On 04/04/2011 05:54 AM, Hartmut Noack wrote:
Sorry, but if that is the case then remind me how an ICBM works
please... Are we talking about the true speed of gravity or with the
resistance of a solid object that can withstand the heat of a burning
core included in the equation? Lets say for example there is a reactor
that melts down, the chamber is breached the meting core starts burning
it's way through the earths crust and along the way some of the fuel
gets trapped and delayed so now we have a radioactive pit of burning
fuel dispersed in clumps and say some of that fuel starts to drop in
freefall now what would be the calculated risk that it would only
explode with the force of a conventional weapon compared to a nuclear event?
> That would be catastrophic for the area around the place where this
Am I to assume that you have designed and built nuclear weapons in the
past and fully understand the processes involved then? Because if you
have then I guess I have a dilemma in that I now have contradictory
information about the processes involved.
>> Given how bad it is already I would not be
They were waiting to see if it would be a waste of money or not... No
point trying to build it if the whole facility was going to go up anyway.
>> Although I have it on good authority that it is more likely to just
That what they want you to believe... Of course they have no reason to
tell lies and subvert the truth though do they? There is no vested
interest in protecting the Plutonium generating facilites of this world
from closure if people know that they are all potential Nuclear bombs.
>> Even if it only
When I say ignite I mean "with the power of a nuclear explosion". Maybe
I should have chosen the more technical term for such an event? What is
that? Combust, Explode, Erupt... Are you actually trying to tell me
that the open pits where they are storing the "spent" fuel rods are
impervious to a conventional explosion let alone a nuclear explosion of
upto 800 metric tonnes of burning reactor cores? Remember that just a
few kilograms of Pu-239 going up in a nuclear explosion is enough to
wipe Fukushima (the whole city, not just the facility) off the map...
No. The Poisoning is a chemical process and the cancer is caused by cell
mutation due to hte effects of radiation.
Chernobyl is nothing in comparison to this event. Anyway you may want to
look at risk of getting cancer in the modern age. I'm sure that has
nothing at all to do with Nuclear pollution, absolutely nothing.
>> Remember that just cos
Yeah, I happen to be a Pacific Islander having travelled extensively
throughout the Pacific region and with family members and friends who
live in the Tropics and that callous disregard for nature by the
Japanese Authorities in my own backyard is a travesty I will never forget.
I know that it is one. You tell me what is the purpose of collecting all
that Pu-239 in one easy to get to location for 40 years? The reason it
defies logic is because they decided it was an acceptable risk not
because they couldn't get away with it.
Boost Hardware Ltd.
Linux-audio-user mailing list