Chinese To Build Nuclear Bomb In South Of England

[Hydropotesinermis 724]

 

LOL. I know that a reactor going pop ain't good fella but that doesn't make it a nuclear bomb or justify use of the term.

The inverse square law is for radiation as you know, in the event of a reactor melting down its the radioactive isotopes being expelled into the atmosphere that causes issues. Simple gamma radiation is fairly straightforward to deal with.

The ingested particle is certainly more deadly pal, but you will agree that you still would want a fair bit of distance between you and a big gamma source......that will be doing massive damage (although in an ever decreasing area) to everything around it.

 

Basically, you wouldn't want a pin head size gamma source on the end of your cock as a wart.......so "straightforward" is all a matter of perspective !! Lol lol

You physicists prattle on about gamma radiation, need I remind you what it did to lou ferrigno?

[WILF 50,815]

Born I will have to disagree with you my friend for using the slightly misleading label "clean energy".......atomic energy is anything but clean really......it should strictly be called low carbon emission highly lethal energy if we are giving it it's true title because after all that's what it is.

 

Many moons ago back in the mists of time I took what can only be described as a proper job, it certainly wasn't a clever blokes job like yours mate, simply doing NDT using radiographics.......any c**t could do it if I am honest.

They used to do a deal where you got paid a whole years money for about a weeks work at Sellafield.....you got this because you got your whole year dose in that week and couldn't work again that year doing radiographics.

A couple of lads couldn't resist and told me they had done it a couple of times, one of the lads was fine but his poor little girls got lukemia (maybe just cruel chance) but to close for me......I refused the offer.

I also refused Aldermaston as again, there's just too much nasty stuff going on.

 

As I don't need to tell you, radiation dose is accumulative so you don't just have a rest and it gets out your system.....it's with you for life at a cellular level......and the more you get, then the more you carry around as such.

 

Yes many people would be surprised if they put a monitor in their front room, and in the days of the old cathode ray tube type TVs they would have shit it with the thing going bleep every hour on the hour.......I know because I have done it ! Lol

 

Saying Nuclear is "clean" is a blatant lie really, it's low carbon emission nothing more and I think if more people realised what it can do, what the effects are at cellular level and just how f***ing long it takes to become "safe" then a lot of people wouldn't want it either.

Edited August 3, 2016 by WILF

[Nik_B 3,791]

BGD so you saying there ain't not British engineers who could'nt work alongside Japanese ect and hold their own

 

Give over

 

Lessen your dope intake eh

It's not the engineers or builders it's the design and research. We don't have a modern nuclear design to build and the highly skilled designers weren't replaced when nuclear because unfashionable. The guy I know designed switches that worked using water as electric switches can't be used iirc. He said we just don't have the technical knowledge to design our own reactors...this is all from a conversation I had with his a couple of years back so I might have the detail a bit wrong.

[WILF 50,815]

i suppose the simple way to ask anybody who claims that Nuclear is "clean" just how clean it is would be to ask if they would put an unshielded 20 Curie Cobalt gamma source in their pocket and walk around with it for the day........that will give everyone the true picture of how "clean" nuclear is

 

Just done a quick Google and it says a reactor core is about 16 BILLION Curie !!!!

 

So, would they walk about with a seemingly tiny 20 curie ?

Edited August 3, 2016 by WILF

[riohog 5,939]

never had alot to do with this nuclear stuff but i have seen a nuclear bomb. it must have been about 1973 i was in the rn, on a warship , we had just come back from the far east ,and did a stint in the indian ocean off madagascar , and east africa biara patrol it was called there was an oil embargo on s/africa at the time , anyway i must have had a morning watch , went up on the after flight deck maybe 5,or so in the morning , and there was a craye with a what i can remember looked like 2 45 gallon oil drums stuck together and guys with stetherscopes and all manner of kit .they told me to fk off back down below . i later found out it was a nuclear bomb that could be strapped underneath the wasp helicopter and used if needed against a fleet of ruski subs , fortunatly it never was , but they reconed if this was armed and sent off on the chopper we couldnt get far enough away in time and it would be curtains for the chopper and the ship .. anyway i never sore it again and never seen one since thank f.k

[WILF 50,815]

I have just read that some of the Urainium waste has a half life (that's the time it takes to break down to half its original energy) of over 20,000 (TWENTY THOUSAND!!!) years.........20,000 f***ing years and it will still be lethal !

We are getting sold a crock of shit on nuclear, a lot of people are going to get hugely rich while everyone else takes the risks and deals with the aftermath !

 

That's the real truth.

[riohog 5,939]

I have just read that some of the Urainium waste has a half life (that's the time it takes to break down to half its original energy) of over 20,000 (TWENTY THOUSAND!!!) years.........20,000 f***ing years and it will still be lethal !

We are getting sold a crock of shit on nuclear, a lot of people are going to get hugely rich while everyone else takes the risks and deals with the aftermath !

 

That's the real truth.

not to be messed with . it can go horribly wrong ,and has done a few times and been hushed up !!!

[Francie 6,368]

Your definatly right wilf, nasty shit, is sellafield not full of nuclear waste?

[WILF 50,815]

Your definatly right wilf, nasty shit, is sellafield not full of nuclear waste?

Don't really know mate, I never went near the fecking place ! Lol

[WILF 50,815]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22530053-800-shocking-state-of-worlds-riskiest-nuclear-waste-site/

[Born Hunter 17,956]

With respect that is not fear mongering.

Its part of history and f***ing fact!

The Russians threw thousands of tons of sand into the exposed reactor to quell the fire. The concrete floor was cracking and underneath was a tad more than a bucket of water lol.

if the reactor had went through it would have gone critical with a nuclear explosion. Taking a good portion of ukraine with it!

i could go look and get links to show you,but cant be f****d

documentary on jewtube called surviving disaster watch it when you get half a chance mate

You're entitled to believe what you like matey. I'm saying what you have been told is complete garbage. It's a terribly liberal use of scientific theory at best and a complete lie at worst. The amount of water does not mater! You cannot make a thermonuclear bomb by dropping a critical mass into a body of water!

 

I'll have a quick look at the doc if I get chance. Cheers.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Born Hunter

[BGD 6,437]

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/chernobyl-worst-case.738770/

 

Some very clever chaps debunking that particular story It still would have been an even bigger disaster if it had melted through to the water below but nothing on the scale of a nuclear bomb.

[Malt 379]

I believe A thermonuclear bomb is usually a fission boosted fusion device which requires a fisson reaction fuse to compress the fuel and initiate a fusion reaction in the main part of the device.. They're pretty complicated to set off. Maybe we're getting pedantic about things though, it could still maybe make a 'f***ing big bang' if it all went tits up?

[Born Hunter 17,956]

If it'd have hit water you'd have had a steam explosion, which is bad but not a thermonuclear explosion! Any suggestion of that is really based on very ermmm 'fantastic' theory.

 

A nuclear weapon is very highly engineered. Yes it uses the same physics but controlling it to make it a violent explosion require very precise engineering! Comparing a nuclear meltdown to a bomb is like comparing firewood to Semtex.

[Born Hunter 17,956]

This is off Wikipedia, discredit the source if you like.

 

"The smoldering graphite, fuel and other material above, at more than 1200 °C, started to burn through the reactor floor and mixed with molten concrete from the reactor lining, creating corium, a radioactive semi-liquid material comparable to lava. If this mixture had melted through the floor into the pool of water, it was feared it could have created a serious steam explosion that would have ejected more radioactive material from the reactor. It became necessary to drain the pool."