nucleur threats

Post Reply New Topic

Wake up people, think for yourself. Trust those who .......? Instigate? Those who work keep ban on unsafe weapons.

Could Japan survive another nuclear disaster, unlikely as devestating health affects take generations to really recover, the Bible speaks of hungry or thirst man begged from crumbs at rich table, in this case mercy for more than that. Should mercy on Russia become a blessing, perhaps it could disrupt many smaller injustices within society.

There was a fire at old Chernobyl reactor this is somewhat different from how many Jewish hostages that Netanyahu wishes to somehow claim as justice. Do you see the difference, because this is not way case is presented to the UN court.

Furthermore, somehow an accident on nuclear reactor at power station is not considered the same as firing nuclear weapons, it's blameless. So snippets about beiruit explosion briefly enter media, but don't receive enough attention, nor do uranium leaks around Iraq....the real question is who is instigating these nuclear wars since einstein, the bomb and the ban. Imagine they could censor internet, feed us propoganda....
We all know poverty is cause for world war, but not in event of nuclear age.
Is USA facing nuclear threats Nd investigating countries with weapons, are these countries pawns who blackmailed under post-nazzi conditions for access to work and money. Did some try to even cover up fascist genocide in Namibia by manipulating Japanese portrayal of black man named d'whosiddy behaviour' and if USA claims such countries stocking nuclear weapons then why do enable untrustworthy Japan to such extent!?

What is really confusing is if some G8 countries have adequate military tactics then why use of Chernobyl in first place and even in hungry locked behind iron curtain, was it agenda of hungry or Germany to devestate Russia with Chernobyl. Odd, how Germany became so reliant on Russian energy afterwards, Markel and memoir. But then again somehow portrayal that Germans were competent to raise industry and create wealth to some EU nations, relying heavily on Asian workforce, which was convenient then but not now. Maybe drugs and whatever nazzi sold prevented their nucleus demise, but Japan was left bitter, but nazzi remorse or lack thereof is astounding. Why was nothing done about drugs from company Bayer that were unsafe, and USA was in full power at the time.
Who and what can one believe, anymore.

Another case is despite Rasputin and tensions between Russia that communist Cuba served agenda of not the Russians.
Using Latin America as testing ground for pesticides, largely relating to ashma but other issues was more intent of nazzi- German financial alliance to USA, not so much the Russian blame, anymore.

Furthermore even relate use of agent Orange to seal fate of war in Vietnam, as a war crime. Not really our ally but shows how USA is willing to do to maintain control and power. And in all years, whether former colony slave drivers gave anything to poverty stricken area, no, it didn't suit Germany or Japan at time. It's all relevant to some pockets, sway the swag bucks

Korea was another victim of power plant explosion, seems this happening more than usual. Nucleus explosions

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D5Ptyr ... 93cw%3D%3D

One more day up in canyons, wish this year was better than last, giving up hope, not many old school serf ancestry left, who's left to fight for cause?
Replace Victor with a half decent dictator, or maybe I should just move to Cuba.
Wish next year be better than last, every year

I remember Chinobyl. I had to go to school as my school headmaster said anyone who didn't would get detention. I was then dropped off at the end of the lane as usual by the second school bus (We were at the end of the school run and were on the second bus that met the first bus, so when most school children were already home, we had not got there yet)... and while walking down the lane towards the field and driveway beside the field going doen to the house, I saw five white UN helicopters with red on the fronts (Never seen them before) in front of a thick yellow dyed cloud that I had to walk through to get back home. I could not stop breathing as I was too far away. After the cloud passed a further two helicopers followed it).
The official response was that the yellow dust was "Pollen from the trees" (Why was the UN spending huge amounts of money to follow pollen with seven large Sea King UN helicopters when it had a radioactive wave to try and follow? They were clearly lieing! And yet further north to this day some farmers are not allowed to sell their sheep and are paid compensation. BUT jothing for those who had to walk through it in the areas they said it didn't come!
Maybe it was pollen, but it didn't look like it as pollen from the trees (We lived right next to a forestry) was a kore orangy colour and did not disperse in thick heavy clouds like that! The dust was coated over the drive, the cars, on everything as being a teenager, I had to wash it off!

Anyway...

The logical thing is to work to make nuclear reactors safer, not to just try to eliminate them. There are some modern designs that are thought to have no chance of seeing a core meltdown.

As for nuclear war, in spite of Putin's threats, it is not likely to happen in the current circumstances.

We should all keep in mind that for an effective first strike, a nuclear attack would have had to significantly reduce the ability of the attacked country to retaliate. To achieve this, the nuclear weapons used in the first strike must be highly accurate and reliable. For this, you have to maintain your nuclear weapons. You cannot just build a nuclear weapon, put it in storage, and have any expectation that it will work thirty or forty years later. There is doubt about how well Russia has maintained their weapons. From what I have read, their total military budget appears to be little more than what our budget is to maintain our nuclear arsenal. While Russia's nuclear weapons might have been reliable for a first strike fifty years ago, have they done what they need to maintain their weapons to maintain that reliability today.

Also, a first strike on the continental US would not be enough. In addition to our missile silos (and that takes much greater accuracy) and our military facilities and our necessary industry, they would still have to do with SLBM's (Submarine Launched Ballistic Misile) on nuclear weapons carried on ships that can be dropped from aircraft. Even if they took out all of our missile silos, we would still have enough capacity with our submarines and aircraft to devastate Russia.

So while the question of whether Russia might still have a viable first strike capability is far from settled, it is highly probably that we would have enough capability to devastate Russia.

If Russia were to launch a first strike on the US, they would likely suffer far more damage from our retaliation than their strike could inflict on us.

There remains the question of how we would respond to a nuclear strike on the Ukraine? The real purpose of our strategic nuclear weapons is to defend the US -- more precisely, to deter others from launching a nuclear attack against the US. If Russia were to use nuclear weapons against the Ukraine and not against the US, it seems likely that we would immediately be drawn into a defense of the Ukraine, but it doesn't follow that this defense would be nuclear.

Then there is the question of tactical nuclear weapons that are designed to be used in a battlefield. These would be stored in secure bunkers. The problem there is that if the Ukraine had such weapons and the Russians were advancing and were close to overrunning the bunkers, then there would be a strong instinct to use them rather than letting them drop into Russian hands.

There was some recent nonsense about the US considering giving nuclear weapons to the Ukraine to be used against Russia. That is so wrong for a number of reasons:
1) The US has always been against nuclear proliferation. It does not seem likely that we would turn around and start distributing weapons to other nations.
2) ICBM's would not be of much use to the Ukraine unless they were going to attack us so we would not have to build silos for them which would take years. So assume that we would send them tactical nuclear weapons under this recent nonsense. We would have to build secure storage facilities for them and that would likely take two or three years to design and build them and then that could effectively leave them with a "use it or lose it" scenario if overrun.
3) Once secure storage facilities were built, transporting them there would take some thought since the transports could conceivably be intercepted by the Russians. I have no idea how difficult it would be to secure the transportation of the weapons.

So the notion that we would transfer nuclear weapons to the Ukraine is just preposterous.

There was also the even more preposterous suggestion that we should return to the Ukraine those weapons they gave up to us. First of all, they didn't give us the weapons -- they gave them to Russia. We have never had them and could not give them back. If we had gotten them, we would have surely destroyed them anyway. Second, the Russians controlled the launch sequences and arming of the weapons. Even if they still had those weapons or were given them back, they could not have used them.

There is one major danger besides accidental launches of nuclear weapons. If a country is at war and is losing very badly and is facing an immediate and total defeat, they might be tempted to use nuclear weapons under the idea that they might be able to avoid a quick and certain defeat, no matter how unlikely. If we were at war with Russia and were closing in on Putin ready to destroy him and his control over the country, he might be tempted to launch nuclear weapons as a last ditch effort to avoid defeat even if the chance of it working was only 1% or even less. However, that seems unlikely.

In other words, don't panic every time someone says "nuclear".

I have lived my entire life with the risk that the world could be wiped out with nuclear war. Could it happen? Yes, but the chances of it happening soon is very low. Certain dictators and governments like to push the threat of nuclear war to get their faces in the news.

As for nuclear accidents at reactors, the risks have been minimized over the past eighty years. The modern nuclear reactors are much safer than the earlier ones that had no backup control mechanism in place. Next generation fusion reactors are currently being built to lower the risks further. Fusion is a safer process overall, as it produces less radioactive waste than fission versions. We need nuclear power to be able to sustain our modern society. This can be done with new fuels that are not fissionable.

In a perfect world, we would have achieved an working annihilation reactor by now. It potentially would have a matter to energy conversion ratio of 100%, with no leftover waste. Conventional nuclear reactors are not even close to being able to do such a conversion. They are lucky if they get to 10% at best. (The first atomic bomb had a conversion rate of only 0.01%.)

The catch is that we cannot formulate anti-matter particles in a large enough amount to be used in the process. Conventional thought only sees pair production for the formation of anti-matter, but that is not the whole story. There is something in this universe that can do the conversion without forming matter particles in the process. We have not found the “easy” key to this conversion as of yet. A hint on how it could be done is in the formation of neutron stars/black holes.

Before someone claims “anti-matter does not exist”, I will say it does exist. Positrons (anti-matter versions of electrons) are used in PET scans for medical diagnosis. They are give off by certain isotopes as a form of beta + decay. Once a positron comes in contact with an electron, they annihilate to give off two 511 KeV x-rays. It is these x-rays that we measure to visualize the body part targeted with the PET scan.

Nuclear reactor accident isn't just worst bomb and devestation to infastructure, but radiation looms and area is toxic. I've watched videos of men who gave their lives for few minutes to remove some of reactive substance from Chernobyl, they did not survive.
The photos of children exposed be it from Japan or vieetnaam or even beiruit are beyond describing, imagine this was your child?

It is difficult to negotiate with Russia, people clearly do not understand that they can't just do as asked, it's delicate situation.
If countries could take note of this during negotiations it will assist in nuclear free future, we can hopefully assess damages caused natural disasters too, Nd work plan to end the recession.

Unless mankind dies out as the result of a major catastrophe such as a collision with a very large asteroid, nuclear reactors will become more and more important to meet our energy needs. We obviously need to work toward safer nuclear reactors.

I have worked in a nuclear reactor while at a major university a couple of decades ago. That was back when I was still duel majoring in chemistry and nuclear engineering. I only left the nuclear side because I hated dealing with the governmental red tape involved with doing even the smallest things. Having handled radioactive materials (uranium, thorium and radium compounds) in the laboratory, I know the risks and accept the possible consequences that may occur. I am sure the nuclear workers you mentioned felt the same way when they were doing their job.

As for if it was my son/daughter, I would support the choice that they made to do, even if it shortened their lifetime. I do not have children, so that is a moot point to make anyway.

Nuclear power is here to stay. It will not disappear simply because you want it to. The world needs electrical energy and it is one of the most reliable ways to produce it on a large scale.

Well said.

Also, when dealing with any kind of energy, there are risks. It would surprise me if the risks aren't significantly larger in oil and gas than in nuclear.

In the late 1970s, I was a math graduate student. One day talking to one of the lead physics graduate students at the college, I asked him why there was no fusion work going on at our university. His reply was interesting. It went something along the lines of:

At the time, we were thought to be thirty years from making fusion work. Now, 50 years later, I'm not convinced that we aren't still thirty years from making fusion work. Whenever I hear about someone saying that we will have commercial fusion reactors in a year or two, I just think they are overly optimistic. I think that we will eventually have it, but we still have a long ways to go. It's not enough to just get to the point where we get a reaction that produces as much power as it took to initiate the reaction.

You are close to guessing when one will come online. A fusion reactor has been built in France, but it will likely take until 2040 to get it operational. That is the best estimate I could find on another technical website. They are working on the massive amounts of liquid helium that will be needed to cool the magnetic coils to do a mini-test. Unfortunately, that puts a further pressure upon the helium market worldwide. Liquid helium is used in many other applications, such as MRIs and NMRs.

https://www.iter.org/node/20687/operating-mini-iter

I did want to mention that fusion can also be done at ultra cold temperatures (Bose-Einstein condensate) that approach zero degrees Kelvin. A test run was done at this temperature with a mixture of deuterium and tritium in a gold container. Once the mixture’s wavefunctions became one, the outside of the gold was hit with a cold photon beam to induce pressure upon the waveform. The net result was fusion and slightly more energy was produced than inputted into the system. This is not something that can be done commercially on Earth