also plays its part.



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


I've got to say...

I've placed my opinion on hold for now. The videos of Wolfenz are very compelling.
This does not change that people don't die of radiation sickness from a volcanic eruption.

By the way... I suck at math. Could you pleased explain in words what you just said ?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 03:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas By the way... I suck at math. Could you pleased explain in words what you just said ?


No problem, I hope. This is a very complex subject, given the physics involved, but I'll try to explain it in as simple terms as possible.

Einstein reasoned that energy stored in any given amount of matter is equal to the mass of that matter times the speed of light squared (this is particularly true of nuclear fission or fusion) and produced the equation E = energy, M = mass, and C = the speed of light to prove his theory.

It was not until the first test detonation in Nevada in 1945 that Einstein's theory was proved correct.

As I said, everything has an opposite - war/peace, hot/cold, life/death etc.

So it is with E = MC2 and this is the 7 & 10 Rule which states that as time increases (multiplies) by a factor of seven, radiation decays by a factor of ten.

Nuclear weapon are measured in size of the energy released when compared to the equal tonnage of TNT. A Sub-Kilton warhead is less than 1000 lbs of TNT, a Kiloton warhead is equal to, or more than 1000 lbs of TNT up to 999,000 tons of TNT.

Thereafter, size is measured in Millions (Mega) tons of TNT (Mt). Thus a 1Mt bomb releases the equivalent energy of 1 million tons of TNT detonated at the same time.

When a nuclear bomb explodes, nuclear radiations (Alpha & Beta Particles, Gamma & X Rays) are released and, depending which country you live in, the radiation can be measured in Rontgens, Rads, Becquerels
or centiGrays per hour. This initial reading is called the Dose Rate.


Alpha & Beta Particles have a very limited range - no more than a couple of inches. If alpha particles travel through water, they have the same range of beta particles, about 2-4 inches.

Gamma Rays travel a little bit further, a foot or so, but X Rays travel far greater distances.

Let's say for example that at 1 o'clock this morning (H-Hour) a bomb was detonated and the radiation released measured one thousand rads an hour.

What the 7 & 10 Rule states is that seven hours after the explosion, the dose rate will have decayed to a count of one hundred rads per hour.

Fourtynine hours after H-Hour, the radiation will have decayed to a count of ten rads per hour.

If we then multiply Time (49 hours) by seven, we get 343 hours or 14 weeks, during which the radiation has decayed to just 1 rad an hour.

But it will take a staggering 98 weeks or one and a half years for the radiation to have a zero reading.

However, there will always be background radiation which is of no significance in our daily lives.



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


Thank you very much.


So what you are saying is that their isn't any radiation left after 98 weeks ?

Then what about radioactive contaminated particles from the original blast and the original radioactive matter that was used in the first place ?

Does the last completely disintergrate during the original blast ?



posted on Jul, 17 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Sinter Klaas[/url]

No, I'm not. It will depend on the size of the weapon or device detonated.

I only used a one kiloton device as an example. If a larger weapon such as a 1 Mt device was detonated then obviously, the radiation would decay over a much longer period of time.

What I was originally saying is that the video clearly demonstrated that we could survive multiple nuclear explosions and that the nuclear winter which scientists predicted following a nuclear war, was utter BS.

I would even go as far as to say that earth has indeed survived a nuclear war between Russia and America with China, England, France and a couple of minor powers throwing their two penneth in for good measure.

Sorry I forgot to answer about the radioactive fallout.

Fallout is ultra fine dust like particles formed at the instant of the nuclear explosion and his highly radioactive. As the fallout rises several kilometers in the air and drifts downwind, the heavier particles will fall to the ground.

This is what is meant by fallout. Fallout contaminates the area around and downwind of 'ground zero' which will become irradiated.

It is this radiation that the 7 & 10 Rule covers.

[edit on 03/07/10 by fritz]



posted on Jul, 25 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by TV_Nation
 


My friend used to have this book that had a list and pictures of all the tests done by the usa to date which was about 1993 and there were well over 4000 listed in that book, so even though this video is outrageous it is only a piece of the whole picture, and those done underground also make a huge list.



posted on Sep, 20 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Personally I think the detonations were towards a better thing. For one, they didn't detonate 2053 nukes to determine if it would destroy something. OFCOURSE it's going to destroy; they were looking into deviating from the age of combustion into the age of fusion. And the only way they could study fusion was to either go to the core of the sun, or detonate nukes. Harnassing fusion power will allow humans to prosper immensley. They were studying everything they could about fusion; so as one day to make it useable in every day life. That's what I think anyways...doesn't it make sense?



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I saww this video a while back. Couldnt help but wonder if the force of so many explosions, especially in a centralized location, could have long term effects of the axial tilt of the planet, steering us ever so slightly in a new direction.



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by NuclearShapedCharge
Personally I think the detonations were towards a better thing. For one, they didn't detonate 2053 nukes to determine if it would destroy something. OFCOURSE it's going to destroy; they were looking into deviating from the age of combustion into the age of fusion. And the only way they could study fusion was to either go to the core of the sun, or detonate nukes. Harnassing fusion power will allow humans to prosper immensley. They were studying everything they could about fusion; so as one day to make it useable in every day life. That's what I think anyways...doesn't it make sense?


Actually, the testing of nuclear devices didn't contribute as much as you might think to fusion research....but it did have huge benefits in terms of toning down the possible consequences of a nuclear holocaust. Thanks to testing, we were able to refine warhead designs, making them lighter and more accurate, which led to the use of *much* smaller warheads. In the 1950s, the US used monsters like the Mark 36 (9-10 megatons) and the Mark 41 (25 megatons). Now, the W87 (475 kilotons, or less than 1/2 megaton), B61 (variable yield from 0.3 - 170 kilotons), or B83 (variable yield, up to around 1 megaton). When it comes to collateral damage or environmental impact, smaller is definitely better!



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   
they went to all underground tests in the 70's, I believe, and stopped completely in the 80's. u r worried about nothing. The $ is worth half what it was a year ago, that is what you SHOULD be worrying about. Gold has doubled in price (in US $) for a REASON, the rest of the world KNOWS that we are just printing money to "pay for" bailouts and wars.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 


I believe there was a lot of illness occurring as a result of the New Mexico weapons testings.



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by cannotfoolme
 


nuclear postulates 100'S, IF NOT THOUSANDS of nuke detonations, mostly on the ground and in populated areas. So we have had NOTHING to prove that we would not get a nuke winter. In fact, it's highly probable that such is exactly what would happen. We've had a few dozen above ground explosions, spread over 10 years or more, and only in 2-3 spots on earth. big deal.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by fritz
 


I don't know that radiation was supposed to have much to do with the nuclear winter; it was always my understanding that the debris kicked up by the vaporization of several (as many as we can hit in the event of nuclear war) major metropolises was what would cause the so called "Nuclear Winter". You know, like how volcanoes leave a cloud of soot in the air after erupting that can blot out the sun if it sprayed enough ash into the air? You have to remember, these tests were done in more or less remote areas.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by LucidFusion
 


I imagine if they were able to do ANYTHING to that, they'd have to have taken place in a much shorter timespan. Also, they're exploding "into" the earth so if anything the only effect they'd have would be to slow down/speed up Earth's travel around the Sun
If they were impacting (the explosions not the literal warheads) the earth at an angle (relative to the horizon) then MAYBE they would be able to have an effect on rotation/tilt, but like I said I'd imagine that idea would need them all taking place closer together in time to even have a chance of being possible.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   
Thats crazy, but i remember hearing Alex Jones talk about this subject...they thought they could burn off the atmosphere that is why they launched so many nukes into the upper atmosphere of our planet?

either to test what would happen OR to kill us all.



posted on Oct, 23 2011 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ApplesOnFire
Thats crazy, but i remember hearing Alex Jones talk about this subject...they thought they could burn off the atmosphere that is why they launched so many nukes into the upper atmosphere of our planet?

either to test what would happen OR to kill us all.


If Alex Jones actually said that "They" (presumably the USAF or the DOE) thought they could burn the atmosphere off of Earth...and implied that "they" would do so on purpose...then he needs to switch to decaff, and perhaps go lie down for a bit. After all, if "they" were successful in burning off the atmosphere, what were "they" going to breathe?

He *might* be misreading some of the concerns expressed before the original "Trinity" shot...there were some indications that, under the extreme conditions of a nuclear initiation, there might be some involvement of atmospheric oxygen. It wasn't considered a very high-order probability, and in any case, there was no evidence of such involvement.

As for why so many nuclear devices were initiated at high altitudes, there were almost as many reasons as there were tests, but I can list a couple:

1) Determining the effects of high-altitude nuclear initiation. What, exactly, was "electromagnetic pulse"? How did it propagate? How did its effects vary in relation to its altitude? How did the thermal and blast effects of initiation impact targets on the ground, and how did these effects vary with altitude? Those question (and several hundred more that are less obvious) all had to be answered before nuclear weapons could be employed.

2) Device testing. The Department of Defense developed nuclear warheads for air-to-air missiles (the AIR-2 Genie) and surface-to-air missiles (MIM-14 Nike-Hercules and LIM-49 Spartan among others). As silly as it might sound to use nuclear warheads in defensive missiles, the thinking was that a single relatively small nuclear initiation well above ground was vastly preferable to the consequences of a nuclear warhead arriving on target, or of a Soviet bomber formation arriving over the US or Canada unmolested. Making sure that that theory was valid was part of point 1 (see above). Once the weapons were proven sound in theory, the actual engineering had to be tested,,,would the small warheads work? Would they withstand the rigors of being launched? The only way to find out was to try it and see.

Nuclear warheads were never tested 'just to watch the fireworks'. Tests were far too complex and expensive events to be staged frivolously, and even more than the cost, there was the fear that in the process of testing our weapons, we would reveal vital information to potentially hostile powers.





new topics
top topics
 
70
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join