Fukushima 6/27/12 Record Radiation levels 10,300 millisieverts/hour at Reactor 1
http://www.foxbusiness.com/news/2012/06/27/tepco-detects-record-radiatio...
Anyone have an intelligent idea on how to clean up this mess?
They say they will have to use robots but even robots cannot withstand those levels. So anyone got an idea?
*** Idea ***
!!!
Here is an idea
“Had Bonaparte reflected that such is the moral construction of the world, that no national crime passes unpunished in the long run, he would not now be in the cage of St. Helena; and were your present oppressors to reflect on the same truth, they would spare to their own countries the penalties on their present wrongs which will be inflicted on them on future times. The seeds of hatred and revenge which they are now sowing with a large hand, will not fail to produce their fruits in time. Like their brother robbers on the highway, they suppose the escape of the moment a final escape, and deem infamy and future risk countervailed by present gain. Our lot has been happier. When you witnessed our first struggles in the war of independence, you little calculated, more than we did, on the rapid growth and prosperity of this country; on the practical demonstration it was about to exhibit, of the happy truth that man is capable of self-government, and only rendered otherwise by the moral degradation designedly superinduced on him by the wicked acts of his tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson to Francois Barbé de Marbois, June 14, 1817
Monticello in Virginia, June 14. 17
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/revolution/Jefferson-de...
Karma
!
Karma Sux
!
Yellow Haze
Circumnavigation
I do not know for certain that the YELLOW HAZE Haze circumnavigated the northern hemisphere; or if some portions of the southern hemisphere also enjoyed the Fukushima-3 Nuclear SMOG.
The Vast Fukushima Radionuclide Storm DEFINITELY made it to Texas, rather like the occasional distant volcanic eruption.
I avoided MOST outdoor activities during the Radionuclide Storm and took moderate steps to limit and remediate home, office and personal contamination. Some eye-stinging, consistent with 'fuel-flees' was noted, during the few, brief excursions outdoors during the storm.
Luckily, the entire USA Southwest experienced a record drought throughout 2011. Thus, nuclear fallout was minimized in the Lone Star State. That was a lucky break, given the circumstances.
Fukushima-3 --- Blown to Hell --- & --- Gone To Texas
Hot Particles
Nasal passage burning & irritation
Some point nasal irritation irritation/burning as well as eye irritation, was noted during the Hemispheric Radonuclide Storm.
None before and none after
SOLELY present during the storm
Convincing enough evidence for the girls I run with.
Fukushima-3 Fuel Fleas
MOX, courtesy of AREVA
Delivered straight to your front door, all over North America
Problem Statements
Two Problems
The 1st problem statement is defined by what we saw with our eyes. There were massive hydrogen deflagrations at Fukushima-1 and Fukushima-2 consistent with core meltdown and hydrogen generation. Then Fukushima-3 exploded, imploded and concluded with a small atomic explosion. Fuel rods were blasted to flight level 60 and the contents of the spent fuel pool were scattered. Active fission clearly escaped containment. Thousands of tons of hot nuclear waste were launched into the air, land and water. The health and environmental consequences are vast. Fukushima-4 was also destroyed by the Fukushima-3 blast. The spent fuel pool totters to this day, but has not collapsed onto the Fukushima shoreline.
The 2nd second problem statement is the laughable cover-story, promulgated by the nuclear power industry suspects, governments and the captive press. Their version is that about 100 pounds of relatively harmless radioactive byproducts were released. They maintain that the health and environmental consequences are minimal.
Both problems and both underlying problems are intransigent.
NOT an nuclear detonation!!!
Unit 3 was NOT a nuclear explosion.
You can't have a nuclear explosion with less than 14% Pu-239. MOX is 7%
The fireball was yellow; nuclear fireballs are WHITE!!
No way for a single unfocused explosion to trigger an implosion needed.
The CTBTO reported that the fission products were consistent with a reactor accident and NOT a nuclear detonation.
Plutonium is too easy
Dream on
A high school kid, with average SATs and grades, who cuts class a lot, can construct a plutonium fission bomb.
Fukushima-3 was a metal foundry, with intense heat, pressure, water quenching, redox chemistry, steam, neutrons of all velocities, oh and hydrogen explosions. The Fukushima-3 plutonium foundry was under the direct command and control of Murphy's Law. Murphy is arguably the most gifted engineer in history.
Kah ... Ahh ... BOOM
Begin cover-up
STUPID STUPID STUPID
Do you REALLY believe that an average high school kid can build an fission bomb.?
It took a cadre of some of the FINEST physicists of the 20-th century almost 5 years to do the detailed design of a fission bomb.
We had Nobel Prize winning physicists like Fermi, Bethe, Feynmann and others working on the problem for about 5 years.
That is the classic FICTION that nuclear weapon are easy to build. So why did it take so long? Even now, it took the North Koreans years to make a working fission bomb. They had one test fizzle in the mid-2000s; and finally got one to work in 2009.
Now this idiot "thinks" ( for lack of a better verb ) that all the North Koreans needed to do was to hire an average high schooler..
That doesn't pass the laugh test.
Someone that would believe that all that is needed is plutonium in a "foundry" conditions and nuclear bombs assemble spontaneously; would believe that all one has to do is put some machine parts in a cocktail shaker, shake, and the parts will spontaneously assemble into a Swiss watch.
Again it just shows that the anti-nukes can't think with their brains; they can only "think" with their politics.
Get lost loser.
Perjoratives
Mr. Perjorative above, apparently studied public discourse at a SCREAM night.
He betrays ZERO familiarity with the scientific method or laboratory science.
His arguments, if one wish to charitably reckon them such, consist entirely of logical fallacies, such as the argumentum ad verecundiam (appeal to authority).
For example, his repeated scream that only the top of the physics field, can build a simple atomic bomb is absurd. Several high school student designs for atomic weapons and nuclear reactors have been recognized as functional, years ago.
Nukes are an easy lab project, virtually anyone with ANY technical background could quickly whip one out. Yield, directionality, spectrum and other design optimization objectives require some finese. Just getting one to go BANG is a snap.
Screams, Lies and bogus appeals to authority prove nothing.
Physics for Future Presidents
In his outstanding book on science for non-scientists, Physics for Future Presidents, UC-Berkeley Physics Professor Richard Muller addresses the myth about high school students designing nuclear weapons.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6DBnS2g-KrQC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=%22hig...
As Professor Muller states, the new media assumes that the high school student has designed a workable weapon when the condemnation of the design by the Dept of Energy is too lax.
Professor Muller gives his own analysis of the chance that a team of terrorists could make a weapon. Professor Muller states that unless the team includes some pretty top-notch scientists, then the design will fizzle.
This assessment by one of UC-Berkeley's top physicists stands in stark contrast to our little self-righteous airhead anti-nuke, who thinks that an average high school student can master this achievement.
The moron is just too stupid to appreciate how really stupid he is.
Why does the military care...
Yield, directionality, spectrum and other design optimization objectives require some finese.
The above just proves how ignorant the above poster is on nuclear weapons.
The only thing the military cares about is yield.
The idiot above also doesn't know his logical fallacies. There's nothing wrong with a citation of authority providing it is not a false authority.
If an argument can be won by invoking a Law of Physics like Conservation of Energy, or the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics; that is perfectly acceptable to scientists.
The childish arguments about appealing to authority just proves that this joker may have some familiarity with abstract forensics; but has little scientific knowledge.
Probably one of those people that just don't have the mental horsepower for thinking scientifically.
I'd have better luck teaching quantum mechanics to the cat.
Design Objectives
Rude Dog,
Pass
I will 'pass' regarding detailed discussion of weapon design objectives, materials and/or parameters. I had some ski buddies over at Los Alamos, that blabbed too much on that point. The FBI was seriously pissed at them, and everybody they talked to, and everybody the hearsay guys talked to.
It is generally safe to quote declassified documents, so I'll just stick to that mechanism for the most part. I WILL stick with the earlier assertion, WITHOUT elaboration.
"Yield, directionality, spectrum and other design optimization objectives require some finese."
Check & Raise
Nothing simpler
There are few things simpler than assembling and detonating an atomic bomb, if that is the entire objective. The materials WANT to blow up. Fail Safe is a design challenge.
Go Boom is EZ!
Prompt criticality is so easy that it is SCARY. Just hold two slightly subcritical masses together, for a moment and the forces released are simply amazing.
Simple as baking a cake, but you need to stand back, quite a ways from the kitchen.
It is inappropriate to describe IN DETAIL HOW to assemble and detonate an atomic weapon, in a public forum. There are lots of other technologies that should be left somewhat veiled, in public discussions. Some kids, perhaps in the bottom quintile of their class, could hurt themselves, or others.
Controlling and harnessing the atom, is the challenge; as evidenced by the accumulated fallout on Planet Earth before Fukushima, and after. After is MUCH worse, particularly on Honshu Island Japan.
The nuclear power industry PLAINLY DEMONSTRATED their lack of ability to 'stay up on that horse'. The multiple/multiple failures at Fukushima would be HUMBLING to an intelligent lad and devastating to a grown up. Yet STILL these guys bluster about their 'brains' and expertise. They have demonstrated the command, composure and control of a 3 year old with a hand grenade.
Go Boom is EZ!
BALONEY!!!
NO - the materials do NOT want to blow up!!
Where did you ever get that "idea"?
No - the laws of physics work to thwart a nuclear explosion. As nuclear material is assembled, fission reactions at low level will heat the material, and the increased pressure will hydrodynamically disassemble the assembling critical assembly.
This is one of the reasons that a gun-assembly can't be used to assemble a plutonium fueled device. The gun-assembly method just can't assemble the material fast enough before it fizzles due to the higher neutron background:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
At Los Alamos, it was found in April 1944 by Emilio G. Segrè that the proposed Thin Man Gun assembly type bomb would not work for plutonium because of predetonation problems caused by Pu-240 impurities.
So much for this "theory" that the materials "want" to blow up. If they really wanted to blow up; then a gun assembly would work for plutonium. But it doesn't.
I know it all sounds so simple for the simple minded
The facts are that you continually show that you don't know beans about nuclear weapon design, or nuclear physics, in general. Therefore, all your ill-founded assertions that it is all so simple really ring hollow.
"the increased pressure will
"the increased pressure will hydrodynamically disassemble"
Isn't that a fancy way of saying ... explode?
Nuclear Explosions
Nuclear Explosions
Our rude (screaming) guest is less than candid. There is a continuum from working reactor, extending to prompt criticality, Fukushima-3 atomic blast, fission bomb, fusion enhanced fission weapon and fusion weapon (hydrogen bomb).
http://www.orau.org/ptp/Library/accidents/la-13638.pdf
LA-13638 2000 Revision
United States Authors: Thomas P. McLaughlin, Shean P. Monahan, Norman L. Pruvost*
Russian Federation Authors: Vladimir V. Frolov**, Boris G. Ryazanov***, Victor I. Sviridov†
A Review of Criticality Accidents
Of the 38 accidents studied, 5 occurred in what must be categorized as working reactors (the water boiler, Godiva, Dragon, SL-1, and NRX)
48. The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Lady Godiva assembly (unreflected
enriched-uranium sphere) in the scrammed configuration ............................................... 81
49. Lady Godiva after the excursion of 3 February 1954 ....................................................... 82
50. Burst rod and several sections of Lady Godiva showing oxidation and warpage that
accompanied the second accident, 12 February 1957 ...................................................... 83
The behavior of the Godiva system during superprompt critical power excursions is well understood both experimentally and theoretically Lady Godiva experienced well over 1,000 safe, controlled bursts. Two excursions occurred in the Lady Godiva assembly, an unreflected metal reactor fabricated in three principal sections that when assembled formed a sphere
The fission yield of 1.2 × 1017 in the second accident is equivalent to the energy contained in 1.7 lb of high explosive (HE), but the damage was much less than would have been caused by that quantity of HE. The above mentioned code can predict the fraction of fission energy converted to kinetic energy; in this case, only about 1.4% of the energy, equivalent to 0.024 pounds of HE, was available as kinetic energy to do damage. The damage was consistent with this figure, and it is evident that most of the fission energy was deposited as heat.
The success of the Godiva reactor in creating very sharp, intense bursts of near fission spectrum neutrons stimulated the development of several similar reactors for production of pulsed irradiations.
Talk about NOT being candid!!!
You LEFT OUT a very important point.
The Godiva reactor was 100% "weapons grade" Uranium.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godiva_device
The radiation source within the Godiva device was a fissile metallic mass (usually highly enriched 235U),[4] about 30 cm in diameter.
We all know that a sphere of highly enriched Uranium-235 can be made to explode; because that's what is in nuclear weapons.
However, Fukushima had 7% MOX.
Essentially you are saying that since a charge of C-4 explosive can explode, you are concluding that a mixture of 7% gasoline and 93% water can explode.
You are burying yourself deeper in a pack of lies and inconsequential trivia. Please DO keep it up!! I so love showing you to be the fool.
Pounds v TONS
*
The Godiva experiments involved 'tickling the Dragon's Tail'. The materials involved amounted to a few pounds. Something so simple as a Hefty bag flutter could alter the reflective environment and set off a prompt criticality in such devices. Which Rude Dog can be expected to know.
Rude Dog is not stupid. He is simply not as smart as he claims to be.
The Fukushima-3 atomic explosion involved TONS of MOX. Somebody may have over-loaded some of the Fuel Rods. Whatever the underlying etiology, MOX loaded Fukushima-3 was a nuclear blast that launched tons of radioactive debris to about flight level 60. Fission got out of the box at Fukushima-3.
Kah ... Ahh ... BOOM
More STUPIDITY demonstrated
The following is courtesy of an esteemed professor at Stanford University, one Professor John McCarthy:
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html
Q. Can a nuclear plant blow up like a (nuclear) bomb?
A. No. A bomb converts a large part of its U-235 or plutonium into fission fragments in about 10^-8 seconds and then flies apart. This depends on the fact that a bomb is a very compact object, so the neutrons don't have far to go to hit another fissionable atom. A power plant is much too big to convert an important part of its fissionable material before it has generated enough heat to fly apart. This fact is based on the fundamental physics of how fast fission neutrons travel. Therefore, it doesn't depend on the particular design of the plant.
Note that Professor McCarthy states that nuclear bombs are "compact" devices; not as large as a nuclear reactor core.
Evidently our anti-nuke believes that "bigger is always better". Sometimes that is true; but it is not universally true. It depends on the Physics.
Let's take computer processing units (CPUs) in computers. If our anti-nuke were correct that "bigger is always better", then the CPUs in the computers of the 1960s when computers filled large rooms would be better than those little chips that form the heart of our computers today. Of course, the anti-nuke, as always is just flat out WRONG; those little chips can run circles around the big mainframes of the 1960s.
The Law of Physics help explain why. The circuits of the CPU all have to coordinate their operations. Therefore, information has to be able travel from one end of the computer to the other. For example, all circuit elements have to receive the "clock" signal that coordinates their operations. When you say that your CPU is a 3.6 Gigahertz chip or a 4.2 Gigahertz chip; you are quoting the speed of the clock.
Since all circuits have to be able to receive the clock signal in order to be coordinated, and the fastest that the clock signal can travel is the speed of light ( simple electrical signals in copper wires go more like 40% of the speed of light ); then it takes a finite time for the clock signal to be propagated to the entire CPU. The bigger the CPU, the greater the distance the signal has to travel; so the SLOWER the CPU.
That's why chip manufacturers have actually been making their chips physically SMALLER. In the world of computer CPUs; SMALLER is better.
So once again the anti-nuke demonstrates ignorance of the relevant physics. The anti-nuke is WRONG AGAIN. This is also why the anti-nuke is TOTALLY INCOMPETENT to make the judgment of whether the Unit 3 explosion was chemical or nuclear.
Given his lack of knowledge, the anti-nuke "thinks" that a larger amount (tons vs. pounds) of a less concentrated fuel, MOX is 7% fissile material vs 90% fissile for the HEU in Godiva; and hence INCORRECTLY concludes that gives the edge to Unit 3.
That would be akin to saying that the very large CPUs of the 1960s which had a lesser circuit density concentration than modern chips, would be more powerful computers than the lighter / smaller chips of modern CPUs.
The "logic" of the anti-nuke is exactly BACKWARDS. Just as with computer CPUs, the heavier, larger, less concentrated CPUs of the 1960s lose to the lighter, smaller chips of modern CPUs. That's because in CPU design, lighter and smaller with more concentrated circuit density wins.
Likewise, in nuclear explosives design; a smaller, more compact geometry with a higher concentration of fissile material wins over larger, heavier, and less concentrated reactor cores. In fact, reactor cores are less concentrated precisely as a safety factor.
As for this moron judging who is smart and who is not; again he / she is totally unqualified. This anti-nuke shows the intellect and scientific knowledge of an elementary school student; who would have absolutely no business judging the quality of a University professor like myself.
So bring it on, and show us what other "thinking" you have that is BACKWARDS or just plain WRONG.
Pure fallacy
With respect to Rude Dog rants,
Argumentum Ad Hominem,
Subtypes: Red Herring Argument & Straw Man Argument
It is easier to NAME the logical fallacies of Rude Dog than to address them. The Rude Dog comment above represents logical flaw in an unusually concentrated form.
At this level of concentration, the possibility of inadvertent fuzzy thinking is statistically remote. This represents deliberate agitation/propaganda (AGITPROP), typically by agents provacateurs; but occasionally by mere trolls.
Makes little difference, much like the invective and silly assertions of Rude Dog.
The power is in your hands...
If you don't wish to be called STUPID; then the power is in your hands, and stop saying STUPID things.
You can start with the stupid statement that Unit 3 was a nuclear explosion.
Logical Flaw
Rude Dog,
Perhaps you do not understand the logical flaw comment. An Aristotelian logical Flaw is 'old school' (classic) equivalent to a Boolean Algebraic mistake. It is equivalent to saying that you can't add the integers 2 + 2 = 4. It might reflect poor thinking skills, or at best a poorly written comment. Had you made a more pertinent insult, it might have been dignified with a direct answer.
Anyone with even a smattering of classical logic training simply laughed at your comment above and moved on. I simply called it to their attention. No further explanation was required.
Interested onlooker
I've been observing the ongoing discussion between the above poster and the one he calls Rude Dog. In spite of claims of logical flaws with Rude Dog's postings, it is the above poster that comes up short on reasoning and knowledge.
Rude Dog has done a relatively nice job of explaining many of the concepts of nuclear physics and nuclear engineering to the above poster. This poster appears not to absorbed or understood any of it.
Rude Dog has explained that he is a former professor of physics. Would the above poster please cite his or her credentials in the field of science. I haven't see anything from the above poster that indicates an understanding of science above the elementary school level. This is, after all, a University-hosted scientific forum.
Jim Bowman
4th year Doctoral Student
Nuclear Engineering
Program
JB,
Which University program are you pursuing?
Thanks
NO!!
More manifest ignorance of the laws of science from the idiot anti-nuke.
Explosion is a special, very violent dis-assembly. All explosions are dis-assemblies, but NOT all dis-assemblies are explosions.
Kind of like "all male Greeks are men, but not all men are male Greeks".
Additionally, the mere heating of the material also increases parasitic absorption due to broadening of absorption resonances; which also shuts down the nuclear reactions.
Keep up with the stupid questions - more and more people get to see the idiot anti-nuke get shot down in flames over, and over, and over again. People will see that and ask, "Why would I want to be on THAT dummy's side".
You keep proving my case that you don't know what you are talking about with every post.
Rude Dog
...
RD ... Romeo Delta ...
This screamer needs a name, IMHO.
How about ... Rude Dog
It fits.
Rude Dog
Fitting Name
Rude Dog, that's a much better name than resident shill (BRAWM) or Dr. Gregory/Pam W (Democratic Underground) http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/our-resident-shill.2012-03-06
It's funny that this so called "professor" has so much time on his/her hands to address what the "professor" calls idiots, morons and stupid. What is even stranger is that this individual professes to be retired here and on DU professes to be a industry insider, who, when cornered, threatens to stop solar subsidies. Even more disingenuous is that "Pam W" acts in concert with "Dr Greg" backing up his claims, all the time being the same person. A lot of these DU posts by PamW/Dr. Greg are deleted by peer jury. Fukushima, being the first major nuclear incident since the internet began, is a hard story to spin by the self-professed "pro-nukes" so they come here trying to discredit this forum. Here's what the American Nuclear Society had to say when they awarded BRAWM a Presidential Citation:
"For serving at the leading edge of communication to educate California and the nation about radiological impact to the U.S. from the Fukushima incident. By collecting atmospheric-transported radiation samples from Japan, explaining the significance to the public via public forums and the UC-Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Air Monitoring Station website, the UC-Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Department gained national recognition as a trusted source for rational, accurate and authoritative information about radioactivity and its potential impacts on the U.S. population."
http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/news-update-6292012.2012-06-29
If Rude Dog is so concerned about proving the safety of nuclear power he/she should put their money where there mouth is and pay for some testing as other have done here.
Democratic Underground??
Are you some interloper from some left-wing wacko political website?? No wonder you been getting your rear-end kicked so badly in a scientific forum!!! Perhaps you should go back to the "touchy feely" issues of a political forum. You are way over-classed and over-matched in this scientific forum. Really, do you have any type of training in the sciences, at all?
Why should I pay for testing???
BRAWM has done the testing and shown us that Fukushima added an absolutely trivial amount of radioactivity to our food. The exposure is orders of magnitude less than the normal exposures we get.
Haven't you been listening to BRAWM?
Therefore, I haven't changed my eating habits, nor my food sources in the slightest; and I am confident that I'm in no danger, as BRAWM has shown.
Others can waste their money on additional testing to sate their paranoia.
That's their choice, and their problem.
Anti-nuke paranoia abounds
I've heard this all before. The unimaginative anti-nukes just can't believe that there are more than one or even a handful of people that support nuclear power.
That's why these unimaginative cretins keep suggesting that the different persons that they encounter must all be different persona of a single person. Or they suggest that the person or persons are paid by their arch nemesis the Nuclear Energy Institute to post on online forums.
Again, it just shows how deluded the little moron really are.
Why would anyone question the time that a retired person spends online? Retired people have lots of time on our hands; and skewering the anti-nukes here, sure beats the hell out of watching TV.
More satisfying too; in accomplishing a job well done.
FALSE!!!
For example, his repeated scream that only the top of the physics field, can build a simple atomic bomb is absurd. Several high school student designs for atomic weapons and nuclear reactors have been recognized as functional, years ago.
That is a MYTH. The Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies have NEVER recognized that a high school student has developed a workable design.
Since I can't logically prove a negative; the burden is on YOU to provide an example of where a high school student either built a nuclear bomb as an "easy lab project" or where the Department of Energy has examined a design by a high school student and "blessed" that design as a workable bomb.
Please provide a scholarly reference for your atrocious claim; put up or shut up.
The evidence to the contrary is readily available. For example, in just the last couple weeks, the new world champion super computer was unveiled:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/06/18/nnsa-sequoia-supercomputer-takes-worl...
NNSA Sequoia supercomputer takes worlds fastest title, prevents nuclear testing
The new world champion supercomputer "Sequoia" belongs to the NNSA's ( National Nuclear Security Agency ) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and is to be used as a proxy for nuclear testing.
If nuclear weapon design is so simple that any high school student can do it as an "easy lab project", then why does one of the USA's two laboratories that design nuclear weapons need such a massive computer to serve as a proxy to nuclear testing? If what you say is true; you could do the calculations on a simple calculator.
Once again, the self-serving, self-righteous stupidity of the anti-nukes is in evidence for all to see and to laugh at.
We have here another anti-nuke bonehead that is attempting to tell us that nuclear weapons are easy to build. If that is true, then why doesn't this stupid moron just post his design for a nuclear weapon; complete with the blessing from the Dept of Energy that it works to specifications.
The truth is that the mentally deficient pinhead has certainly boxed himself into a logical corner and can't escape without resorting to outrageous fantasies and his own self-righteous altered state of reality.
Fukushima-3
Working Atomic Bomb Model
Fukushima-3 general schematics have been posted to the web. These describe the original construction. The ante-melt-down MOX fuel load parameters have been reported; and we shall for the present, presume that they are correctly stated.
The prime objective in a nuclear reactor, is to keep the coolant (water) pumping at all times. Following the earthquake and tsunami, all five (5) on-line reactors at the Fukushima complex violated their prime objective. Cooling was lost and five reactors heated to meltdown status by various stages. Eventually all control power and all metering capability was lost.
The Fukushima nuclear power complex went dark, with respect to information; as it went hot. Fukushima-1,2,3, 5&6 melted down with NO internal data available. Five big, hot, black boxes lost containment and fuel rod integrity.
What is unknown, is virtually everything. We do not definitively know 'jack' about what was going on in any of those white hot demons. The hydrogen vent systems failed, like everything else, precipitating a random sequence of coup contrecoup explosions.
Several years ago, I wrote the CIA about a reactor failure mode that could result in a nuclear explosion. The letter suggested that if they were unaware of that failure mode, then perhaps we should discuss the matter. Their standard question regarding contact method, was answered by a simple, 'make it obvious'. No, I did not hear back. Therefore it was presumed that the atomic blast, failure mode was fully known, and the matter was dropped.
That presumption continues to hold.
Why would you write the CIA???
The CIA is a spy agency. They don't have scientists and laboratories that could check out your claims.
You should have written either the NRC or the Dept of Energy. They have people who are scientists that could properly evaluate what you claim.
The fact that you wrote the CIA and heard nothing is essentially evidence of NOTHING.
From time to time
From time to time, a potential national security issue may arise. Sometimes, rarely, a federal agency is contacted; if the matter is sufficiently concerning. The concern is described and the information sources, which in combination gave rise to the breach, are provided in detail.
Normally, the 'tells' will quickly vanish or be rewritten. Sometimes a courtesy reply is forthcoming. Sometimes not. The old expression 'loose lips sink ships', is a useful guide.
I did not wish to contact the AEC/NRC. So what? Sometimes the CIA or DOD may use a particular piece of information offensively rather than defensively. Sometimes Geppetto pulls the strings and sometimes Pinocchio.
Sometimes, 'the regime' is 'the problem'. It is on those occasions, sometimes advantageous to go to an outside agency or 'go public'. All the options are 'on the table', all the time.
We respond according to our own best lights.
Sovereignty comes with rights, responsibilities, duties and consequences. "We puts our money up and we takes our chances."
Anti-nuke Idiocy for all to see...
Once again the anti-nukes have chosen to regale us with their lack of logic and intelligence. When asked why he "thought" ( term used loosely ) that the Unit 3 explosion was a nuclear explosion, the terse explanation was:
Are you going to believe me; or your lying frigging eyes?
Evidently, this chowderhead believes that the manifestation of a mushroom cloud is the hallmark of a nuclear explosion. Intelligent people know that is false; that the mushroom cloud can also be seen as a result of chemical explosions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud
A mushroom cloud is a distinctive pyrocumulus mushroom-shaped cloud of condensed water vapor or debris resulting from a very large explosion. They are most commonly associated with nuclear explosions, but any sufficiently large blast will produce the same sort of effect.
Once again, the anti-nuke manifestly FAILED to support an ill-considered opinion.
Another post had this rather SHALLOW analysis:
Sequence: Hydrogen Explosion -> Implosion -> Atomic Explosion
This poster echoes the shallow and science devoid analysis of that fool Arnie Gundersen, the oracle of misinformation for all things nuclear who first made the ill-conceived suggestion.
Gundersen and others believe that one merely has to set off explosives surrounding nuclear material in order to generate a nuclear explosion. How little these fools know.
The implosion concept was suggested at Los Alamos by a scientist named Seth Neddermeyer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seth_Neddermeyer
While at Los Alamos, Neddermeyer was an early advocate for the development of an implosion technique for assembling a critical mass in an atomic bomb...Neddermeyer embarked on an intensive series of experiments testing cylindrical implosions.
The cylindrical implosions were a first step to the more complex spherical implosions. A cylindrical implosion is an implosion in only 2 dimensions. The experiment consisted of packing explosives uniformly around a hollow pipe. If we call the axis of the pipe the "Z" axis; then the explosives will hopefully implode the hollow pipe into a solid rod. The implosion will be in only 2 dimensions, the "X" and "Y" dimensions. In order to implode nuclear material to make a bomb; the implosion has to be spherical; imploding in all 3 dimensions, "X", "Y", and "Z".
However, achieving the requisite implosion in this simpler geometry proved to be very challenging. From the above link:
Nevertheless, seemingly irresolvable problems with shock wave uniformity brought progress on implosion to a crawl.
It was only after the first samples of Plutonium from the Hanford reactors arrived at Los Alamos that scientists there learned the gun-assembly method developed for the Uranium bomb "Little Boy" would not work for Plutonium also, as they intended. Neddermeyer's implosion scheme was the only way.
However, it required the combined talents of some of the 20-th century's best scientists to make it work. Continuing:
Accordingly, it was left to others like Kistiakowsky (who contributed a background in military ordnance and explosives), Robert Christy (who contributed the insight that a subcritical sphere of plutonium could be imploded to a critical mass), John von Neumann (who contributed the breakthrough mathematical model for using shaped charges to create a truly spherical implosion), and Edward Teller (whose knowledge of the compressibility of metals led to the use of density change to achieve criticality rather than mere, same-density, “assembly”[5]), to complete the work.
The key was to realize that a single explosive wouldn't work. The blast waves of a single explosive are convex. They needed concave blast waves that were focused inward to a common center. The way to do that is with a type of shaped-charge called an "explosive lens":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_lens
An explosive lens—as used, for example, in nuclear weapons—is a highly specialized explosive charge, a special type of a shaped charge. In general, it is a device composed of several explosive charges that are shaped in such a way as to change the shape of the detonation wave passing through it, conceptually similar to the effect of an optical lens on light. The explosive charges that make it up have different rates of detonation. To convert spherically expanding wavefront into spherically converging by single boundary between fast and slow explosives, the boundary shape must be a hyperboloid;
The key is that multiple explosives are used with differing detonation speeds. Just as a specially shaped optical lens uses the differing speeds of light in air and glass to focus the light; the differing speeds of detonation of specially shaped explosives focus the blast waves.
Without that focusing effect, there can be no nuclear explosion. In order to get the focusing effect, there has to be at least two explosives with differing detonation speeds.
At Fukushima, there was only one explosive, the hydrogen, with a single detonation speed. Hence, there could be no focusing effect, and as Neddermeyer's early experiments with imploding cylinders proved, the focusing effect was necessary for getting a nuclear explosion.
Gundersen and the anti-nuke fools posting here are ignorant of that fact.
Additionally, the weapons laboratories have provided a threshold value for the concentration of plutonium needed for nuclear explosion fuel. This was done so that the standard of security of the material can be appropriate. Obviously, high concentration "weapons grade" plutonium must be guarded with a high degree of security, since the material is usable in a weapon.
However, if the material is not weapons usable; there's no reason for the highest level of security that one affords actual bomb fuel.
From the archives of the Office of Technology Assessment, now maintained by Princeton University. From Page 143 ( 6th page of pdf file ):
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
Materials containing U-235, U-233, and plutonium can be used for making fission explosives only if these isotopes are sufficiently concentrated. For each isotope, a minimum concentration of that isotope in U-238 can be specified, below which the mixture is not usable in a practical nuclear explosive. The minimum concentration for U-235 has been specified at 20 percent (i.e. one part U-235 to 4 parts U-238) for many years. There appears to be no reason to change this...
Detailed calculations show that the above criterion sets the following thresholds for U-235, U-233, and plutonium mixed with U-238...
reactor grade plutonium to U-238 1:6 (i.e. about 14 percent...)
As the footnote attests, last bit of information came from Robert W. Selden of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. ONLY Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore have the expertise to set this threshold. since they are the only US labs that design nuclear weapons.
Therefore, the 7% Plutonium mixture that is MOX is below the minimum concentration to make a nuclear explosion.
There is one thing that looking at the explosion can tell us. That is that it is NOT a nuclear explosion. Even Arnie Gundersen noted that the original fireball of the Unit 3 explosion was yellow. That's a very important clue.
Nuclear explosion are very hot; so hot they radiate in X-rays. That's how they are used to ignite thermonuclear explosions in H-bombs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design
2) compression of the secondary by X-rays coming from nuclear fission in the primary, a process called the "radiation implosion" of the secondary,
If an object is radiating X-rays, then it is also radiating ALL frequencies lower than X-rays, which means it would radiate the ENTIRE spectrum of visible light; and that would make "white light".
As Gundersen noted, the fireball at Unit 3 was yellow. That means it wasn't hot enough to radiate the greens, the blues, and the violets. Hence, it wasn't hot enough to be a nuclear explosion. A yellow fireball is the hallmark of a chemical explosion.
Finally, we have the results from the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). In preparation for a CTBT, the CTBTO has a monitoring network that checks air-borne radioisotopes for the traces of an illegal nuclear test. The CTBTO has to be able to distinguish between the fallout from a nuclear test and the fallout from a reactor accident. Otherwise, a nation that wants to cheat can conduct an nuclear explosion test, and then claim it was from a reactor accident.
Fortunately, there is a way of telling the two apart. Nuclear explosions MUST use a "fast" or high-energy spectrum of neutrons. Reactors use a "thermal" or low-energy spectrum of neutrons. The spectrum of fission products is dependent on the spectrum of the neutrons that produced them. Therefore, a nuclear explosion produces one type of fission product spectrum, and reactors produce another. If a reactor has an accident with a chemical explosion, that explosion will be dispersing fission products produced in a lower-energy reactor spectrum, and not the high-energy spectrum of a nuclear explosion.
The CTBTO organization measured the fallout from the Unit 3 explosion and concluded:
http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fukushima-related-meas...
The CTBTO’s monitoring system, custom-tailored to detecting nuclear explosions, can detect a range of radioactive isotopes, among them Iodine-131 and Caesium-137. Looking at the ratios between the various radioactive isotopes – in particular Caesium-137 – enables the source of the emission to be identified. In the case of the current readings, findings clearly indicate radionuclide releases from a damaged nuclear power plant, which is consistent with the recent accident at Fukushima in Japan.
Back when the Unit 3 explosion happened, the anti-nukes said, "Wait till we get the results from the CTBTO - that will show it to be a nuclear explosion". Well, we know have the results from CTBTO and it doesn't back-up the contentions of the anti-nukes.
So the two-faced idiot anti-nukes have concluded that the CTBTO is part of the (now) international cover-up.
When will the anti-nuke morons start thinking with their brains instead of their politics.
That's what separates scientists from stupid people like the anti-nukes. You have to let go of your preconceived notions when the data doesn't support them.
However, the anti-nuke morons just don't have the brain-power to do that. It's really quite sad that there are people that stupid.
On the other hand; the rest of us can have a good jolly laugh at the stupidity of Gundersen, and the anti-nuke(s) that proved themselves to be idiots in this thread.
Building ‘Super’
Rude Dog,
The Princeton study, WHICH YOU CITED, rather clearly states that a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ working with a reader having good comprehension and retention skills should be able to construct an atomic bomb. That can be construed as a machine shop foreman and a junior high kid. Or a building ‘super’ with a kid, passing high school chemistry.
At the lower end of the minimal range is a small non-national group (for example, a terrorist or criminal group) whose objective is the crude fabrication of a single nuclear explosive device.
Non-National Program
At the low end of the minimal range of effort, a small group of people, none of whom have ever had access to the classified literature, could possibly design and build a crude nuclear explosive device. They would not necessarily require a great deal of technological equipment or have to undertake any experiments. Only modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for without arousing suspicion would be required. The financial resources for acquisition of necessary equipment on open markets need not exceed a fraction of a million dollars. The group would have to include, at a minimum, a person capable of searching and understanding the technical literature in several fields and a jack-of-all-trades technician. Again, it is assumed that sufficient quantities of fissile material have been provided,
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
Rude Dog, perhaps YOU can’t GET-ER-DONE, but apparently most anybody else can.
Kah-Ahh-BOOM!
Assistant Librarian
Atomic Bomb Team
Perhaps a small town gunsmith and an assistant librarian would have 'the right stuff', to construct and detonate a 'nucular bomb' (sic).
How about an authorized Ford mechanic and a flight attendant?
A Boy Scout patrol could probably 'cut the mustard'.
How about a ...
Team Alpha
Building ‘Super’
???
Rude Dog,
The Princeton study, WHICH YOU CITED, rather clearly states that a ‘jack-of-all-trades’ working with a reader having good comprehension and retention skills should be able to construct an atomic bomb. That can be construed as a machine shop foreman and a junior high kid. Or a building ‘super’ with a kid, passing high school chemistry.
At the lower end of the minimal range is a small non-national group (for example, a terrorist or criminal group) whose objective is the crude fabrication of a single nuclear explosive device.
Non-National Program
At the low end of the minimal range of effort, a small group of people, none of whom have ever had access to the classified literature, could possibly design and build a crude nuclear explosive device. They would not necessarily require a great deal of technological equipment or have to undertake any experiments. Only modest machine-shop facilities that could be contracted for without arousing suspicion would be required. The financial resources for acquisition of necessary equipment on open markets need not exceed a fraction of a million dollars. The group would have to include, at a minimum, a person capable of searching and understanding the technical literature in several fields and a jack-of-all-trades technician. Again, it is assumed that sufficient quantities of fissile material have been provided,
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
Rude Dog, perhaps YOU can’t GET-ER-DONE, but apparently most anybody else can.
Kah-Ahh-BOOM!
Rude Dog,
Rude Dog,
Where in your cited reference, ‘Nuclear Weapons’ do you arrive at a conclusion that a nuclear reactor cannot, in the vernacular ‘go-nuke’?
“Thresholds of Fissile Material for Setting Physical Security Requirements”
“Detailed calculations show that the above criterion sets the following thresholds for U 2 3 5, U2 3 3, a n d plutonium mixed with U238”
“Below these concentrations, the total weight of the explosive would be so large as to make it impractical.”
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
--------------------------------
We will grant, that Fukushima-3 would have been too large and heavy to strap onto an ICBM or load into the bomb bay of a B52. That does not directly imply any inability to ‘go nuke’.
NO DUMMY!!!
Dummy, it's not just because of the size.
Can you imagine mixtures of gasoline and water? Suppose we have a mixture that is 99.9% gasoline and 0.1% water. That mixture would probably work quite well in your car; there's too little water in the gasoline to make much difference.
However, now imaging you have a mixture that is 99.9% water and only 0.1% gasoline. Do you think that is going to burn in your car's engine? Of course not.
Somewhere there is a minimum amount of gasoline concentration for a car engine to work.
Likewise, with the concentration of fissile material. We call it the "k-infinity concentration".
Look up "k-infinity". That's the neutron multiplication factor a material would have if the whole universe were made of the stuff. It's also the neutron multiplication that a small amount of material would have if it had perfect neutron reflectors on its outer boundaries.
If the concentration of fissile material is too low that you don't get a self-sustained chain reaction under those conditions; then you just can't get a self-sustained reaction under ANY conditions.
THAT is how those values were determined. One solves the Boltzmann neutron transport equation for a material with perfectly reflecting boundary conditions and see whether the eigenvalue "k" is greater than, less than, or equal to unity (1). If it is greater or equal; then self-sustained reactions are possible. If k is less than 1, then you can't get sustained reactions under any conditions.
Non responsive EIGENVALUES
Rude Dog was asked a SIMPLE question
Question repeated:
"Where in your cited reference, ‘Nuclear Weapons’ do you arrive at a conclusion that a nuclear reactor cannot, in the vernacular ‘go-nuke’?"
Point to a page/paragraph/sentence
-------------------------------------------
WRT Eigenvalues:
The reactor geometry became unknown at meltdown
Fuel concentration became unknown at meltdown
Explosion parameters are unknown at Fukushima-3 initial blast
We simply do not know WHAT was going on in Reactor-3 in the moments leading up to the Atomic Explosion.
All the assumptions behind calculations would be insupportable at best and more likely invalid.
The Matrix producing the Eigenvalues for Fukushima-3 is purely speculative and could not prove or predict anything.
Good try, but NO CIGAR
You don't need to know the geometry...
You don't need to know the geometry.
Geometry controls how "leaky" the assembly is. Geometry is responsible for one of the neutron loss terms; the neutron leakage term.
However, let us assume that neutron loss due to leakage is ZERO.
We now solve a 0-dimensional version of the Boltzmann transport equation.
If the parasitic absorption terms due to the presence of neutron absorbers like U-238 are high enough that they overwhelm the neutron production terms; then the material is sub-critical even without neutron loss due to leakage.
It is said that the "k-infinity" of the material is less than 1 and the material can't go critical in ANY geometry.
Suppose I had some material that was pure Cadmium - that is a pure neutron absorber and no fissile material. Do I need to know the geometry to know that it can't sustain a neutron chain reaction?
Of course not. The same would be true if I had a mixture of 99% Cadmium and 1% U-235. The absorption of the Cadmium would overwhelm the fission production of the small amount of U-235 REGARDLESS of what the geometry is. Therefore, you don't need to know the geometry.
If the material itself has a "k-infinity" that is sub-critical; the geometry is IMMATERIAL:
From the nuclear engineering text by Knief:
http://books.google.com/books?id=EpuaUEQaeoUC&pg=PA102&lpg=PA102&dq=k-in...
So even if we set the geometric losses to zero, the materials are unable to support a super-prompt critical reaction even in the best geometry; i.e a lossless one.
The concentrations of materials in nuclear reactors are chosen so that they can't support super-prompt-critical excursions of the type found in nuclear weapons in anygeometry. That is one of the safety features that is built into power reactor designs. This is Nuclear Engineering 101 stuff.
MORE STUPID MISTAKES from the IDIOT!!!
Once again we see that the poster above doesn't know beans about the subject under discussion. We can tell that from the above poster's comment above:
The Matrix producing the Eigenvalues for Fukushima-3 is purely speculative and could not prove or predict anything.
It is quite obvious that the above poster didn't understand the term "eigenvalues" when used in a previous post. Evidently, he went to the web and found that certain matrix problems have eigenvalues; which they do.
However, matrices are not the only quantities that have eigenvalues. The above poster's lack of scientific knowledge is showing because he / she couldn't put the use of the word "eigenvalue" into proper context, and MISTAKENLY thinks that is was used in connection with a matrix.
Dummy, it is obvious to the technical people here that the use of the term "eigenvalue" in a previous post was to be used in the context of an eigenvalue of the Boltzmann Transport Equation, and not some unspecified matrix as you contend above.
You really do show yourself to be the fool when you attempt to impersonate a scientist, or someone that has scientific knowledge. It's as if you showed up at a hospital in a white lab coat pretending to be a medical doctor spouting medical jargon. However, the real medical doctors would see you to be a fake right off the bat since your medical jargon would be jibberish to someone actually schooled in the medical sciences.
Quit attempting to pass yourself off as a scientist in a scientific forum, you fool.
FYI Math Background
Rude Dog ramblings are quite mistaken
I am quite familiar with the underlying mathematics and have formally studied vector calculus, PDE, quantum mechanics and the underlying math, engineering and physics materials @ fully accredited academic institutions.
Oh and the familiarity with the subject matter did not begin or end in school.
Rude Dog continues to EARN his name
The ante-meltdown reactor geometry, and the fuel rod geometry were good fits for cylendrical coordinate systems.
God only knows what the Fuk-3 blast geometries were.
The HELLISH environments in Fuk-1, Fuk-2 & Fuk-3, included extreme temperatures and wide temperature differences in the vertical and radial dimensions, creating many distinct zonal conditions. There was cold seawater, superheated steam, crazy redox chemistry, molten fuel, and flaming zirc fuel rods. The Fuk-1/2/3 Black Boxes, resulted in some nasty hydrogen explosions. The reactors became uncontrolled metallurgy foundries and they each cooked up some nasty materials.
The ante tsunami fuel mix for Fuk-3 was MOX; while Fuk-1 and Fuk-2 were loaded with UOX. A MOX loaded nuclear reactor produces substantially more heat than UOX loads; resulting in an uprating for electricity generation on the order of 10% to 20%.
God only knows what the material properties (concentration/location) were at the time of the Fuk-3 blast. It was a radiologically hot, thermodynamically hot, chemically hot, unstable environment. It was a singularity, looking for a place to happen, under the supervision of Murphy’s Law and perhaps Schrödinger's cat.
The Fuk-3 blast, was 'a horse of a different color', comprised of two distinct explosions. The Fuk-3 secondary blast was qualitatively and quantitatively different than those of Fuk-1, Fuk-2 and/or the Fuk-3 primary blast.
The secondary blast at Fukushima-3, (like the SL-1) event, was an Atomic Explosion, IMHO.
Kah-Ahh-BOOM!
If you've studied PDEs...
If you've studied PDEs, then you can understand the solution to PDEs are often separable into products of separate functions with disjoint independent variables.
Such is the case with the solutions to the Boltzmann transport equation that describes the behavior of neutrons. One portion is dependent on geometry, and the other portion is independent of geometry. ( It's dependent on neutron energy, direction....)
If you have a material, and you put reflecting boundary conditions on that material; then you have the best of all possible geometries for promoting a chain reaction. The perfectly reflecting boundary conditions assure that there is no neutron loss due to neutron leakage or escape. That is the best of all possible geometries; there can be none better.
In that case, the remaining solution to the Boltzmann transport equation boils down to a 0-dimensional equation in the neutron energy. However, if the material is such that absorption completely overwhelms neutron production ( as in the example of a material that is 99.9% Cadmium and 0.1% U-235 ), then there is no solution to the 0-dimensional problem that can sustain a chain reaction. In this case, the geometry is immaterial. Even in the best possible geometry, a chain reaction is not sustainable. Therefore, there can be no chain reaction in a real, actually realizable geometry. So if there is no critical solution in the energy domain; it doesn't matter whether you know the geometry or not; you can't have a chain reaction.
One can't conclude that one of the Fukushima explosions was nuclear just because it was "different". The explosion of Unit 1 occurred the day after the earthquake / tsunami. Hydrogen was continually building up. Unit 1 exploded after 1 day's build-up. Unit 3 exploded on the third day, and had 3 days of build-up of hydrogen, and hence was a more impressive explosion with more hydrogen fuel. After the explosion of Unit 3, workers removed panels on Unit 2 to vent hydrogen. So Unit 2 had more days of build-up, but more days of venting, and hence a lesser explosion than Unit 3.
It's all very understandable if you look at how much hydrogen fuel was available to each of the explosions.
False
********
False Statement:
"If an object is radiating X-rays, then it is also radiating ALL frequencies lower than X-rays, which means it would radiate the ENTIRE spectrum of visible light; and that would make "white light"."
NOT!
Contra-Example: A piece of Scotch Tape peeled from glass, (in a vacuum) emits X-rays, but no visible light.
"It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so." Will Rogers
**
MUDDLED "THINKING"
Your thoughts are just a big muddled jumble, aren't they?
Looks like I'll have to "spoon feed" the logic to our little anti-nuke.
What we are interested in is the temperature of the explosion. If the temperature is a few thousand degrees, then we have a chemical explosion. If the temperature is tens of millions of degrees, then we have a nuclear explosion.
However, we didn't have a thermometer in the Unit 3 explosion. So what do we do? We look for something we can see / measure that is temperature dependent. Well there is something that depends on the temperature and that is the Planckian black-body radiation.
THAT's what we are talking about when we discuss radiation emissions here.
The X-ray emission by the Scotch tape is NOT Planckian blackbody radiation. Or are you stupid enough to think that when you peel tape off of glass in a vacuum that you are generating temperatures of tens of millions of degrees.
NO - those X-rays are generated by a completely different mechanism from the temperature dependent mechanism that I've been discussing. Peeling tape doesn't give us a temperature reading. So there's no use discussing it.
Because you mind wanders to useless trivia; let me be more precise in my terminology. From now on, I will preface the word "radiation" with the words "Planckian blackbody" so that you know what I am talking about.
If an object is so hot that it is emitting Planckian blackbody radiation in the X-ray regime, then it is radiating Planckian blackbody radiation at all lower frequencies, and hence is radiating the complete spectrum of Planckian blackbody visible light. Therefore, that Planckian blackbody visible light is WHITE.
Your example above is NOT a counter example of anything. It just shows that you are too stupid to stay on track. You have to be reminded at every sentence that we are talking about Planckian blackbody radiation, because that is the radiation emission method that tells us something about the temperature, which is what we want.
It's like having a debate about football and citing football stats, and someone starts quoting baseball stats. Although the baseball stats may be true; they add nothing to the football discussion and just indicates an undisciplined mind at work.
Photon Emission
Rude Dog,
Take your medicine. You brought up X-Ray emission, and made a provably FALSE generalized statement, regarding (photon/lightwave) emission. Your (generally false) statement simply misrepresents photon emission. Your generalized statement is garbage.
That is just NOT how lamps (neon, mercury vapor, fluorescent, LED, XRay, sodium vapor lightbulbs) work, in any general physical sense.
Certainly, any of us with physics and/or engineering backgrounds studied 'black body' and 'grey body' concepts in physics, thermodynamics, meteorology, astronomy, metalurgy, quantum mechanics and any number of other classes. Been a (long, long) while; wasn't that topic introduced in my high school chemistry class?
Stick a fork in Rude Dog; he's done.
I see you are no scientist.
If someone is going to be taking medicine, it will be you. You are the one in error here and Rude Dog is correct.
Let me hazard to guess that you just Googled how X-rays were made and you learned about the narrow band methods of producing X-rays and other radiation. You learned about line-radiation emission in neon, mercury vapor...
lamps.
However, your scholarship was incomplete. There is another way of producing radiation; that is by making something hot and radiating Planckian black body radiation. That's how the incandescent lamps, that you failed to list, work.
Objects radiate electromagnetic radiation just due to their temperature. It has absolutely nothing to do with luminous ether as you stated. It has to do with the temperature of the object, and it is broad band radiation, not narrow band:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
In contrast with the methods you cited, Planckian black body radiation is broad band. That is when you radiate at a particular peak frequency, you also radiate at all frequencies less than the peak frequency, because the Planckian spectrum has a long tail. Since wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, the statement that there is a tail in lower frequencies is equivalent to saying the tail extends to larger wavelengths when the spectrum is plotted as a function of wavelength instead of frequency as seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg
The blue curve for 5000 K shows that radiation extends to wavelengths that are larger than the blue 5000 K radiation. An object at 5000 K not only radiates blues, but also greens, yellows, reds, and into the infra-red, and microwave portions of the spectrum, etc.
Now if the temperature is not 5000 K but over 10 Million K; the shape of the curve looks the same. However, the peak of the radiation will be in the X-ray regime, and the tail will extend into the UV region, the visible spectrum, the infra-red, the microwave....
Now when you Google how X-rays are made; you will usually find descriptions of Bremsstrahlung and line-radiation; because that is how we normally make X-rays. One doesn't usually find objects that are so extremely hot that they radiate X-ray black body radiation.
There are a couple places one will find objects that are so extremely hot that their Planckian black body spectrum peaks in the X-ray regime. One place is stars. Stars are characterized by temperatures greater than 10 Million degrees. The other place one finds such extremes of temperatures is in real nuclear explosions.
Rude Dog is correct that actual nuclear explosions are so hot that the Planckian black body radiation peaks in the X-ray regime. Since the Planckian spectrum radiates at all lower frequencies than that at which the peak occurs; the Planckian black body spectrum that peaks in the X-ray regime, also radiates all frequencies of UV, and all frequencies of visible light, and all frequencies of infra-red....
Since all frequencies of visible light are radiated; the light, if you looked at it, would appear to be white, since all frequencies of visible light are represented.
So if some object becomes so extremely hot that its temperature exceeds 10 Million degrees, and it radiation peaks in the X-ray regime; then it will appear white in the visible spectrum because all frequencies of visible light are also radiated. A nuclear explosion is one such object that Planckian radiates X-rays and thus appears white in the visible spectrum.
Now take your medicine; you were wrong.
repeat & 3peat
Rude Dog,
Your FALSE Statement from above is repeated:
"If an object is radiating X-rays, then it is also radiating ALL frequencies lower than X-rays, which means it would radiate the ENTIRE spectrum of visible light; and that would make "white light"."
NOT!
Emission at one frequency does NOT in any general physical fashion, cause the emission of ANY, much less ALL lower frequencies. Your assertion is as SILLY as suggesting that a blue LED, on a Christmas light string, emits yellow, orange and red light. It does not. It only emits a narrow spectrum of blue light.
Common fluorescent lighting disproves your FALSE statement, and the premise behind it, twice in one device. The internally generated light SOURCE is ultraviolet light. Clear glass tube fluorescent lamps are routinely used to kill germs in hospitals and drinking water. The fluorescent tubes in our homes have a powder coating which absorbs the ultra-violet (high frequency) and then emits a lower (selectable) frequency, such as orange, yellow or green. For most household compact fluorescent lights we usually select a blueish white or a yellowish white emitter.
Oh, and by the way, I would not allow you to teach grade school kids. First your command of physics is less than adequate. Second, your demeanor would discourage the kids from a life of discovery and science.
Stick a fork in Rude Dog; he's done!