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

[Dr.Sid]

You can build even GM tube by yourself !

Check this kit: http://www.anythingradioactive.com/geiger.htm#Air Geiger

Or you can build yourself KFM radiation fallout meter, from can, aluminum foil, and few other household items (google it). Not good as Geiger, since you can't hear the clicks, but very sensitive.

But isn't hearing enough ? What about SEEING them ? Just type cloud chamber into youtube.

Example: www.youtube.com/watch?v=fl9OeGt5obA

That's just for you folks interested in radiation. For thread starter dude, seriously, unless you are 10 years old, find a psychiatrist. These days it's not a shame to be a bit nuts. There are even pills for many diagnoses.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You can build even GM tube by yourself !

Check this kit: http://www.anythingradioactive.com/geiger.htm#Air Geiger

Or you can build yourself KFM radiation fallout meter, from can, aluminum foil, and few other household items (google it). Not good as Geiger, since you can't hear the clicks, but very sensitive.

You can even build your own breeder reactor:

It is this philosophy -- that Chicago students can have fun if they really put their minds to it -- that gave birth to the University of Chicago Scavenger Hunt, a yearly celebration of looniness at a campus far better known for its Nobel laureates. Putting aside term papers for a long weekend, hundreds of undergraduates in teams representing dormitories and student organizations range around the campus -- and, this year, the North American continent -- in search of items that will never be found in a course catalogue.

And if you can't say fun at the U. of C., with a little torque and a keg toss, certainly you can with a nuclear reactor.

Two physics majors, Justin Kasper and Fred Niell, gathered up some spare junk from their physics labs and dorm rooms and built a plutonium-producing reactor.

"It's kind of scary how easy it was to do," said Niell, assuring onlookers that there was only a trace of plutonium -- nothing harmful. "It only took us about a day to build it. We've been thinking about it for a few days and we gathered the parts, and last night we assembled it. In Justin's room -- he lost the coin toss." ​

This is also an effective response to those who claim nuclear power is too expensive and costly to build. But that's a debate for another section of the forum.

 

[nomuse]

Then there's the boy scout who built a breeder with, basically, nothing an ordinary person couldn't get their hands on.

Well, almost. He didn't quite get it up to critical mass, but he did manage to gain himself (probably) a lifetime dose from thorium exposure.

 

[Dancing David]

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.

Poster finds JREF is full of sceptics....

News at six!

 

[kookbreaker]

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.

We did. Its full of stupid. That website makes the Birthers look smart

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.

Sorry, but we are not in the habit of not banning people just because someone cannot understand what a 'threat of violence' is or is not.

But feel free to use the 'report' button to try.

 

[Rerevisionist]

Various replies - I'm not going to put quote bubbles; there's simply too much junk

@MG1962 (03 58 pm) - Hiroshima was fire-bombed like all other Japanese cities. The Japanese weren't told there'd been an 'atom bomb' until some time later. You seem to persistently confuse nuclear weapons with uses of radioactive materials in e.g. medicine.

@Kid Eager - btw I was interested in your 'Wallamalloo' footnote thing; some of their people are (or were) good. Yes, basically, that's what I'm saying re e.g. mushroom cloud, which is a mistake made by an airman which got factored in. Similarly with radiation - there's a photo of Groves and Oppenheimer strolling around the day after the dead-of-night explosion; the radiation as a great hazard was invented later to keep people away. I'm pleased you looked at the site, but would be even more pelased if you read it more carefully. Get into a calm mood, and look again.

@SAM.I.AM - You confirm you've never seen a 'nuclear bomb' explode. You also seem to confirm you have no idea whether a nuclear ship is in fact propelled by nuclear fission.

@DINWAR - It's quite funny to read your stuff. Well done.

@CATSMATE - You tell me. It's a fact that pre-say 1945 subs used batteries, which they recharged by running diesel engines at the surface, where of course they could get air. I would suspect battery design has improved in the last say 90 years.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

@DANCING DAVID - There is a lot of material on physics on my site, among, of course, other subjects. I'm not going to retype it here.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

@JAYDEEHESS - You have been told, repeatedly, that H & N were atom-bombed. You've seen TV stuff, newpspaer stuff, Time-Life stuff, etc. Try to get it into your head that this material may have been wrong. Test it in the way you'd test any other hypothesis.

@REACTOR DRONE - yes, there are plenty of films etc. Now go and examine them for yourself. Since the stuff was declassified and generally released, you can have a good look. Why not try it?

@HANS - There are many problematic issues, as you'll find out when you make some effort to check for yourself.

@DINWAR - You post some information, genuine or not, on other aspects of nuclear physics. They are nothing to do with the topic. You're like someone who's been told bacteria can do harm who drivels on about amoebas and other single cell life forms.

... dross...

@LUKRAAK SISSER - We're talking, or at least I am, about the release of massive amounts of energy, not tiny amounts of tracers. Is that so difficult to understand?

@APOLLOGNOMON - What AG tactfully omits is that the thread he posted in was specifically to do with the fact that NASA never tested its 'lunar backpacks' on earth, in a vacuum. Something obviously essential since the conditions on the moon would be so hostile. All his other stuff is irrelevant. I may be wrong - perhaps NASA did such tests, though there appears to be no evidence for it anywhere. Would you be happy launching for about a week in a perfect vacuum with untested equipment?

... more dross... for christsake learn the difference between principle and principal...

DR SID - Well done @ toying around with electronics components. The main question here is do nuclear bombs exist.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Rerevisionist]

The structure of nukelies is----[1] Nuclear skepticism videos; take time to watch some or all of:--
Youtube by 'Nukelies' and by 'Rerevisionist'; there are about ten in total. NukeLies as far as I know is the first video specifically on this subject; it includes clips from about 20 sources, though this isn't very clear. Mine are all taken from DVD material, one from a newsreel source.

There's also a section listing the comments made by other youtubers - some of them are similar to the postings here.

[2] The physics. Two main summaries look at the properties made up for an A bomb, and another on properties needed to be attributed to an H-bomb.

The threads look at e.g. Einstein's letter, the physics of 'mushroom cloud' and condensed vapour, radiation etc, evidence from the use of models in films, flashes in daylight brighter than the sun are impossible, hence the night-time testing of Trinity, myth of 'trinitite', use of the 'Lucky Dragon' fishing boat, napalm-like smoke clouds are incompatible with air blasts

[3] Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 'These events have been given an almost surreal significance; we have collected together threads on the topic, which completely debunk the official lies.'

[4] Politics, money etc.. Includes of course second world war, Pearl Harbor, Stalin, Jews in the USA, Manhattan Project, money making frauds, post-war Bretton Woods etc etc

[5] Info on faked films - includes Lookout Mountain, the American studio where the faked films were made

[6] Now that the frauds are starting to get known, the beneficiaries are getting worried; will they be able to phase the scams out, without being found out? [- added after 6 months]
- Covert Exit Strategies - Secret Plans to Phase Out Nuke Scams

[7] Nuclear Power. For various reasons this seems very likely to be a fraud. So there's a section on it. The main interest in electric power. There are two main hypotheses: nuclear power as a 'dumpload', and nuclear power as a disposal facility.

[8] We have several threads trying to get replies from the old guard. Including third world material

[9] And on propagandists, conscious or otherwise. Chomsky, for example, and going back, Bertrand Russell. And e.g. women protestors as dupes.

It's up to you if you're interested. It could change your entire view of the world. NB in principle I'm perfectly happy to debate here, except there are far too many spammers and trolls.

 

[sts60]

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.

Correct; for example, the heat from Pu-238 used to fuel deep-space probes comes essentially entirely from alpha decay. It does have a very slow rate of spontaneous fission as well, but this is pretty insignificant.

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

Two for one deal here: RTGs have been successfully used to power deep-space probes for decades. Voyager 1 and 2, for example, were launched in the late '70s and are still going strong. But there are fueled RTGs identical to some of those launched into space still on Earth. Separately, the U.S. built and operated terrestrial RTGs quite some time ago, and the USSR built and deployed quite a few terrestrial ones as well, managing to lose more than a few.

But compared with power needed to operate electric grids or run large ships, it's negligible.

Correct. RTGs are extremely long-lived and reliable for power applications up to a few hundred watts, but not really suitable beyond that.

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

I regret that I am rather pressed for time and will be unable to visit your undoubtedly fascinating site in the immediate future, but I will keep it in mind. I hope you haven't debunked natural radiodecay, as it is essential for my current job.

 

[Papermache]

. . .NB in principle I'm perfectly happy to debate here, except there are far too many spammers and trolls.

The generally accepted definition for troll and spammer is not "someone who disagrees with me."

 

[Safe-Keeper]

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.

Anders Breivik + topic on Nuclear Power/Bombs...

...I don't want to know.

 

[catsmate]

@CATSMATE - You tell me. It's a fact that pre-say 1945 subs used batteries, which they recharged by running diesel engines at the surface, where of course they could get air. I would suspect battery design has improved in the last say 90 years.

Why are you talking about a sub? I was on an icebreaker, you know ~24,000t, smashes through ice, would burn about 10 kilolitres of fuel per hour if it wasn't for the reactors.................

 

[catsmate]

Two for one deal here: RTGs have been successfully used to power deep-space probes for decades. Voyager 1 and 2, for example, were launched in the late '70s and are still going strong. But there are fueled RTGs identical to some of those launched into space still on Earth. Separately, the U.S. built and operated terrestrial RTGs quite some time ago, and the USSR built and deployed quite a few terrestrial ones as well, managing to lose more than a few.

Correct. RTGs are extremely long-lived and reliable for power applications up to a few hundred watts, but not really suitable beyond that.

Actually in Ireland we have several remote, automated, lighthouses powered from RTGs. The first one used the old RIPPLE-X system back in '68.
But I suppose the Commissioners of Irish Lights are part of the conspiracy.......

 

[excaza]

@CATSMATE - You tell me. It's a fact that pre-say 1945 subs used batteries, which they recharged by running diesel engines at the surface, where of course they could get air. I would suspect battery design has improved in the last say 90 years.

Please show us the battery technology appropriate for use for months at a time that would also fit in a submarine. I'm sure the electric vehicle companies would like a word with you given that they can barely get a 3000 lb. car to go 50 miles.

 

[Scott Sommers]

This was fun for a while, but it's just disintegrated into one of those weird JREF things. How many pages are you going to let this guy talk about his elementary school critique of nuclear power? While it all brings back nostalgic memories of Jani Lane and the Hollywood Conspiracy, how long are you going to let this go on for? It is your choice.

 

[Ranb]

The structure of nukelies is----.

Actually the structure of nukelies is a website that is devoted to a small group of people who pat each other on the back while blaming the world's problems on anyone but themselves. Dissent is not permitted. Anyone who offers an opposing point of view is labeled a troll and banned. The moderators are cowards who are unwilling to give a forum member the benefit of the doubt during a discussion. This makes the forum silly and irrelevant.

I am a former submariner with extensive experience in the operation, repair and disposal of nuclear power submarines. Everything I said on your website was ignored as it did not conform to your view of the world.

Ranb

 

[Dave Rogers]

How many pages are you going to let this guy talk about his elementary school critique of nuclear power? While it all brings back nostalgic memories of Jani Lane and the Hollywood Conspiracy, how long are you going to let this go on for? It is your choice.

Not really, it isn't. If he chooses to continue to post on-topic material, then he's free to do so for as long as he likes, so there's no question of letting this go on. The only choice is whether or not to participate.

Dave

 

[Hans]

@HANS - There are many problematic issues, as you'll find out when you make some effort to check for yourself.

I'd concentrate on your utterly ridiculious claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were faked - you have read the Japanese sources haven't you?

But since I suspect, and you have demonstrated that you use denial extensively I suspect this will be a short conversation, lol

 

[Dinwar]

@DINWAR - It's quite funny to read your stuff. Well done.

So.....no substantive comment, then.

@DINWAR - You post some information, genuine or not, on other aspects of nuclear physics. They are nothing to do with the topic. You're like someone who's been told bacteria can do harm who drivels on about amoebas and other single cell life forms.

Mere assertions, without any shred of evidence you even understand the concept. Atoms split for the same reason, whether they're in a nuclear explosion or not. It's related to the strong/weak forces. So long as that's true--and you've provided nothing to counter that claim--nuclear explosions are possible.

And how about addressing the natural reactors. They're real, they show that nuclear material can go into meltdown, and they show that it's possible without any of the controls we have on nuclear reactors/nuclear bombs. They're pretty much proof that you don't know what you're talking about.

By the way, this:

[2] The physics. Two main summaries look at the properties made up for an A bomb, and another on properties needed to be attributed to an H-bomb.

The threads look at e.g. Einstein's letter, the physics of 'mushroom cloud' and condensed vapour, radiation etc, evidence from the use of models in films, flashes in daylight brighter than the sun are impossible, hence the night-time testing of Trinity, myth of 'trinitite', use of the 'Lucky Dragon' fishing boat, napalm-like smoke clouds are incompatible with air blasts

isn't actually a discussion of the physics involved in nuclear energy. I prefer "Isotopes: Principles and Applications" by Faure and Mensing, third edition. It actually deals with the physics of, you know, NUCLEAR REACTIONS. Until you disprove what that book, and those like it, state, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[kookbreaker]

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

a) Sterilization is not castration. PLease learn some basic terms before you start trying to 'teach' people about anything.

b) SoT's comment was not directly aimed at you, ergo it was not a threat.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

@APOLLOGNOMON - What AG tactfully omits is that the thread he posted in was specifically to do with the fact that NASA never tested its 'lunar backpacks' on earth, in a vacuum. Something obviously essential since the conditions on the moon would be so hostile. All his other stuff is irrelevant. I may be wrong - perhaps NASA did such tests, though there appears to be no evidence for it anywhere. Would you be happy launching for about a week in a perfect vacuum with untested equipment?

Uh, that would be a different post in a different thread,

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=396&start=12

where I posted links to information about the space suits, testing them, and my obligatory link to Nizkor.org's fallacies page, provided at no additional charge for those who may not have the benefit of higher education.

As Ranb says, rerev's site is really just a place for 3 guys to sit around congratulating one another for sharing delusional ignorance.

Reref says "The policy of this site is to encourage incisive debate" and "The whole point of a forum is to record the cut and thrust of debate"

http://nukelies.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=432

but it seems they just ban anyone who provides the services listed above.

Perhaps they lack confidence in their theories and knowledge base. Perhaps new information frightens them. I expected them to slice me to ribbons with facts and stuff, not hide under a blanket and tell me to go away.

I wish them luck. They'll need it.