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

Dancing David said:
No wonder you present little to no actual data, how much diesel fuel, exactly do they load on nuclear subs?
Click to expand...

Well, lets see... If the tank was somewhere between 18-24 inches thick and fit inside a pressure hull with a radius of 33 feet with the top 10 feet or so of that lopped off. Lets go with 24 inches.

So pi*33*33=3421.19151*2=6842.38302 cubic feet

Minus about 1/5th for the bit lopped off is 5473.906416 cubic feet.

1 cubic foot is 7.48 gallons so we get 40944.81999168 gallons. Lets just call it 41,000 gallons just to make the math easier.

It used at least 50 gph of fuel so we might get 820 hours worth of operation in the best case scenario. But of course there is never a best case scenario what with piping and tank supports inside the tank taking up volume plus you have to assume some motion of the ship will cause some mixing of the fuel and the water used to balance out the weight loss from using the fuel and you can't use the fuel near that boundary layer between fuel and water so in reality you might get about 30 days worth of operation tops if you needed to.

We went out to sea for a minimum of twice that and I probably would've noticed the UNREP....

Oh yeah. And our top speed on the electric motor was about 2-3 knots so it would take a loooong time for us to get anywhere.
 
Wow, there's a lot of ex nuke workers on this forum.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
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.
Click to expand...

I was having a little fun. My point however is any rise in radiation above normal background - no matter how small or how safe proves the existence of some sort of nuclear power source because that radiation can not come from any natural source (excluding East Africa)

So for our erstwhile poster to claim nuclear power is a conspiracy, he needs to explain why such divergent cultures as Sweden the Ukraine or Switzerland reported such increases in cows milk, thus are in on the conspiracy
 
Kid Eager said:
...or so they would have you believe.... <cue dramatic music>
Click to expand...

Wait a minute, the guvmint has the nukes so if one has worked on nukes you're automatically a guvmint shill!!! I'm a guvmint shill!!! Guess there's nothing I can do except go in hte back yard and eat worms.
 
My point however is any rise in radiation above normal background - no matter how small or how safe proves the existence of some sort of nuclear power source because that radiation can not come from any natural source (excluding East Africa)
Click to expand...
Much as I hate to, honor compels me to disagree with you (and if the poster of the OP cherry picks ANYTHING from this post, it'll tell us all we need to know about his honesty).

There are two sources of increases in background radiation that would be entirely natural. First, increased solar activity increases the concentration of cosmogenic nucleotides. It plays merry havoc with C14 dating, and requires correlation via dendochronology or thermoluminescence/optically stimulated luminescence. Other cosmogenic nucleotides also form (I want to say sulfur, but I know that's wrong--I know nitrogen has one. The isotopic geochem book I reference is at the work office, not the home one, sadly).

The second source is migration of nuclear material in the groundwater. Uranium ores can be water-soluble, and daughter products, such as radon, can be released via small-scale faulting (which can be caused by nearly anything). This increased mobility would more or less by definition raise the radiation in the region that it mobilized to.

The issue is the term "background". Background is defined as a range of concentrations over time, and is empirically derived. I've done background testing for a number of different metals, organics, and the like (it's not nearly as much fun as it sounds--usually involves logging GeoProbe cores or pumping groundwater wells). Technically speaking, the naturally occurring increases would be increases in the background levels of any constituent of potential concern, but under EPA sampling protocols it wouldn't necessarily be termed that--it takes them a while to catch on to things like that. So there would be a lot of reports that indicate an increase in radiation without any known source, when in fact it's an increase in the background levels (they just can't say that because they don't have the tests to prove it).
 
You're all fools. My website (www.thereisnointernet.com) tells the TRUTH about the world wide web that THEY don't want you to know.

Given the number of people employed by or connected closely with nuclear power, I think we have a CT here to rival the 9/11 ones for number of people involved. I'd love to hear how that many people are kept quiet.
 
I thought I'd have another look here, and there's obviously no point replying.

However I doubt whether these posters are entirely typical of people browsers here, so if there are any genuinely quizzical people, do yourself a favour and check the site. Why not find it for yourself, in fact.

Incidentally, if there are any competent moderators here, could you please remove 'Sword_of_Truth' for his threats of violence. Thanks. I'm sure he or she would appreciate it.
 
Rerevisionist said:
I thought I'd have another look here, and there's obviously no point replying.

However I doubt whether these posters are entirely typical of people browsers here, so if there are any genuinely quizzical people, do yourself a favour and check the site. Why not find it for yourself, in fact.

Incidentally, if there are any competent moderators here, could you please remove 'Sword_of_Truth' for his threats of violence. Thanks. I'm sure he or she would appreciate it.
Click to expand...

Why don't you run a poll if you doubt that the responses have been typical? Each member can vote only once.

Remember, we have no vested interest in believing your claims - we are skeptics and as such the evidence will win. Your site is long on conjecture, but short on evidence.

You're also at a considerable disadvantage in that your audience here knows a lot about things nuclear.
 
Well, darn. I was really hoping Rerevisionist would explain how natural reactors can occur if controlled nuclear reactors didn't work. Guess I'll have to stick to actual science.
 
Rerevisionist said:
I thought I'd have another look here, and there's obviously no point replying.
Click to expand...
Bad show! You're supposed to threaten not to come back until people stop insulting your beliefs, or throw a massive strop with threats and insults flying left, right and centre. The game has rules, you know.
 
Why gosh, that site has surely opened my eyes.

I now know that all my work in genetics is worthless, since I used radioactive isotopes with halflifes of 14 days and 35 days respectively that were produced in an alleged nuclear reactor. But since those don't exist my isotopes must have been fakes too, so 'they' must just have faked every single result I got.

This got me thinking and I'll soon launch my own site www . pacificwarisalie . com. Because clearly the japanese must have been the best of pals with the US to lie for them about the bombings. And best of pals don't fight, so therefore the whole pacific war must have been one giant coverup to lead up to the worldwide lie about nuclear weapons.
Shocking what lengths some people will go trough to....
ehhmmm...
yeah...
WHY did they lie about nuclear power again?

the evulz?
 
Rerevisionist's complaint about links might be my fault.

In a thread about detecting radiation he opined:
Re: Problems Measuring 'Radiation' (e.g. 'electrosyl',Silkwo

Postby rerevisionist » 26 Oct 2011 03:47
Well, it's the 'indirect' detection that's the problem. And the fact that it's difficult to get explicit descriptions of how 'meters' and so on work. In fact it's not surprising; if it were possible, people would have known for decades that there was no radiation at Hiroshima. The fact is that the Fukushima operators themselves don't even attempt to measure 'radiation'. So there are clearly problems with the whole subject.
Click to expand...
(bolding added)

I responded with the following:
A few helpful links about geiger counters:

http:// www.galacticelectronics.com/GeigerCounter.HTML
Includes schematics for the circuit

http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~lecturedem ... 88.30.html
Laboratory procedure information for a college course

http://www.albert-cordova.com/Cdv700/ge ... unters.htm
Helpful information for those in the market for Geiger counters, with descriptions of other techniques also used to detect radiation

http://www.creative-science.org.uk/geiger.html
Another description of a home-built Geiger counter with schematics.

Several sources for Geiger/Muller tubes currently available:
http://www.sparkfun.com/products/8875
http://www.imagesco.com/geiger/geiger-counter-tube.html
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=geiger+tube
http://www.lndinc.com/products/category/34/
http://unitednuclear.com/index.php?main ... cts_id=773

Sources for prebuilt Geiger counters and DIY Kits:
http://www.geigercounters.com/
http://www.imagesco.com/geiger/geiger-counter-kits.html
http://www.scientificsonline.com/portab ... unter.html
http://www.gammascout.com/
http://www.radmeters4u.com/
Click to expand...

Yes, 14 links.

Explanations how geiger counters work, schematics, instructions for using them in lab settings, sources for GM tubes, and prebuilt units. I thought I was being helpful, filling a gap in his knowledge base.

He responded:
We're not interested in links; we're interested in genuine information from informed people. You are incapable of either and are banned.
Click to expand...

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=271

I haven't actually been banned, but whatever. I don't know why he's here trying to drum up traffic when they don't seem to be interested in actually debating the issues they bring up on their own forum. Mostly it's just the 3 guys soft-soaping one another.

Ranb was there for a while but got banned and has a thread titled "troll examples" dedicated to bashing him. An interesting read, almost worth a stundie nom all by itself:
http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=394

I'm used to people who want to display their wealth of information in support of a theory. These guys seem to be celebrating their lack of information in every single thread. It's difficult to know how to respond to such things. Especially with the ever present Ban-Hammer of Damocles overhead.
 
Last edited:
LandR said:
Hold on.

So are you doubting not only that there has existed nuclear bombs but also nuclear submarines, nuclear warships and nuclear power plants ?

I just want to be clear.
Click to expand...

Why stop there?

OP, do you also disbelieve in RTGs (some of which were even used in pacemakers), and radium (or tritium) paint?
 
Denial and banning, the key weapons used to support a theory with no basis!
 
Rerevisionist, are there any other well-established principals of physics that you doubt?
 
I wonder if you count as an informed person if you've actually built a Geiger Counter from scratch (well almost from scratch)?
 
Well, that was kinda my point. I built one in high school with a tube from one of those "scary old guy" surplus electronics stores. The hardest part is the high voltage to load the Geiger-Muller tube.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom