Cracking Stuxnet
:
Stuxnet malware is reportedly a contributing factor to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Clue ... virtually every control system failed or reacted wrongly to emergency conditions.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/07/how-digital-detectives-decipher...
How Digital Detectives Deciphered Stuxnet, the Most Menacing Malware in History
By Kim Zetter July 11, 2011 | 7:00 am | Categories: Stuxnet
Liam O Murchu was the first to notice that Stuxnet was much more complex and sophisticated than previously believed. “Everything in it just made your hair stand up and go, this is something we need to look into.” Researchers in Symantec’s offices in Europe and the United States were among those who grabbed the code in July and created signatures for customers. But once they had done this, the malware passed to Liam O Murchu in the company’s Culver City, California office.
O Murchu is a 33-year-old Irishman and avid snowboarder. As manager of operations for Symantec Security Response, it was his job to review significant malware threats to determine if they should be analyzed in-depth. Malware containing zero-day exploits, however, were special and got examined by hand. Several layers of masking obscured the zero-day exploit inside, requiring work to reach it, and the malware was huge — 500k bytes, as opposed to the usual 10k to 15k. Generally malware this large contained a space-hogging image file, such as a fake online banking page that popped up on infected computers to trick users into revealing their banking login credentials. But there was no image in Stuxnet, and no extraneous fat either. The code appeared to be a dense and efficient orchestra of data and commands.
O Murchu’s interest was immediately piqued …
Siemens Controls
Stuxnet is the least of it ...
I would not select a Siemens controller, to operate a laundrymat ...
When all that is required is soap and hot water.
Useless, ... and worse
IMHO
Rogue Nuclear States
Prime Supplier
Siemens is a key supplier to Rogue Nations' atomic weapon programs.
Siemens is NOT to be trusted ...
IMHO
Regarding Stuxnet at Fukushima
Why did Fukushima 4 crump, with an empty reactor?
When Fukushima 3 experienced a classical nuclear fission explosion, equivalent to a TAC-Nuke artillary shell, the vent system failed. This vented a small atomic blast into the Fukushima 4 gunny sack, which has no pressure rating but which GE and the other Fukushima Engineering and Construction firms euphamistically refer to as 'containment'.
Equipment, such as vent systems, that go completely 'haywire' in emergencies ... that sounds like Siemens Stuxnet FUBARS ... to me. The digital 0101010001 equivalent to 'the vents are open' ... no 'the vents are closed', in my humble opinion.
Three nuclear reactors melted down. One nuclear explosion occurred. Four nuclear reactors were destroyed.
I suppose we can surmise that Fukushima 5 and Fukushima 6 were less catastrophically destroyed than Fukushima 1 - 4, in their meltdowns.
We MUST surmise, most of these things. For the global nuclear power industry, the Japanese government, USA government and the international nuclear groups are completely 'clammed up'. Something took a large nuclear 'dump' in the NW Pacific Region and it looks like 'The Usual Suspects'.
The Usual Suspects
Boom Chica Boom Boom Boom
PERHAPS, EVENTUALLY, when the lying slows down …
We shall discover, HOW & WHY Fukushima 3 was able to sustain a fission chain reaction sufficient to create a nuclear explosion. I presume the atomic blast in Fukushima 3 is what destroyed and destabilized the structure of Fukushima 4.
Perhaps the hydrogen explosion speared a plutonium projectile into a fissionable target of opportunity …
Perhaps a few grams of tritium were generated and trapped in the crush volume, increasing the effective value of α.
Perhaps deflagration shock wave stobing induced a stray resonance effect, sufficient to trigger the detonation.
Perhaps some uranium hydride and or plutonium hydride was brewed in the smoking cauldron.
I wonder … HOW it happened. It was quite a blast, for a random event.
Just asking
STUPID STUPID STUPID
Another pinhead anti-nuke demonstrating their stupidity for all to see.
The idiot didn't do his homework. There's more freely available declassified information from the days of the Manhattan Project, that gun assembly ( as posited by the above idiot ) is not possible with either reactor grade, or even weapons grade plutonium. The Manhattan Project production reactors at Hanford were making weapons grade plutonium. The Manhattan Project originally intended that weapons grade plutonium be used in a "plutonium gun" type nuclear weapon. However, when Los Alamos got the first macroscopic sized pieces of plutonium from Hanford, they discovered that the neutron background was too high for a gun assembly.
That's why Los Alamos scientist Seth Neddermeyer came up with the idea of an implosion assembly. Neddermeyer's first attempts were with imploding cylindrical pipes, because that gives you an implosion in only 2 dimensions which is easier than a 3 dimensional spherical implosion. Alas, Neddermeyer discovered that you can't get a symmetrical implosion if there is only one explosive used to drive the implosion. One has to use the special shaped-charges called "explosive lenses" in order to get the symmetric assembly. A good reference here complete with pictures of the Neddermeyer's implosions is Peter Goodchild's biography of Robert Oppenheimer called "Shatterer of Worlds"
The above poster is just posting "gobbledygook" - just stringing together "buzz words". Let's deconstruct one of the stupider statements by this moron:
Perhaps deflagration shock wave stobing induced a stray resonance effect, sufficient to trigger the detonation.
If the burn propagation in the explosive is sub-sonic, then we have a "deflagration".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deflagration
If the burn propagation is super-sonic, then we have a "detonation".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detonation
If the burn is sub-sonic, we don't have a shock-wave; because the normal sonic propagation is faster than the burn. It's only if we have a super-sonic propagation that we get a shockwave.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_wave
So our pinhead idiot above talks about "deflagration shock wave". WRONG!!! STUPID!!! DUMB!!. "Shock wave" and "deflagration" don't go together, dummy.
To someone with the above poster's rather limited IQ, physics and science may appear to be a bunch of buzz words strung together. However, a bunch of random buzz words strung together is not going to fool a real scientist into believing that you know what you are talking about.
Likewise, with the reference to increasing alpha via tritium. Nuclear weapons use a concept that fuses tritium and deuterium in D-T fusion. But just like having gasoline but no air / oxygen in the cylinders of your car engine; you need BOTH tritium and deuterium together to get D-T fusion. Where's the deuterium coming from ( the trace amounts in water is too low a concentration)?
Just because something is "quite a blast" doesn't mean the blast is nuclear. In fact, the smallest tactical nuclear weapons, the artillery shells" were about a kiloton in yield. Now the Little Boy bomb was about 15 kilotons. Little Boy essentially wiped out a moderate sized city in Hiroshima. A single kiloton is going to wipe out 1/15-th that amount; and surely would wipe out a city block.
The Unit 3 blast didn't even wipe out the two buildings standing a couple hundred feet away - Unit 2 and Unit 4. If you think that a kiloton can explode and not completely wipe away nearby buildings, then you don't have any idea how big a blast a kiloton is.
No - the explosion of Unit 3 was no more than the explosions we saw in gun camera footage during the Gulf War in 1991 where a 1 ton bomb took out buildings of that size. The explosion of Unit 3 was closer to 1 ton, than it is to a kiloton.
But the anti-nuclear IDIOTS are so manifestly STUPID that they can't distinguish between two explosive events that are 3 orders of magnitude apart.
If it weren't so PATHETIC that there are people that STUPID; this would really be quite funny.
Real YIELDS as opposed to a Lying sack of excrement
actual artillery pieces.
http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/155mm.aspx
W48 155-millimeter Nuclear Artillery Shell
An estimated 1,000 W48 nuclear artillery shells (designed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) were produced and deployed with Army and Marine Corps forces between 1963 and 1991. The W48 had a yield of 0.02-0.04 kilotons (equal to 2-4 tons of TNT).
The U.S. Nuclear Weapons Cost Study Project was completed in August 1998 and resulted in the book Atomic Audit:
The Costs and Consequences of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Since 1940
Edited by Stephen I. Schwartz.
Credit: Department of Energy (courtesy Natural Resources Defense Council)
http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/mat_fema277.shtm
The Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, Oklahoma City truck bomb was reportedly equivalent to the detonation of 4,000 pounds of TNT.
The W48 was NOT a typical artillery shell
Your argument above about the typical yield of a tactical weapon and artillery shell in particular was "cherry picked". The W48 is an atypical weapon in terms of its yield even for an artillery shell.
From the nuclear weapons archive, we have the following artillery shells and their yields:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
W-9 15 Kilotons
W-19 15 - 20 Kilotons
W-23 15 - 20 Kilotons
W-33 5-10, 40 Kilotons
W-48 0.072 Kilotons
W-74 >0.100 Kilotons
W-75 >0.100 Kilotons
W-79 1.1 / 0.8 Kilotons
W-82 <2.2 Kilotons
So in general the tactical artillery shells ARE kiloton range weapons. To make your argument, you "cherry picked" a very atypical weapon that is truly not representative of the class of weapons.
Poor Reference
The Brookings Institute is really a poor reference for scientific matters.
Although the actual yields of nuclear weapons are classified, various estimates have been made. So Brookings really doesn't know. However, the Federation of American Scientists has scientists with more familiarity with nuclear weapons, and their estimate for the yield of the W-48 is 72 tons:
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
Even so; the W-48 is considered a tour de force in the field of nuclear weapons design. It took very clever design and engineering on the part of the LLNL scientists and engineers to design a nuclear weapon with a yield as low as 72 tons.
The explosion at Fukushima Unit 3 wasn't carefully designed; it was happenstance. So believing that a 1 ton explosion at Unit 3 due to happenstance which is 72 times lower in yield than a very carefully engineered nuclear artillery shell, is like believing that a pile of nuts and bolts dumped together will by happenstance assemble themselves into a watch that is 72 times as accurate as that made from the finest Swiss craftsmanship.
A brain that has a difficult time multiplying by 1000 and has a dismal grasp of probability might accept that; but more intelligent minds don't.
I also wouldn't put much stock in anything that came from the Natural Resources Defense Council. They've been wrong so many times, I've lost count. They are also pretty good at LOSING legal cases concerning nuclear power in the Supreme Court:
http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/519/
"The W48 had a yield of
"The W48 had a yield of 0.02-0.04 kilotons (equal to 2-4 tons of TNT). "
0.02 kilotons = 20 tons.
0.04 kilotons = 40 tons.
Don't trust sources that can't even get basic math right.
50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons
*
11. Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)
*
50 Facts About U.S. Nuclear Weapons
Nuke & Conventional Yields overlap
Reportedly, the Mother & Father Of All Bombs significantly exceed the yield of small tactical nukes, such as the W48 artillery round, as well as the atomic blast which occurred in Fukushima III, ~ Mar 14, 2011.
MОАВ (TNT Eq: 11 tons), blast radius 150 m
FОАВ (TNT Eq: 44 tons), blast radius 300 m
Oh, and Timmy McVeigh was not bombing buildings with multiple 4’ to 8’ reinforced concrete walls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haUawwm7l4k
More PROPAGANDA!!!
First, it is scientifically well-established that the Unit 3 explosion was a hydrogen explosion and not a nuclear explosion. You can't get a nuclear explosion in a Plutonium-239 / Uranium-238 mixture unless the concentration of Plutionium is above 14%. MOX fuel is only 7%.
Additionally, in order to implode nuclear material to explosion conditions, you need a system to invert the convex shockwaves to concave. Nuclear explosives use "explosive lenses" for that purpose:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_lens
However, explosive lenses require chemical explosives with 2 differing detonation velocities in order to lens. There was only one explosive, hydrogen, present at Fukushima.
In his video, Arnie Gunderson even points out that the color of the Unit 3 fireball was yellow. Nuclear explosions radiate X-rays. If something radiates X-rays, then it radiates all lower frequencies also. That means it would radiate the complete spectrum of visible light, and the fireballs of all nuclear explosion are white. The fact that we have a fireball that is yellow means that the explosion was not hot enough to radiate greens, blues, and violets. That's the hallmark of a chemical explosion; like a hydrogen explosion.
The CTBT Organization which tests fallout has the ability to distinguish between reactor accidents and nuclear explosions. Otherwise, a nation that illegally tested a nuclear explosive could "cover up" by claiming it was a reactor accident. Because there is a difference in neutron spectrum between nuclear explosions and reactors, there is a difference in the spectrum of fission products. CTBTO can detect that difference - it's how they do their job. CTBTO has stated that their fallout detections from Fukushima are consistent with a reactor accident, and not a nuclear explosion.
The scientific facts are that the Unit 3 explosion was a hydrogen explosion.
Of course, that doesn't stop propaganda from posters like the above. Look at his idiot logic. A valve has two states open / closed. A digital controller has 2 states. Therefore those valves must have been controlled by a digital controller. Using that "logic" everyone with valves on the plumbing of their houses must be using digital controllers.
The fact is that these are '70s vintage power plants with '70s vintage control technology, and that doesn't include digital controllers.
More balls than a brass
More balls than a brass monkey.
It requires more balls than a brass monkey to assert:
Lie: “First, it is scientifically well-established that the Unit 3 explosion was a hydrogen explosion and not a nuclear explosion. You can't get a nuclear explosion in a Plutonium-239 / Uranium-238 mixture unless the concentration of Plutonium is above 14%. MOX fuel is only 7%.” (Not)
No such ‘well established’ and/or ‘scientific’, conclusions can be drawn by a pack of liars, from a fraudulent assortment of misrepresented data points. Congratulations, you have more balls than a shipboard, wheel-mounted, brass-constructed, cannon ball cart. I am laughing, but the victims of Chernobyl and Fukushima are not.
More balls than a brass monkey.
WRONG!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!! little anti-nuke...
There are agreed upon limits as to what materials can be used to make nuclear explosions and what can not be used as nuclear explosive materials. The reason for having these agreed limits has to do with the amount of security and safeguards one has to provide. Obviously, if a material can be used to fuel a nuclear explosion, one has to provide a high degree of security for that material. Just as obviously, if a material can't be used to make a nuclear explosive, then there's no reason to provide the level of security that one does for the former.
That logic is detailed in the following chapter from the archives of the US Office of Technology Assessment, now hosted at Princeton University. From Page 6 of the following chapter (Page 143 of the book) of the Princeton document at the top of the 2nd column:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
"Detailed calculations show that the above criterion..
The source of the threshold information is given in footnote 2 on page 6 as one "Robert W. Selden, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory"
What materials can or can not be used to make a nuclear explosion is really known only to the nuclear weapons laboratories. They're the only laboratories that have the facilities, and the legal permission; to obtain that information.
Semantics. When scientists
Semantics.
When scientists talk about a nuclear explosion they mean a situation where most of the available fissionable material fissions in a fraction of a second. This is what happens in a nuclear bomb. You can't make that happen with reactor fuel. It's scientifically impossible.
In a reactor the chain reaction increases the rate at which fissions happen but only to the point where it takes years to use up the available fissionable material. It's quite possible to create a configuration where the reaction rate is sufficient to melt and vaporize the fuel, which is most likely more than adequate to be labeled an "explosion" by a layman, but doesn't really count for people familiar with nuclear reactions.
The fuel load in a reactor can generate a GigaWatt for about 4 years. That's around 100 billion kilowatt-hours. If all of that energy were released in a fraction of a second that would be a 90 megaton explosion. You would not have slightly damaged buildings, you would have a giant hole in the ground where fukushima used to be.
This is why scientists roll their eyes and laugh at statements that there was a nuclear explosion at fukushima.
For comparison you can take a look at the Sedan crater. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_%28nuclear_test%29
A mountain of lies
Hand Waving and semantics
Concealed evidence, rolled eyes and a mountain of lies do not constitute a public policy debate.
The nuclear power industry has 'crapped the nest' to the clear detriment of their customers. The long-established pattern of concealment, arrogance, word-games and mendacity is contraproductive to selling new product to the public.
Japan and Germany have 'pulled the plug' on this industry, which collectively appears to be psychopatic liars, theives and killers. While the greenies offer no viable alternatives, there ARE viable alternatives. So, I shall sit back and watch the greenies ... kill and eat the nuclear power industry.
Certainly the industry has copped 'an attitude'. Let them starve. There are better and more economic electrical power sources available. We just don't need their crap, in any sense of the word.
In my humble opinion
In your WORTHLESS opinion
>>In my humble opinion
More like in your WORTHLESS opinion.
In spite of multiple posters offering you scientific reasons why the explosion of Unit 3 was not a "nuclear explosion" where the term "nuclear explosion" means "like a nuclear weapon"; you still assert Unit 3 was a "nuclear explosion".
We have multiple reasons based on arguments rooted in the Laws of Physics as to why it was NOT a nuclear explosion.
You have provided ZERO scientific evidence that it was a nuclear explosion, and all your reasons for why it was a nuclear explosion appear to be based in politics and not science.
Yes - you are anti-nuclear and you don't like nuclear power, and you don't like the companies that design, build, and run nuclear power plants. However, the contention that they are untrustworthy is a poor substitute for scientific facts.
Just admit that you are biased. You don't like nuclear power and you want the accident at Fukushima to be as bad as it gets. You want the Unit 3 explosion to be a nuclear explosion so you can fear-monger other non-scientists.
However, for the scientists; that doesn't hold much stature. You are entitled to your own opinions ( worthless and ill-informed as they may be ), but you are not entitled to your own facts.
Mercy
The quality of mercy IS strained
The nuclear power industry has murdered their parents and now begs mercy on the basis of being an orphan.
A Billion witnesses WATCHED the explosions at the defunct Fukushima nuclear station. Fukushima III was an entirely different kettle of fish. The masses and the classes have also observed the coverup and the mountain of lies. We have duly noted that NO antiradiation drugs were provided to the public. It is indisputable that the evacuation was, and is 'too little - too late'.
The nuclear power industry, in conjunction with their (previously) captive governments (USA & Japan), together with the CTBTA, have denied the mortal dangers posed to the affectied populations. The list of lies and atrocities closely tracks the moral failures of the late Soviet Union at Chernobyl. The behavior was unacceptable for the Soviet Union and remains indefensable today.
So, bugger off
Are Mercy and Stupidity inseparable?
Do you really "think" ( term used loosely ) that you can tell the difference between a nuclear explosion and a non-nuclear explosion just by WATCHING?
What chowderheads these anti-nukes be!!!
Here is another explosion to watch that is even more impressive than the explosion of Fukushima Unit 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K0cEX9ex3U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJVOUgCm5Jk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7pRtgisV9s
The above explosion in Henderson, Nevada is WAY more impressive and severe than the Unit 3 explosion. Would you call the above explosion in Henderson, Nevada a "nuclear explosion" for some reason?
Well it's NOT a nuclear explosion. We know what made that explosion. The explosion was of a factory that makes rocket fuel.
Of course, if I hadn't just told everyone that the explosive above was rocket fuel; the little pinhead anti-nuke morons would have said it was definitely a "nuclear explosion" because of how it "LOOKED". Dimwits all.
"Concealed evidence, rolled
"Concealed evidence, rolled eyes and a mountain of lies do not constitute a public policy debate."
Indeed they don't.
To provide 7 billion people with a north american lifestyle requires 2000 quads of energy per year.
Propose a realistic public policy that can achieve that without nukes and I'll help you shut them down myself.
What the greenies don't tell us...
You are correct. What the greenies don't tell us when they say that renewables like solar and wind can meet all our needs, is that we have to drastically change our lifestyle.
Solar and wind won't be able to support the type of high-tech, industrial economies that have given the USA and other western countries such an enviable lifestyle.
Solar and wind would be fine for an agrarian society where we didn't have large factories, and people went to bed at sundown. That's the "hidden agenda" for the greenies. For the most part, they don't like the industrial, high-tech societies that the USA and others have become. They want to roll back the clock to when the USA lived like what we would call a "3rd world" country today.
That's the hidden agenda in their energy policies. They'll give us an energy economy based on wind and solar such that the only thing they can support is a 3rd world lifestyle. They believe that only a primitive lifestyle is moral.
The public has rejected the 3rd world lifestyle in the past, which is why we have what we have today. The greenies want to send us back; and the way to do that is to starve us for the needed energy by invoking only their anemic renewables.
Bottoms Up
The vent stacks and blowers are of more recent construction, but of course, ewe already knew that.
Logical State Change diagrams are less simple, than you state, as anyone familiar with flip-flop design is aware.
The Stuxnet malware modus operandi, in emergency conditions is to scramble data between the computer and controller. (which ewe knew)
For example, the computer system is informed that "all valves are open", when one or more valves are closed. (Which ewe knew)
The computer system is informed that the "blowers are blowing", but the command to the blowers is to shut down. (But this is well known)
Similarly "Electrical power is available", ("disconnect electrical power"), (Again, ewe knew this)).
"Control power available" v "Trip DC system Breaker", (A clever program, as we ALL know)
Stuxnet Malware has rendered Siemens Control apparatus unfit for use.
In My Humble Opinion
Scrubbed because of SPONTANEOUS fission
Keep that lying streak going, WE are laughing @ you (but Tokyo is not)
Regarding inadvertent fission and detonation
The "Thin Man" (formally, Mark 2) nuclear bomb was a proposed plutonium gun-type nuclear bomb which the United States was developing during the Manhattan Project. Its development was aborted when it was discovered that the spontaneous fission rate of nuclear reactor-bred plutonium was too high for use in a gun-type design.
Back to the drawing boards
Chica Boom Boom Boom
Begin: Martial Law Update
Defense Authorization Act of 2012 ‘Martial Law Update’
The way things ARE in Iran & the USA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8112550.stm
As protests continue in Iran, details are emerging of the technology used to monitor its citizens. Iran is well known for filtering the net, but the government has moved to do the same for mobile phones. Nokia Siemens Network has confirmed it supplied Iran with the technology needed to monitor, control, and read local telephone calls. It told the BBC that it sold a product called the Monitoring Centre to Iran Telecom in the second half of 2008.
Data inspection Nokia Siemens, a joint venture between the Finnish and German companies, supplied the system to Iran. The product allows authorities to monitor any communications across a network, including voice calls, text messaging, instant messages, and web traffic.
Siemens, of Stuxnet fame, now brings new meaning to the phrase ‘Big Brother’.
End: USA martial law update
Continue Martial Law Update (Facebook & Interpol)
Interpol accused after journalist arrested over Muhammad tweet
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/10/interpol-journalist-arrested...
Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk, Friday 10 February 2012 14.21 EST
Saudi Arabia used Interpol's system to get journalist arrested in Malaysia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad on Twitter. Interpol has been accused of abusing its powers after Saudi Arabia used the organisation's red notice system to get a journalist arrested in Malaysia for insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Police in Kuala Lumpur said Hamza Kashgari, 23, was detained at the airport "following a request made to us by Interpol" the international police cooperation agency, on behalf of the Saudi authorities.
Kashgari, a newspaper columnist, fled Saudi Arabia after posting a tweet on the prophet's birthday that sparked more than 30,000 responses and several death threats. The posting, which was later deleted, read: "I have loved things about you and I have hated things about you and there is a lot I don't understand about you … I will not pray for you."
More than 13,000 people joined a Facebook page titled "The Saudi People Demand the Execution of Hamza Kashgari". Clerics in Saudi Arabia called for him to be charged with apostasy, a religious offence punishable by death. Reports suggest that the Malaysian authorities intend to return him to his native country.
Obama civil war
Lubbock official warns of Obama civil war
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Lubbock-official-warns-o...
http://www.myfoxlubbock.com/news/local/story/FOX-34-News-Now-FOX-AccuWea...
Lubbock County judge Tom Head is asking for a tax increase to hire deputies for the inevitable civil war he believes would follow President Obama's re-election.
“I'm thinking the worst. Civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe. And we're not just talking a few riots here and demonstrations, we're talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy.
"Now what's going to happen if we do that, if the public decides to do that? He's going to send in U.N. troops. I don't want 'em in Lubbock County. OK. So I'm going to stand in front of their armored personnel carrier and say 'you're not coming in here'. "And the sheriff, I've already asked him, I said 'you gonna back me' he said, 'yeah, I'll back you'. Well, I don't want a bunch of rookies back there. I want trained, equipped, seasoned veteran officers to back me." The tax hike will provide an additional $832,433 coupled with $2 million in cuts to make the numbers work.
Compiled by Houston Chronicle Staff
Updated 3:57 p.m., Wednesday, August 22, 2012
evidence that is circumstantial or hearsay s useless
evidence that is not circumstantial is not as plentiful as one would want, especially to someone outside the field. i spent most of my researching time for almost six months just trying to verify that Fukushima Dai-ichi indeed used the specific hardware vulnerable to STU.X.NET. and wouldn't you know it, just when i found something i felt was definitive,a good friend remarked that were this information to be made available and its implications properly understood, there was a way in which it let TepCo "off the hook."
without even a qualm i buried the info, did not call attention to it, consoled myself that with my newfound knowledge of logic controllers. now i am not so sure that would be the effect, and in any event, i thought the readers of this forum would find the PDF referred to in following most interesting, and perhaps useful:
Tepco, 2010: Aging Management and Safe Long Term Operation At Guess Where
as well as, also from the stuxnet files:
Stuxnet and Fukushima Daiichi: Questions, Analysis and ...More Questions
"'Link in Your Mind'
Cyberattacks and Fukushima"
DHS warns of SCADA vulnerability; neglects to mention what it resembles or how closely
thank you OP for the thread, and as always, thanks to the Admins for hosting this forum.
PLSs
Any realtime system or sequences run by PLS(simens or mitsub.) is eventualy conected to a server, in any kind system.
The server may not in it self be nothing more than a transmitter, but stil it is capable to comunacate with the pLSs in the site.
The truble with any kind of comp.run sytems are the control prosecore, where ever it is lockated. Thats where you have to inject the virus, the trick is not neserery to make it advance, I have witnesed "systemic freezes" wher it locked on as a Normal operation senario, no matter what actualy happens.
I know about that becuase I have expirienced thos events.
I a have run like hell, just to get an overwiue or at lest to verify what is happening.
Its very simple infact to ruin a plant.
All you need is a "freez" or a "computer image that has been satt still".
Do you understand this, it been a long time since I have been around a simens PLS but the general overlay is there.
Thats what I think happened in the Fukushima site, it to only aprox 48 min to a core metldown, that goes faster than mopst are aware of.
You only need to make a Nuclear site stand still for 1-2 hours, that all.
From then on its a runnaway train.
Like fukushima, with 3 runnaway trains.
peace
On the CONTRARY!!!
Nuclear power plants are designed to be stable without control input.
In that regard, they are like aerodynamically stable airplanes. The plane "wants" to fly straight and level without input from the pilot. If the pilot or the control system "freezes", the airplane maintains straight and level flight.
Just because a control system "freezes" will not cause an airplane to become a "runaway train".
Likewise, the nuclear power plant is also stable without operator input. The various inherent feedbacks, chiefly "moderator temperature feedback" in an LWR keep the reactor stable.
You probably don't understand this because you made the foolish statement that the plant would become a "runaway train". The reactor needs a "moderator" to slow down neutrons in order to operate. In LWR ( light water reactors ) as used in power plants, that moderator is the coolant water. ( The hydrogen atom in the water is about the same mass as a neutron, and therefore collisions between neutrons and hydrogen nuclei, very effectively slow down neutrons. )
The degree to which water moderates ( slows down ) neutrons, is a function of its density, and hence its temperature. If the temperature goes up; the moderator becomes less dense, the reactor's reactivity goes down, and power goes down. That is a stable negative feedback. If temperature goes down, the moderator becomes more dense, the reactor's reactivity goes up, and power goes up until equilibrium conditions are once again established. A reactor has a self-correcting negative feedback that keeps it stable at its current power.
Even if there is no control inputs; the reactor maintains stability and doesn't become a "runaway train".
Now would you care to explain your "logic" as to why a reactor would runaway like a train?
I thought not.
Semi-Demi-Hemi Stable
Stable like a collection of wild stallions or a stable of hookers (brothel)
Stable, provided your definition of the term includes the:
SL-1 nuclear reactor atomic explosion in Idaho
Chernobyl nuclear reactor atomic explosion
TMI nuclear meltdown and releases
Fukushima-1 & Fukushima-2 hydrogen deflagrations
Fukushima-5, Fukushima-6 meltdowns
Fukushima-3 Nuclear Reactor Atomic Explosion
Various USA and Soviet nuclear submarines (Still On Patrol), for they have never returned to port.
Chica Boom Boom Boom
Logic
Your comment :
"If the temperature goes up; the moderator becomes less dense, the reactor's reactivity goes down," demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding.
It should read
"If the temperature goes up; the moderator becomes less dense, the reactor's reactivity goes UP," ... Leading to an increase in temperature without some putside moderator or change to the conditions, you have a positive loop feedback, commonly known as "A runaway train" see current (and last twelve months) at Fukushima.
DUMB ANTI-NUKE at play
"If the temperature goes up; the moderator becomes less dense, the reactor's reactivity goes down," demonstrates an appalling lack of understanding.
===============
Another boneheaded, stupid anti-nuke trumpeting his ignorance for all to see.
The appalling lack of understanding is all your YOUR part, dummy!!!
As detailed in posts below; the moderator promotes the nuclear reaction, so when it becomes less dense, and hence less effective; the reactivity goes down, not up as you stated.
Why do these pinhead anti-nukes come here pretending to know something, and challenge the people who know what they are talking about?
Another demonstration of how STUPID the anti-nukes are for those that doubted it.
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
It should read
"If the temperature goes up; the moderator becomes less dense, the reactor's reactivity goes UP," ...
========================
WRONG! WRONG!! WRONG!!!
The moderator HELPS the nuclear reactions - it doesn't inhibit them. This just shows how pitiful your understanding of reactor physics is.
The propensity of a neutron to cause fission, called the fission cross section; is dependent on the energy of the neutron. The fission cross section increases with decreasing neutron energy. That is the slower the neutron, the more likely it is to cause fission, as opposed to leaking out of the core, for example. A moderator, is a light element that can slow neutrons by collisions; for example the hydrogen in light water.
The macroscopic scattering cross section of the moderator is the product of the element dependent microscopic scattering cross section and the number density of the atoms of moderator. As the moderator gets less dense, the macroscopic scattering cross section goes DOWN, so there is LESS moderation.
Therefore, LESS neutrons are down scattered to the low energies where the fission cross-section is higher, and hence the fission rate goes DOWN, and hence the reactivity goes DOWN as originally stated and counter to your MISTAKE above.
Wrong-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_physics
"Most moderators become less effective with increasing temperature, so under-moderated reactors are stable against changes in temperature in the reactor core: if the core overheats, then the quality of the moderator is reduced and the reaction tends to slow down (there is a "negative temperature coefficient" in the reactivity of the core). Water is an extreme case: in extreme heat, it can boil, producing effective voids in the reactor core without destroying the physical structure of the core; this tends to shut down the reaction and reduce the possibility of a fuel meltdown. Over-moderated reactors are unstable against changes in temperature (there is a "positive temperature coefficient" in the reactivity of the core), and so are less inherently safe than under-moderated cores."
LWRs have a negative temperature coeffecient. The fission reaction rate is inherently stable.
In a loss of coolant accident the fissioning will stop since the moderator is no longer there. However there are enough short lived fission products already there that the loss of cooling will cause the fuel rods to melt down.
The key passage from the above reference
The key passage from the above reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor_physics
To improve P_{fission} and enable a chain reaction, uranium-fueled reactors must include a neutron moderator that interacts with newly produced fast neutrons from fission events to reduce their kinetic energy from several MeV to thermal energies of less than one eV, making them more likely to induce fission. This is because 235U is much more likely to undergo fission when struck by one of these thermal neutrons than by a freshly produced neutron from fission.
The moderator PROMOTES the fission chain reaction by slowing down neutrons to lower energies where they are more likely to cause additional fissions. Therefore, as the moderator becomes less dense, and thereby less effective, the degree to which the fission chain reaction is promoted decreases, and the reactivity of the reactor goes DOWN, as originally stated.
Easily confused anti-nuke...
One of our resident anti-nukes was easily confused by the terminology.
A "moderator" in a nuclear reactor doesn't moderate the reactivity; it moderates the energy of the neutrons, which **augments** the reactivity in an under-moderated reactor ( of which all US designed / operated reactors are required to be ). That's why reactors have an inherently stable temperature feedback.
The anti-nuke was easily confused by the terminology. This is why nuclear reactors are designed / operated by scientists and engineers and not English majors.
I did note how self-righteously arrogant our anti-nuke was in claiming the understanding of another poster was appalling. However, the error was totally on the part of the anti-nuke.
This is just another in a long line of mistakes and misunderstandings on the part of the anti-nukes. We've had anti-nukes tell us that discharges of heavy water are dangerous because heavy water is radioactive since it contains tritium. ( In actuality, heavy water is non-radioactive since the hydrogen isotope in heavy water is non-radioactive deuterium and not tritium. )
We've had anti-nukes tell us that the longer the time period a given radiation dose is amortized over, the more damage to living tissue. ( In actuality, it's the opposite, the shorter the time period, hence the greater the dose rate, the more damage to living tissue. )
We've had anti-nukes not realize that total body external exposure is more damaging than organ-specific internal exposure.
Now we have an anti-nuke telling us that decreased moderation increases reactivity in an under-moderated reactor. And the hits just keep on coming...
Another poster wanted to see statistical studies on the intelligence of pro-nuclear vis-a-vis anti-nuclear posters. However, it has been the anti-nuclear posters that make the above "blooper" mistakes, exclusively. The pro-nuclear posters have been universally correct. I don't think we need statistically large samples with those odds.
Scientists and engineers, the specialties that really understand nuclear energy, are overwhelmingly pro-nuclear - to the tune of 98% to 99% in the last studies I've read. The anti-nukes are overwhelmingly non-scientists. So the anti-nukes are opposing something they really don't understand.
Since the anti-nuke has disgraced and discredited himself / herself in terms of scientific ability, if the anti-nuke is true to form, then he / she will next spout some vitriol that the rest of us are a bunch of industry shills....
You are a shill
A virus infected controller BECOMES the new operator, which in this case optimized the death of fukushima. Shills like you, who obviously know better should be hung. I am the one who forced Israel to be accountable for what they did to Fukushima and Japan, and if you want to argue with the Washington Times, who also picked up on my work and FINALLY admitted it was Stuxnet that did it, go to a different forum, there are not a whole lot of idiots here.
Jim Stone
Pot meet kettle
Talk about the "pot calling the kettle black" in terms of a shill.
First, see if you can follow along the chain of thought. A previous poster claimed that all the virus had to do was to "freeze" the control system, and the reactor would runaway by itself. The above description of the moderator temperature feedback keeps the reactor stable in the absence of control input, so the control system "freeze" doesn't cause a runaway.
Evidently you weren't able to follow that chain of thought.
Now, as far as Stuxnet becoming the new operator; BWR control systems and in particular BWR control systems from the 1970s don't have Siemens controllers.
Additionally, the reactor control system is not hooked to the net. In fact, even when they test the control system, they use one-way "optical isolators" so that the test computer can receive data from the reactor control system, but can't transmit any data to it. ( The optical isolator has a "transmitter" that flashes an optical diode, and the receiver has a light sensitive diode to read the flashes. But obviously that link can go only one way )
People talk about the threat posed by USB "thumb" drives. The cure for that is simple; there's no reason to have USB drives connected to the control system, so you just don't put a USB connector on the system.
Please spare us your baseless delusions of grandeur when you claim you forced Israel to be accountable. You didn't force anything.
You are well known Internet farce
Man you don't get it
The information going back to the controller should control the systems, but lets say I make a switch in that controller that is normally closed.. open. That means when the system wants to close or terminate the switch it actually opens it. Now if I inject these commands into the controller logic and play with all these switches or change the levels of the input data.. i.e. when the temp on switch 1 reaches 100 degrees Celsius then open the valve.. If I change that to read when switch 1 reaches 10000 degrees Celsius then open... see my point
Do you see how you can create a run away train
"Even if there is no control inputs; the reactor maintains stability and doesn't become a "runaway train".
Yes it does because the virus has made changes to all of the switches in the controller that maintain stability and most likely changed the levels of safety operating conditions.
Is that enough logic for you. The virus is in the controller which controls all the valves and switches in the plant that keeps the plant running.
If I made a virus for your digital alarm clock which says 5:00am does not exist. You clock would go from 4:59 to 5:01. Now if I say to the clock 5:00 am does not exist but display 5:00 for alarm and you set the alarm for 5:00am. The alarm will never go off.
WRONG!!!! WRONG!!! WRONG!!!
es it does because the virus has made changes to all of the switches in the controller that maintain stability and most likely changed the levels of safety operating conditions.
======================
WRONG!!! It just shows that you don't know anything about reactor physics.
The reactor has an inherent feedback that overrides that. Additionally, tell us what control "input" to the reactor you "think" can make it runaway.
For example, do you think that your backwards controller can pull rods out of the core to make it increase power? WRONG!!! The reactor runs with the control rods all the way out normally.
All the controls on the reactor are essentially for shutting it down.
I'm sure you can make a control system that operates backward. However, you have failed miserably in answering the challenge. What is your backward controller going to do to the reactor to make it runaway?
Your misunderstanding is readily apparent when you say the switches that maintain the stability of the reactor are going to react backwards. The reactor doesn't need switches and / or a controller to maintain stability; the inherent physics of the reactor does that.
What is the controller going to do that is going to cause a runaway in a reactor designed for stability; your silly handwaving about alarm clocks notwithstanding.
We know who did it
What else have they done?
9/11, US and Israel:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/14...
Israeli general boasts authoring Stuxnet virus:
The British newspaper Telegraph, and Le Monde, France, refer to an article published in the Israeli daily Haaretz, according to which a general in the army of that country, Gabi Ashkenazi, has confirmed the authorship of the Stuxnet worm. Diario Ti: According to the Haaretz article, General Ashkenazi had prepared his transition to his new life as a retiree creating a video where he refers to the milestones of his career. The video, which was presented at a tribute party for the general, includes a sequence in which Ashkenazi says he was responsible for overseeing the development of Stuxnet. The Stuxnet worm attack has received wide media coverage in Iran. According to Haaretz, the video also includes a sequence in which Ashkenazi admits that Israel bombed nuclear facilities in Syria in 2007. This was the first time an Israeli military commander admits the facts.
http://english.pravda.ru/history/22-02-2011/116985-Israeli_general_boasts_
Stuxnet can't affect reactor control systems..
It's a bunch of BALONEY that Stuxnet can affect the control systems at nuclear reactors. That is just a flat out LIE.
The reason is that the control systems of nuclear reactors are NOT programmable computer-based systems. They are all hard-wired logic systems. That is they don't have a stored program like a computer.
A more accurate analog for the reactor control system is your stereo amplifier. I know microprocessors can have a role in some stereo amps ( I've got one that uses a microprocessor to adjust the Class A bias on the fly ), but I'm talking your basic stereo amplifier. It doesn't need a program. The functionality is hard-wired into the circuitry. Stuxnet or any other virus can't affect it because it doesn't work off a program.
Reactor control systems are like that. They are not reprogrammable. They all work on hard-wired logic. The program is the circuitry. There's no program that is being read that can be replaced by a Stuxnet malware coding.
Nuclear power plants have computers for data logging. That is the computer can only read the plant's functional parameters and log them. For example, at 7AM Sunday the reactor coolant outlet temperature was 650 degrees F. It can only log that info - it can't affect that information.
The reactor control systems are not "on the net" and they are not reprogrammable.
sources please
sources please. you seem to think we should take what you have to say as fact - even citing your own post as an authority below.
The NRC has a single licensee with computer control..
From the Orange County Register in June 2011, a response from the NRC:
http://taxdollars.ocregister.com/2011/06/22/feds-ensure-safety-with-rigo...
The NRC takes as much time as necessary, in some cases years, to ensure requirements are met. For example, U.S. nuclear plants have long sought approval to install digital computer control systems to replace 1970s-era controls. The NRC spent most of the past decade examining issues such as cybersecurity, software validation and system reliability, first on a generic basis and then in a plant-specific application, prior to approving a digital system last year for the Oconee plant in South Carolina. The NRC continues to inspect and oversee Oconee’s installation of the new system to ensure it complies with our requirements.
The Oconee plant in South Carolina is the only plant with digital control, which the NRC is monitoring as a prototype.
no Siemens controllers?
Do you know for sure that Fukushima does not use Siemens controllers in their hard wired control loops? A USB drive connected to a Siemens controllers could plant the infection.
Having just walked out of a
Having just walked out of a bwr I can confirm that no bwr plant designed before the late 70s has digital safety systems. The logic is all relays (or in the case of Clinton solid state). ECCS pumps are relays breakers and hand switches. No PLCs or microcontrollers. You can't program a breaker or relay.
This only applies to safety systems. But they are all that matter during accident scenarios.
Evidently you didn't understand....
Read the above post again! There are NO REPROGRAMMABLE components in the reactor control system.
The NRC does NOT ALLOW the reactor control system to have any reprogrammable components. That means there can't be any Siemens controllers because they are reprogrammable.
The circuitry in the reactor control system is all hard-wired logic. There's nothing that reads a program and executes it. The wiring is the program.
Would the NRC be relevant in
Would the NRC be relevant in Japan?
NO - but neither is the FAA
The NRC doesn't write the rules for Japan; however the Japanese built a reactor licensing the design of General Electric which designed the reactor for use in the USA and hence conformed to the regulations of the NRC.
It's like Boeing is located in the USA and builds its airliners to conform to the regulations promulgated by the FAA. Because of that, other countries that purchase Boeing airliners get the benefit of having an airliner designed to the safety specifications of the USA's FAA. In essence, the US FAA sets the safety criteria for the world.
That's one of the reasons I think it is so short-sighted for the anti-nukes to say that the USA shouldn't be a "player" in nuclear power. The rest of the world is going to go nuclear and has been going nuclear in spite of what the USA does. One thing that Fukushima proves is that we all can be affected by a nuclear power plant regardless of whether our country uses them or not. So it behooves the USA to be sure that nuclear power plants where ever they are conform to the best regulations - ours. That's the way it is in the airline industry where the US FAA essentially sets the safety standards for all the airlines of the free world. That's because one of the largest airliner manufacturers is Boeing, and Boeing is in the USA. Additionally, the US domestic airlines are a big market, so even the French Airbus company builds to FAA standards so they can sell in the US market, and foreign airlines can fly in US airspace.
So the US FAA writes the safety regulations for air travel in the whole world. The US FAA regulations have become the de facto standard. That's because the USA is a major "player" in the air travel field. We have one of the largest markets for airliners, as well as having one of the largest manufacturers in Boeing.
If the USA decides not to be a "player" in the nuclear field, then we cede the regulation of nuclear power to other countries, and we may not like the safety standards they set. Clearly, the Japanese regulators fell down on the job of regulation when it came to Fukushima. I don't think I'd be comfortable with the Japanese writing the safety regulations for the whole world in nuclear power, the way the US's FAA writes the safety regulations for the whole world for airline travel.
To get back to your question. Because the reactor control system was designed by General Electric to conform to the NRC's regulations which forbids the use of Siemens reprogrammable controllers; the Japanese that licensed the GE design just built the Fukushima reactors with the GE control system and didn't needlessly redesign the control system to use reprogrammable controllers.
The other thing that you are forgetting is that the Fukushima reactors were built back in the '70s, and they were designed in the late '60s; BEFORE anyone ever heard of a reprogrammable Siemens controller.