Nuclear (i.e. fission and fusion) mythologies and politics

[LSSBB]

LSBB - feel free to join nukelies and give evidence. BUT saying things like "I've worked all my life on computer simulations" or "I've often scrubbed the outside of nuke engines" or "I've been told the room is dangerously radioactive" count as testimony, but not evidence.

How about I worked alongside in the reactor control room while they scrammed the reactor? How about I created a device in college that detected the presence of nuclear decay daughter particles from Radon gas? And what part of "no other primary source of power" don't you get? And are you calling all of my co-workers who worked directly in the plant liars? If they are all in on the hoax, should I be asking for my cut so I don't expose them?

 

[Dinwar]

DINWAR appears to think radiometric measurements are entirely confirmed. In fact this is not the case, since there's usually no solid way to confirm them, especially with dates going back millions of years. (I'm not saying the people involved are in any way to blame - it's not their fault their work is misquoted).

You've completely misunderstood my point, I assume deliberately. What I'm saying is that the data that HAS been confirmed--remember, we use radioactive tracers in medicine, with half-lives on the order of minutes--clearly supports the theoretical framework behind the ideas that were used to construct nuclear bombs. Other radiometric work has been confirmed in the Holocene via independent measures (thermoluminescence, optically stimulated luminescence, stratigraphy, etc). In order to prove that nuclear weapons are impossible, you need to prove that a chunk of modern medicine and a bigger chunk of geology than you realize is wrong.

DINWAR also seems to think that radioactive decay is the same as a chain reaction. Of course it isn't.

No, I simply stated that the physics underlying both are the same. A chain reaction is a large number of fission events occurring in a short time--the fission events are all more or less the same as the fission events in C14, or zircon crystals, or the like.

DINWAR - the point about supposed nuclear powered ships is that they have conventional fuel. So there is a possible alternative propualsion system.

They also exist in windy environments--are you proposing that they use sails to move? Because the idea is equally rediculous. OF COURSE aircraft carriers have jet fuel on board--THEY HAVE JETS ON BOARD. You've yet to establish even that the fuel is usable as fuel for the ship (jet fuel isn't that good in engines other than jets), let alone that they DO use it!

[8] Nuclear subs are of importance because they are the only objects allegedly using only nuclear power. (There could be installations e.g. in Antarctica, but appear not to be).

This shows a rather remarkable ignorance on your part. There have been a number of space probes that rely on nuclear materials for fuel. There were some pretty big stinks about that, actually--people were worried that the probes could become the equivalent of dirty bombs (ie, the rocket could malfunction and explode, scattering radioactive material all over the place).

There's an anecdote from my old geology department that's relevant here. A professor working on an XRD (which requires a radiation badge) had to talk to another professor. She walked into the office and set her badge down on a random rock--not unusual, as all geology professors have desks with random rocks all over the place. She sent the badge in to be analyzed, as per lab protocol. The result came back "Ma'am, when were you inside an active nuclear reactor?" The film in the badge had been completely exposed. Turns out the rock she set the badge on was uraninite, a uranium ore. It's far from pure, so the radiation is safe enough (you get more from sunlight than a hand-sample of uraninite), but it rather clearly shows how active the material is. Again, a chain reaction is merely a large number of fission events in a small amount of time--the physics doesn't change. So if you believe nuclear reactors don't work, please explain to me why that badge experienced a high dose of radiation.

 

[LSSBB]

How about I worked alongside in the reactor control room while they scrammed the reactor? How about I created a device in college that detected the presence of nuclear decay daughter particles from Radon gas? And what part of "no other primary source of power" don't you get? And are you calling all of my co-workers who worked directly in the plant liars? If they are all in on the hoax, should I be asking for my cut so I don't expose them?

Also, I spent a month aboard a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser. I have been in it's power plants. The cruiser is of identical construction to one I was on that was powered by oil-fired boilers generating 1200 pound steam. The ship with the oil-fired boilers had stacks where the exhaust from the oil-firing was vented. The nuclear cruiser had no such stacks, and yet was able to attain a speed of 32 knots while I observed from it's bridge.

 

[deeper]

The nuclear cruiser had no such stacks, and yet was able to attain a speed of 32 knots while I observed from it's bridge.

How do you know you weren't being pulled by a fast, powerful boat with an incredibly long tow line?

 

[Sam.I.Am]

** Material on nuclear power, which may or more likely may not exist. Submarines are important here as they are the only objects supposedly run entirely by nuclear power. (Every electrical grid has input from conventional sources).

I hate to break it to you but nuclear power is very real. I have spent over 2 years in total underwater over 8 strategic deterrent patrols along with taking a boat out of a shipyard and even test firing the weapons systems.

We didn't pull thousands of miles worth of extension cord around and we rarely used our diesel except in short periods (15-30 minutes at a time for maintenance or reactor SCRAM drills). The diesel fuel has two uses. Fuel for the diesel and reactor shielding (all of that hydrogen in the fuel makes for an excellent shield). We carried enough fuel to get us home if the reactor broke in the middle of the ocean (about two weeks worth). We never even came close to using it all. Using it fouled up the detection system for discovering torpedo fuel leaks so aside from the noise there was another reason to not use it on a regular basis.

We also carried nuclear weapons. I've seen them. I've worked with them. I've slept next to them. They are quite real.

These are facts. I've lived them. You and your type are flat out wrong about everything that you think that you know. You need to seek medical help before the guys with butterfly nets come looking for you.

 

[MG1962]

How do you know you weren't being pulled by a fast, powerful boat with an incredibly long tow line?

I just assumed that was a given

 

[Greedo]

OK. First of all, my stance on this forum is basically that Randi is a coward, who will not deal with serious issues; hence the time-wasting over trivia such as 'homeopathy'.
______________________

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

______________________

....

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

Personal insults, classy. But no worries, I'm not insulted. I'm rather copiously amused by the irony.

 

[LSSBB]

How do you know you weren't being pulled by a fast, powerful boat with an incredibly long tow line?

Because that would have interfered with the mail buoy we were trying to fish out of the water. Duh....

 

[tsig]

Nuke Lies site

I'm putting this neutrally-worded piece here, mainly because I found a link back to a thread on this forum.

If you google 'nuke lies' or quite a number of related topics, the forum will show up. (I don't want to post some sort of coded link).

Note that this message is only intended for serious readers, not the sort who seem to populate most of the Randi forum.

Anyway the themes explored in the forum are (briefly - there are several messages providing many links within the site, with explanations)--

** Evidence that nuclear weapons were a fraud right from the start, based on examination of film and newsreel etc records, now available as videos or course, and on documentary evidence, and also on rechecking some items of evidence, for instance the experiment referred to in Einstein's letter to Roosevelt
** Examination of how their properties had to be made up, including inconsistencies and mistakes. (For example, the radiation hazard had to be made up to keep people away - there's a photo of Oppenheimer and Groves strolling about the day after a nightime explosion, for example. And the 'mushroom cloud' was a mistake which they stuck with. - Just two examples)
** A section obviously on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
** A section on phased withdrawal - they have the problem now of phasing the mythology out, preferably while keeping their money. This means changing the previous stories and hoping people won't notice. (Typical example is the 'Monterey Group' and someone called Ward Wilson).
** Material on nuclear power, which may or more likely may not exist. Submarines are important here as they are the only objects supposedly run entirely by nuclear power. (Every electrical grid has input from conventional sources).
** Material on propagandists and generally the world situation - some of it of course connected fairly remotely. Thus Vanunu, the psychology of science frauds, vested interests related to paper money, the control of protestors, security and secrecy issues, the importance of conventional weapons, spies and the 'Cold War', and a whole assemblage of issues needs to be discussed.

I won't say any more here, but I would ask serious commentators, if there are any on this site, to have a look!

Neutrally-worded? Riight.

Funny, I worked on nuclear weapons for four years in the USAF and they sure looked real.

_{(I know, I was a deluded sheep)}

 

[tsig]

[1] I don't know what 'CT' is, but I'd guess it's an in-house thing like some other phrases I won't bother with.

New posters are not allowed to post external links, no doubt as an anti-spam device.

From memory, as your details are off-screen to me now, you've posted something like 27,000 postings to this site. And you can't even be bothered to either address my summary comments, let alone look at the site.

[2] Radiometric dating has problems which any informed person should know about, but I won't list comments here as it's irrelevant to the issue, just as your comment is. The issue is vast amounts of energy being given off, whether this is feasible, whether in fact it's true, whether it would cause an explosion.

[3] It's true there are claims made about nuclear-powered ships. However, if you check you'll find they receive huge amounts of fuel, typically for planes. If you make a little effort you'll find the evidence for their being nuclear-powered is shaky. No wonder you've had time to post 5000 comments.

The sailors on the carriers and subs are in on the conspiracy? At the very least the officers and the guys who fuel those huge engines would have to know something was strange.

 

[deeper]

Because that would have interfered with the mail buoy we were trying to fish out of the water. Duh....

Sorry, since I read the Nuke Lies site I can't help but feel there must be a more complex, convoluted and downright unrealistic explanation for everything I see around me.

 

[tsig]

I think he is referring to this forum

http://nukelies.com/forum/

Which seems to be run by our OP.

So this is a scam thread to send traffic to his forum.

 

[tsig]

Also, I spent a month aboard a nuclear powered guided missile cruiser. I have been in it's power plants. The cruiser is of identical construction to one I was on that was powered by oil-fired boilers generating 1200 pound steam. The ship with the oil-fired boilers had stacks where the exhaust from the oil-firing was vented. The nuclear cruiser had no such stacks, and yet was able to attain a speed of 32 knots while I observed from it's bridge.

Proof positive that the military has perfected the magnetic repulsion drive!

 

[LSSBB]

Sorry, since I read the Nuke Lies site I can't help but feel there must be a more complex, convoluted and downright unrealistic explanation for everything I see around me.

I recommend you participate in a Mail Buoy watch if you REALLY want to see complex, convoluted and downright unrealistic upfront and in person. You can even handle the hook...

 

[MG1962]

The sailors on the carriers and subs are in on the conspiracy? At the very least the officers and the guys who fuel those huge engines would have to know something was strange.

As well as the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the millions around the world kept alive by nuclear medicine

 

[Sam.I.Am]

The sailors on the carriers and subs are in on the conspiracy? At the very least the officers and the guys who fuel those huge engines would have to know something was strange.

You can hear (and feel, and smell) the diesel running from anywhere on the ship. You also had to run on what we called "Reduced Juice" (properly called rigged for reduced electricity) when prolonged snorkeling was expected because the diesel generator can't put out enough to meet all of our needs without a little help from the ships batteries.

 

[Andy_Ross]

We carried 'Special Weapons' onthe AS Frigates I serverd on in the 80s. Nuclear Depth Bombs . They were to take out Russian Subs if the war started. We trained in their use and were prepared to use them if the orders came.

 

[deeper]

I recommend you participate in a Mail Buoy watch if you REALLY want to see complex, convoluted and downright unrealistic upfront and in person. You can even handle the hook...

lol, I see. Also liked the Long Weight from that page, I was in a hardware store recently when a young kid came in and asked for a Penny Long Stand, I passed about 45 minutes later and he was still there.

 

[Garrison]

So may I take it Rerevisionist that you have evidence that there's a large discepancy in the amount of jet fuel delivered to nuclear aircraft carriers and the amount required for the air operations they conduct? Or that there are conventional fuels being supplied to nuclear submarines?

For that matter how do you explain the various nuclear powered space probes that have been dispatched far beyond the range of solar power cells?

 

[Dinwar]

how do you explain

There appears to be a rather fundamental assumption that doesn't hold true in these four words....