Proof of an atomic explosionn, according to the AEC

>SO. Who to believe? Some random shills called 'Anonymous' who repeatedly deny the very obvious reality and who claim no degrees of any kind, except perhaps in bullshit.

OR the holder of a first class degree in Physics from University College, London. Plus a PhD in Physics. Both of which Professor Christopher Busby has.
================

The poster above poses the logically flawed and misleading question that a comparison of the relative expertise of "Anonymous" and Busby is enlightening. That's not the pertinent question at all. The pertinent question is the comparison of the nuclear weapons expertise of Dr. Busby and the source of the information contained in the Princeton document that says the threshold concentration of plutonium in U-238 rules out a nuclear explosion at Fukushima Unit 3.

From Page 6 of the Princeton document at:

http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF

The source of the threshold information is given in footnote 2 on page 6 as one "Robert W. Selden, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory"

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is one of the two nuclear weapons design labs in the USA. LLNL actually designs and used to test the nuclear weapons in the the nuclear stockpile of the USA. Anyone from LLNL must know one hell of a lot more about nuclear weapons and nuclear explosives than Busby, Gunderson, or Kaku.

When it comes to what is or is not possible with nuclear weapons and nuclear explosions, a citation from LLNL sure as hell trumps anything said by Busby, Gunderson, or Kaku.

In so far as a scientific source, Busby, Gunderson, and Kaku are the clear losers in comparison to someone from LLNL.

One knows one has struck a vital organ when some flaming progressive pulls Noam Chomsky out of his left rear pocket.

Poor guy must still be mourning the triumph of capitalism over communism back in the 1980s and how capitalism has consigned communism to the "ash-heap of history".

OR the holder of a first class degree in Physics from University College, London. Plus a PhD in Physics. Both of which Professor Christopher Busby has
=========================

Neither of which qualifies Busby as an expert in nuclear weapons and nuclear explosions.

A PhD in Physics is only the starting point for a nuclear weapons scientist. The detailed information on how nuclear weapons and nuclear explosives work can be learned only at one of the laboratories that design nuclear weapons.

Professor Chris Busby reports that the signatures of two Xenon isotopes were identified at Chernobyl and at Fukushima, proving that the explosions were nuclear in each case.

- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ez5asIzR0ZY

It is always a mystery why people tell deliberate lies that can so easily be refuted.
================================

Busby never "proved" or "documented" anything in that interview. He mentioned isotopes and "material being admitted", but he never mentioned who was collecting and analyzing this material. Does Busby have a lab to do this work, or is he getting his information from some other organization like the CTBT Organization.

How do you know he was basing his conclusions on Xe ratio? I listened very carefully, and Busby never mentioned Xenon once in that interview. Go back and watch the video again.

It is always a mystery why people tell deliberate lies that can so easily be refuted.

Sure the video shows Busby saying that the isotopic ratios correspond to a nuclear explosion.

However, CTBTO says the same ratios correspond to a reactor accident.

So who are you going to believe?

I will believe the CTBTO. They are not a bunch of media w-h-o-r-e-s like a lot of the other commentators. Busby, Kaku, and Gunderson just want their 15-minutes of fame.

CTBTO has no such motive to gain media attention, so I believe CTBTO.

>>Why is the CTBTO concealing the blast data for Fukushima-3?

The simplest explanation is usually the best. Rather than postulating that the CTBTO is covering up a nuclear explosion at Fukushima, perhaps the simpler explanation is true.

There was no nuclear explosion at Fukushima. CTBTO says its isotopic ratios correspond to the effluent of a damaged reactor. CTBTO is covering up nothing.

I know the truth doesn't sit well with the anti-nukes that are just hoping beyond all reason that the explosion at Unit 3 was a nuclear explosion.

However, I'm not concerned with them. I have no sympathy for people who think with their politics and not with their brains.

It's hard for people to see that Pres O and D Cheney or are just two sides of the same coin. One party may get you to the inevitable end faster than the other, but the end is the same, and it ain't perty. Theives and thugs.

:(

Yes, I consider the Fukushima-3 containment failures to be negligent homicide. There was an accidental component atop of several decades of absolutely gross negligence, lying and stupidity.

It was not, by my lights, a purposeful act.

There are easier and cleaner methods to kill big crowds. Perhaps the simplest available mechanism is smallpox. No one has been vaccinated in 30 years. Every old graveyard on earth contains the active virus. It is just a matter of time.

Jorge Boosh swore that the USA had a hundred million doses. Maybe, maybe not. In any event, by now they have been riffed by the Obama Gang. I would take a smallpos booster shot today, if one was available.

:(

:(

Let's just say, that we are not presently aware of a physical mechansim for another nuclear explosion at Fukushima. There may be a half-dozen, yet-to-be discovered mechanisms.

I doubt that Murphy has finished teaching us new things that can go wrong. A reduction in energy/power density, especially by removing MOX, would move existing reactors toward increased safety.

The recent trend toward nuclear reactor uprating has proven to be a poor idea. The atomic explosion in Fukushima-3 has made that point perfectly clear. (NIX-2-MOX) Plutonium is such nasty stuff.

In my humble opinion (IMHO), the greatest improvement to nuclear industry safety would be a raft of criminal prosecutions of companies and individuals. Some sense of: honor and/or responsibility and/or scientific integrity and/or morality and/or accuracy and/or candor and/or noblisse oblige and/or social conscience and/or environmental unity, is required when dealing with potentially deadly substances.

Evidently NONE of these commodities is widely prevalent in the nuclear power-plant 'bidness'. Perhaps if the firms, stockholders and lenders are bankrupted and the 'bad boys' are thrown in jail. Perhaps the next group will be made of better stuff. We can hope...

>>It is easy to detonate a purely nuclear explosion by fission, fusion or both.

I interpret your statement above to say that pure fission explosion is easy, pure fusion explosion is easy, and fission and fusion explosions are easy.

I wouldn't call them "easy" - but the first and third have been accomplished.

However, contrary to your contention that pure fusion is "easy"; it has not been done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_fusion_weapon

A pure fusion weapon is a hypothetical hydrogen bomb design that does not need a fission "primary" explosive to ignite the fusion ...
Despite the many millions of dollars spent by the U.S. between 1952 and 1992 to produce a pure fusion weapon, no measurable success was ever achieved. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) released a restricted data declassification decision stating that even if the DOE made a substantial investment in the past to develop a pure fusion weapon, "the U.S. Is not known to have and is not developing a pure fusion weapon and no credible design for a pure fusion weapon resulted from the DOE investment".

It's never been done; but you say it is "easy".

I would have to agree with the poster that claimed the image is not evidence of a nuclear explosion. One has to be mindful that the gamma rays can penetrate the steel.

Consider the following analogy. We have a decorative candle consisting of a clear glass cylinder that is partially filled with wax and a wick, which is lit. We take a picture of this lit candle. Someone tells us that the soft glow seen in the picture comes from the flame where molten wax is being combusted.

A second person comes in and says, "Shill Alert! Shill Alert. The camera was clearly pointed at the HOT glass. The glow is due to hot glowing glass"

BZZZT WRONG!!!

The first person is clearly correct, the source of the glow is, of course, the candle's flame. The light from this flame passes through the clear glass. Even though the camera is aimed at the glass cylinder, it is seeing
the light from the flame beyond.

The picture clearly shows two localized "hot spots", which are most likely due to some radioactive material, dispersed by either by the venting or the explosion, so that this radioactive material now sits in the bottom of the hollow vertical stack, and the gamma camera sees the gamma shine of this material since the metal of the stack is transparent to gammas.

This is also the opinion of University of Michigan Professor Gary Was,
Associate Dean of Engineering for Research, and formerly Chairman of the Nuclear Engineering Dept. at University of Michigan:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/hot-spots-of-radiation-raise-risk-in-fuk...

Nuclear engineer Gary Was of the University of Michigan told CNN that the gamma-ray camera should help identify if radioactivity resulted from reactor waste products, bits of nuclear fuel or both. He suggested that the location of the hot spot at the base of the emergency ventilation shaft makes it likely that the radioactive material came from air and steam released to relieve pressure inside the reactors during the meltdowns and channeled through the air system filters.

If there had been a nuclear explosion, then the area in view of the photo would have been flooded with neutrons. Those neutrons would have activated all the metal in the vent stack, and not just two "hot spots". We should see all that metal glowing red in a gamma camera picture. The fact that 99.9999% of the metal is not glowing red is powerful evidence that a nuclear explosion did NOT occur.

It's manifestly lame logic in the extreme to see two isolated hot spots and conclude that a nuclear explosion took place nearby.

I think we can figure out who the real shills are around here, and which side they are shilling for.