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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
originally posted by: theworldisnotenough
3. 300 nuclear bomb tests that must have left untold amounts of radionuclides in the atmosphere;
P.M.
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.
originally posted by: BGTM90
fas.org...
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.
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.
energy transferred buy electrons to light quanta by compton scattering will provide further safety factor and make a chain reaction in air Impossible
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.
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