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

[Safe-Keeper]

We can do better than this. Visit my new blog, chopperlies.no. It explains everything you need to know about the Helicopter Hoax. It is related to the sister site Strawberrymyth.ru, which exposes strawberries as dwarf potatoes in disguise.

 

[Greedo]

We can do better than this. Visit my new blog, chopperlies.no. It explains everything you need to know about the Helicopter Hoax. It is related to the sister site Strawberrymyth.ru, which exposes strawberries as dwarf potatoes in disguise.

LULZ have been provided.

 

[Rerevisionist]

Ahah - lots of messages.

LSSBB - you worked in 'the reactor control room'. Did you check what was inside the room? (I won't bother to comment on the 'device to detect etc)

DINWAR still seems to think radioactive decay is the same mechanism as a chain reaction leading to the emission of great heat leading to an explosion. It isn't.

Yes, carriers have jets on board. They have fuel. For that matter they get deliveries of a lot of things. The question is: are they genuinely nuclear powered?

DINWAR's example of something powered only by nuclear power is space probe(s). Do you have anything nearer earth?

LSSBB - In principle I'd be interested to know whether nuclear tipped missiles launched underwater ever existed. However, I doubt you're the person to ask. Judging by your post, you never visited or investigated the power source of your ship. (NB bear in mind this issue is separate from nuclear wepaons).

SAM.I.AM - Have you ever seen a nuclear bomb tested? Would your diesel engine have worked underwater, if the reactor 'broke'? Did you examine the engines? Have you ever been tested psychiatrically for the effects of sleeping with nuclear bombs?

Hello, TSIG - 'they sure looked real'. Did you ever see one tested?

TSIG- 'they would have to be in on it etc'. Why? They were being paid to do their job. Why would they ask any questions?

MG1962 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no effects from atom bombs. Check it out, if you can read more than a few sentences at once. Uses of radiation in medicine have no connection whatever with nuclear weapons or power.

CAPTAIN SWOOP - 'You were trained in their use'. That doesn't mean they were real, does it. Did you ever try one?

GARRISON - I'd be interested in such information. The space probe thing is virtually irrelevant; maybe if one exists on earth, that was never launched, perhaps as a test, then that could provide evidence. But compared with power needed to operate electric grids or run large ships, it's negligible.

Anyway the site nukelies explored these things, but new posters aren't allowed to post links.

 

[Rerevisionist]

I just noticed that 'Safe-Keeper' is in Norway. There are a couple of items about Norway - one on Anders Breivik (? from memory), and one on Norway's government funding someone called Ward Wilson, of the 'Monterey Institute', who is trying a bit of comic back-pedalling - there are a few videos available.

 

[MG1962]

MG1962 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki have no effects from atom bombs.

So please provide the name and specifications of the weapon that did do the damage to the two cities

Uses of radiation in medicine have no connection whatever with nuclear weapons or power.

Try again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclea...s.2C_with_notes_on_a_few_radiopharmaceuticals

 

[Kid Eager]

Hmmmm... what to say?

- the Monte Bell Island and Maralinga tests didn't happen? The big holes in the ground, the mushroom clouds, the radiation plumes were imaginary? That the residual radiation in the area being still dangerous is a fabrication that is somehow confirmed by detection instruments?

- the nuclear physics training I undertook was invalid? That somehow the theoretical and laboratory behaviour of nuclear isotopes breaks down outside the lab?

- the nuclear contamination protective and cleaning routines I learned and used don't actually work?

Inquiring minds want to know. And yes, I have been to your site. The whole logic is based on a preconceived conclusion that the bombs were/are a fake, and you're trying to construct evidence from ignorance, selective interpretation and outright fraud to justify your conclusion. Your arguments from incredulity are somewhat ironic, given the implausible alternatives that you are proposing.

I tell you what: present ONE claim on this site with supporting evidence. If if survives scrutiny, then you *might* be worth listening to.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

SAM.I.AM - Have you ever seen a nuclear bomb tested?

If you mean being there for a detonation then the answer is no. I also haven't been there for a torpedo detonation. That doesn't mean that they don't detonate.

Would your diesel engine have worked underwater, if the reactor 'broke'?

Yes. It's called snorkeling and you can feel, hear and smell it throughout the boat as well as detect the hydrocarbons from it in the atmosphere.

Did you examine the engines?

Which ones? The steam powered engines that normally power the boat and keep the engine room at a toasty 80+ degrees while submerged in ~34 degree water for months at a time. Yes I have. Do you mean the Fairbanks Morse 12 cylinder diesel that took up an area the size of a minivan and then some? Yes I have. Did you mean the Emergency Propulsion Motor that the diesel generator powered in an emergency when there was no steam? Yes I have. Did you mean the Secondary Propulsion Motor that was used to maneuver in tight spaces? Yes I have? All of these things are out in the open.

Have you ever been tested psychiatrically for the effects of sleeping with nuclear bombs?

Now what are you getting on about? Radiation has no psychological side effects although a few of my friends had three kids (one of each).

 

[Dinwar]

DINWAR's example of something powered only by nuclear power is space probe(s). Do you have anything nearer earth?

Sure. How about natural nuclear reactors?

Also, it's interesting to note the goal posts moving. First it's "Nuclear subs are important because they're the only machines where no other fuel but nuclear is available." Now it's "...the only terrestrial machines...". I wonder how far those posts will move?

DINWAR still seems to think radioactive decay is the same mechanism as a chain reaction leading to the emission of great heat leading to an explosion. It isn't.

Got any proof for this, or are you going to be satisfied with mere assertion? I mean, this isn't even a counter-argument--it's you saying "Nuh-uh! Is not!!"

Yes, carriers have jets on board. They have fuel. For that matter they get deliveries of a lot of things. The question is: are they genuinely nuclear powered?

That's YOUR problem. YOU are asserting a world-wide conspiracy that crosses huge numbers of fields of study, ranging from geology to medicine to the military to the guys who do maintenance (I knew some of them--used to live near Davis Bessy). The evidence for the efficacy of nuclear power can be found in any introductory level geology textbook. More than a little can be found in morgues--Madam Curie, for example, and the people who have been killed by radon. We've satisfied the burden of proving that nuclear energy works. You now need to demonstrate the conspiracy you're talking about.

Have you ever seen a nuclear bomb tested?

Typical Creationist logic. Only they say it "Were you there?" I don't need to be there to know they happened. I've seen the tectites. I've seen the shock quartz. Unless you're going to argue that the Nevada test site was subject to intense asteroid bombardment, which every astronomer just happened to miss, the only thing that could cause these things is a nuclear detonation (we know what amount of energy it takes to make this stuff, and conventional weapons just don't have that kind of power). There's also all sorts of indirect evidence including, again, natural nuclear reactors.

 

[catsmate]

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?

Or where the icebreaker I spent a few weeks on hid all the fuel oil it'd have needed............

 

[twinstead]

Wow. The only thing worse than being wrong is being arrogantly wrong.

Congratulations, rerevisionist.

 

[MG1962]

Probably best not to mention those countries that had glowing cows after Chernobyl

 

[Dancing David]

[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.

You have presented no evidence for your vague allusions to something somebody else said, and they are Conspiracy Theory, of the first order.

So maybe try making a coherent argument and present your data and citations.

You can still post things as w w w .somewebsite, org

[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.

And the evidence you have that nuclear fission does not occur is lacking, so please present it.

[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.

No wonder you present little to no actual data, how much diesel fuel, exactly do they load on nuclear subs?

 

[Dancing David]

or people who e.g. post links without stating what they're about.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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

We looked.

I have done volunteer work as a member of the Canadian Nuclear Society. Mostly public education related stuff, like manning booths at science teacher conventions, doing displays and presentations on nuclear energy. I am not a nuclear physicists or engineer, but I am on a first name basis with the top minds in civilian large scale nuclear power generation in North America.

In my almost professional opinion, and I speak for myself here, not the CNS, the people behind the "Nuke Lies" forum should probably be forcibly sterilized to save future generations the emotional burden of knowing that kind of stupid exists in the world.

 

[jaydeehess]

Sorry, LANDR, I missed this one. OK in sequence of believability:

[1] Japan was not nuked; it's a complete fabrication.

Perhaps you should take that up with the survivors of whatever blew up in hiroshima and Nagasaki.
1plane and the the city exploded. No munitions dumps in the area, no ships carrying huge amounts of explosives , just 1 plane dropping ONE object.

[2] That doesn't prove atom bombs don't exist. But...

OK but why does that warrant its own numbered point?

[3] H Bombs as depicted are a fake

By persons having little or no understanding of the physics that is taught to EVERY SINGLE PHYSICS STUDENT IN EVERY UNIVERSITY ON THE PLANET who all would have to agree to keep quiet about the cover up!

[4] That doesn't prove they don't exist, either. But...

why does that warrant its own numbered point?

[5] It would be easy for a test carried out now, or to have been carried out any time since 1945, to show they exist. But they haven't.

Uh yeah dozens of them were by the USA, France, Great Britain, Russia, and China.

[6] There are therefore obvious queries over the physics, looked at on our site - including the influence of 'e=mc2', whether fission can go critical, and if it did whether it's controllable, and how dangerous in fact a handful of neutrons could be

Unfortunately no one will allow you to go and stand in a stream of neutrons to let you decide whether or not its dangerous.

[7] Nuclear power may not work - the evidence needs examination which would have to include electricity grids. It would spill over into windpower as a ppossible fraud, too

.

NOW that one actually made me laugh out loud. You suppose electricty is a fraud period? You do know how its produced right?

[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).

Indicating that YOU are ignorant about the subject or a fraud yourself!

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Probably best not to mention those countries that had glowing cows after Chernobyl

NO country had glowing cows after Chernobyl. Nuclear energy does work, safely, cleanly and efficiently. But it does not work the way it is depicted on "The Simpsons" or "The Fantastic Four"

The reason going after the "Nuke Lies" idiots is such a giant waste of time is because disabusing otherwise normal people of commonly held, slightly less ignorant myths itself requires tremendous effort.

 

[Reactor drone]

Sorry, LANDR, I missed this one. OK in sequence of believability:

......
[5] It would be easy for a test carried out now, or to have been carried out any time since 1945, to show they exist. But they haven't.

maybe you missed all these tests since 1945,

http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

maybe you missed all these tests since 1945,

http://www.ctbto.org/specials/1945-1998-by-isao-hashimoto/

Quite possible... if he's 13 years old (which would explain a lot).

 

[Dr.Sid]

Lol .. count me out sir ..

 

[Hans]

WHAT they faked the famous films of the nuclear explosions at Bikini and elsewhere....now how did they do that? lol