Proof of an atomic explosionn, according to the AEC
:
PROOF, according to the Atomic Energy Commission.
Two documentary films describe an earlier uncontrolled atomic explosion in a nuclear reactor. There are many documented accounts of this fatal nuclear reactor prompt criticality. Perhaps it is simpler for non-technical readers to watch these military briefing films. It is easy to ‘cut to the chase’ about why the GammaCam readings are ‘proof positive’ of an uncontained nuclear explosion, ie ‘a smoking gun’. To view a description and explanation of this proof, simply fast-forward the film, to the indicated Elapsed Time (ET) [min:s]
18:46, “Evidence of an uncontrolled chain reaction”
19:18, “Only neutron capture could have transmuted (metals)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIBQMkd96CA&feature=player_embedded#at=817
http://highpowerrocketry.blogspot.com/2010/11/sl-1-nuclear-reactor-accid...
http://www.inl.gov/proving-the-principle/chapter_15.pdf
http://www.id.doe.gov/foia/archive.htm
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Idaho Operations Office
The Stationary Low-Power Reactor Number One (SL-1), was a United States Army experimental nuclear power reactor. On January 3, 1961 the reactor was restarted after a shutdown of eleven days. Maintenance procedures commenced, which required the main central control rod to be withdrawn a few inches; at 9:01 p.m. this rod was withdrawn almost to the top of the core, causing SL-1 to go prompt critical. In four milliseconds, the heat generated by the resulting enormous power surge caused water surrounding the core to begin to explosively vaporize. The water vapor caused a pressure wave to strike the top of the reactor vessel. This propelled the control rod and the entire reactor vessel upwards, which killed the operator who had been standing on top of the vessel, leaving him pinned to the ceiling. The other two military personnel, a supervisor and a trainee, were also killed. The victims were Army Specialists John A. Byrnes and Richard L. McKinley and Navy Electrician's Mate Richard C. Legg.
On the night of January 4, a team of six volunteers used a plan involving teams of two to recover the body of Byrnes. Radioactive gold 198Au from the man's brass watch buckle and copper 64Cu from a screw in a cigarette lighter subsequently PROVED that the reactor had indeed gone prompt critical. Up until the recovery of radioisotopes of uranium, fission products, and the radioactive isotopes from the men's belongings, scientists had doubted that a nuclear excursion had occurred, thinking it inherently safe. These findings ruled out early speculations that a chemical explosion caused the accident.
Is that all?
;)
Everybody deserves a defense. But is this the best you can muster?
The vents and structural were new and unused. The weldable metal would not be very weldable at 10Sv/hr.
TEPCO has THIs site locked down and they have been hoist on their own petard.
What are you talking about?????
Why would anybody need to weld the metal after the accident?
We have an exhaust stack that is connected to the containment buildings. Evidently, some radioactive material was transported through this ventilation system by either the venting or the explosion, and this material is sitting at the bottom of the vertical stack.
We see the gamma rays from this material since the metal walls of the stack are transparent to gammas, just as the glass is transparent to light in the candle analogy.
Why would there have to be any welding going on? Welding is not part of the explanation.
?????
AEC PROOF
:(
Sufficient PROOF for the US Atomic Energy Commission in 1961.
From Original Post (OP) above.
On the night of January 4, a team of six volunteers used a plan involving teams of two to recover the body of Byrnes. Radioactive gold 198Au from the man's brass watch buckle and copper 64Cu from a screw in a cigarette lighter subsequently PROVED that the reactor had indeed gone prompt critical.
--------- Proof -----------
qed
:(
Easy as pie
:
It is baby-simple to induce radiation in normal materials such as iron, brass and gold. You just shine a beam of neutrons at the target and it is done. It is not over the head of a high school student with a C average, that ditches class a lot. And it is not dangerous when very simple precautions are taken.
It is no more difficult than putting a cup of coffee in a microwave oven and 'nuking' it for 20 seconds. Don't burn yourself! Use a hot-pad and let it cool a few seconds before taking a sip. A microwave oven is a 'radar beam'. This is simple stuff.
Oh and radioactive 'hot' is as easy to check as 'stove-hot'.
These liars and shills have their work cut out for them. They broke Japan. They bought it. It will cost about $20T to fix most of what they broke. These looting con-artists are just trying to 'walk the ticket'.
Not as simple as you think
You need to understand WHY the evidence was sufficient for the AEC in 1961. It's not as simple-minded as you make it out to be.
The investigation found that the brass buckle and the screw were radioactive. These items were clearly not radioactive before the incident, but they were radioactive after the incident. They were NEW radioactivity after the incident. Therefore, they must have been exposed to neutrons during the incident, and thus the conclusion reached that the reactor experienced a criticality excursion.
What we have here is are evidence of radioactive material where it is not supposed to be, and we have some radioactive concrete blocks. However, is the actual concrete, the sand, cement, stones.. of the concrete radioactive, or does it just have radioactive particles embedded within it. If you shoot a concrete block with a shotgun it will have lead pellets embedded in it.
The concrete was part of a building that contained radioactive material and that building experienced a large hydrogen explosion. The explosion certainly propelled material including radioactive material, and some of that may have become embedded in the concrete block.
However, that radioactive material is not NEW radioactive material. It is material that was made radioactive before the explosion. The explosion just redistributed this radioactive material, and embedded some in the concrete blocks. Because the material is not new radioactive material, but was made radioactive prior to the accident, there is no evidence of neutron irradiation, and hence no evidence of a nuclear explosion or a criticality excursion.
Just because you see some radioactive material lying around where it is not supposed to be doesn't automatically mean you've had a nuclear explosion.
Blast Sequence
:(
Arney Gunderson discusses some of the theoretical causative mechanisms for the nuclear explosion in the Fukushima-3 power plant. Was the blast ‘ground-zero’ formed at the reactor core, escaped corium or the fuel pool? Fuel theories aside, the reader can watch the improvised atomic explosive devise ‘go off’.
The initial (bang) flame (0.40) is sucked back in (0.43) and then BOOM (0.45)
And then the characteristic mushroom cloud forms.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0T1-WHbUds
Colorful Nukes in the sky
;)
The reader may wish to view some colorful solar flares and Red Giant Stars before reading the rather poorly informed opinion of the reader opining about nuclear blasts being absent color.
http://www.google.com/search?q=solar+flare&hl=en&biw=1203&bih=512&prmd=i...
http://www.google.com/search?q=red+giant+star&hl=en&biw=1203&bih=512&prm...
Gunderson is speculating beyond his expertise...
Gunderson is speculating beyond his level of expertise. You don't get "nuclear explosions" in nuclear fuel that contains only about 2% fissile material ( about 2% Pu-239, in this case). You don't get nuclear explosions in material where the fissile content is 20% or less. That's why the fissile material with 20% or less enrichment is designated as "low enriched" and are subject to looser controls since this material can not be made into a nuclear explosive. Courtesy of Princeton University, this is explained by Professor Glaser:
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/2005aglaser_why20percent.pdf
Below a certain limit, weapons designers attest that the construction of a nuclear weapon or explosive device becomes impractical.
The paper goes on to say why 20% is below that level, and the Fukushima spent fuel is down from that by another factor of 10.
Gunderson claims that the hydrogen explosion caused the compression of the fuel that initiated the nuclear explosion. Implosion as a way of initiating a nuclear explosion was originally suggested by Seth Neddermeyer at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project during World War II.
Neddermeyer experimented extensively with imploding metal and nuclear material. However, he discovered that one never got the necessary uniform implosion if one just put explosives around the target to be imploded. That's because one is attempting to push a denser material with a lighter material, the combustion gas of the explosive. This sets up the classic Raleigh-Taylor instability. One doesn't get uniform compression.
In order to get the type of compression needed, one has to have an explosive lens system to focus the detonation waves. Unfocused detonation waves just flat out don't work.
Gunderson made a point about the explosion being red or yellow. This argues AGAINST the explosion being nuclear. Nuclear explosions radiate at frequencies up to the X-ray region. In fact, quite a bit of the energy of a nuclear explosion comes out in X-rays. Therefore, the explosion should radiate all frequencies up to the X-ray region, including the greens, blues, indigos, and violets. The explosion should have been WHITE, not yellow or red. You get yellow or red explosions when the greens, blues, and violets are not present, as in a chemical explosion.
The unit 3 explosion was a few days after the unit 1 explosion and is more severe because it had more time to accumulate more hydrogen.
The evidence is overwhelming that this is NOT a nuclear explosion.
Not what he said …
:(
Not what he said …
“Minimize the strategic value” does not address the reality of a nuclear blast in Fukushima-3.
http://www.princeton.edu/~aglaser/2005aglaser_why20percent.pdf
About the Enrichment Limit for Research Reactor Conversion : Why 20%?
Alexander Glaser - Program on Science and Global Security
Conclusion
The preceding discussion demonstrates the usefulness of the distinction between LEU and HEU. Uranium fuel below 20% virtually eliminates the possibility that the material could be directly used for the construction of a nuclear explosive device. Specifically, LEU cannot be used in a simple gun-type device, both because of its large critical mass and the corresponding neutron emission rate. Simultaneously and coincidentally, at an enrichment level between 15–20%, plutonium production is sufficiently suppressed to minimize the total strategic value of the material. For both reasons, the 20%-limit represents a reasonable and even optimum choice as a conversion goal for research reactors.
The Plutonium concentration at Fukishima is TOO LOW
The Plutonium concentration at Fukushima is too low to support a nuclear explosion. See:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
Page 6 states that the Plutonium concentration threshold for a nuclear explosion is about 14% Pu-239 in U-238.
The fuel at Fukushima Unit 3 is between 7% and 5%. It goes in at 7% and comes out at 5%. Therefore, the concentration of plutonium in the Fukushima fuel is TOO LOW
Read comments above that hydrogen explosion was not focused.
A Total Crock
:(
Total Crock-of-Chit
As anyone who has directly witnessed or even watched nuclear blasts on TV.
Kind-of-stretching-credulity,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czyfmemWYok
This film will allow the reader to witness lots of nukes. Some can be quite colorful, unless black & white film is used.
The FIREBALL is WHITE
When you see video footage of nuclear weapons tests, the mushroom cloud, and smoke and other remnants of the explosion can give you a wide range of colors. But the initial fireball is WHITE
Nuclear explosions radiate energy all the way up to X-rays. Courtesy of the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/thermal.htm
The fireball from a nuclear explosion reaches temperatures greater than 1.0e+07 K, so that the energy at which most photons are emitted corresponds to the X-ray region of the electromagnetic spectrum. For detonations occurring below 30,000 m (100,000 ft) these X-rays are quickly absorbed in the atmoshpere, and the energy reradiated at blackbody temperatures below 10,000 K.
Temperatures of 10,000 K correspond to WHITE light. Even the white light from the photosphere of the Sun corresponds to a temperature of 5600 K to 6000 K. The radiation from a nuclear explosion is "whiter" than the white of the Sun.
Recall from your high school chemistry, that the red / yellow colors that Arnie Gunderson speaks of in the Unit 3 fireball correspond to the light given off by chemical reactions; not nuclear reactions.
Fukushima ATOMIC BOMB
:(
Hydrogen explosions at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power generation station, self-converted to at least one nuclear explosion. The plutonium enriched MOX fuel in Fukushima 3 is the prime suspect for cause of the uncontrolled nuclear fission blast. The induced radiation in concrete, steel, brass and other common materials is ‘the-smoking-gun’. There remains little (no) doubt that at least one nuclear blast occurred.
This proof is not some new, advanced physics concept. It dates to the discoveries of Nobel (Physics-1938) Laureate Enrico Fermi.
http://www.chemcases.com/nuclear/nc-02.html
In 1934, it occurred to Enrico Fermi, an Italian physicist, to use neutrons to produce radioactivity. In Rome, his group obtained a strong radon/beryllium neutron source and began to bombard the elements in order of increasing atomic number, beginning with hydrogen. Fluorine (Z = 9) target gave a radioactive product. In the next 3 years, the group identified 40 new radioactive isotopes.
Enrico Fermi received the Nobel Prize in 1938 for "his discovery of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for the discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons." Nuclear fission (the splitting of the atom) had taken place in Fermi's and other similar experiments. Scientists felt that this principle might be applied to construct an "atomic bomb" or a nuclear power plant.
www.nuc.berkeley.edu/dept/Courses/NE-162/Lecture1-history.ppt
http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventors/a/Enrico_Fermi.htm
Fukushima Mushroom Cloud
The detonation of MOX-fueled Reactor-3 is a black colored blast, with the characteristic implosion, explosion, light-burst and mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb.
http://newstabulous.com/footage-of-nuclear-reactor-3-explosion-at-fukush...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlmxMmVRSU8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx6IS0vrZOk
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFTKB00732520110314
The blast blast differs somewhat from the conventional thermobaric fuel ordinance GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb (MOAB); colloquially known as the Mother of All Bombs. At deployment, MOAB was touted as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon ever designed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_gk49n5djw
If it looks like a duck; walks like a duck; has feathers like a duck, and swims like a duck …
It is a duck.
But it doesn't look like a duck...
The detonation of MOX-fueled Reactor-3 is a black colored blast, with the characteristic implosion, explosion, light-burst and mushroom cloud of an atomic bomb.
==================
The "implosion" phase of the detonation of a nuclear device takes place totally within the confines of the nuclear device. I don't know what you "think" you are seeing with an implosion.
The Fukushima explosions lack a key feature that is one of the hallmarks of all nuclear explosions; the "double flash" effect:
http://www.waynesthisandthat.com/abombs.html
Nuclear detonations all experience a characteristic "double flash." Early in the detonation the explosion consists of two concentric spheres. The outer one is created by a sudden flood of radiation being absorbed by the surrounding air and heating it to incandescence. The inner one is the fireball of the vaporized solid elements of the bomb itself. The ionized structure of the outer shell makes it opaque to light from the inner shell so all that can be seen is the light the outer shell gives off. A millisecond or so after the detonation, the inner shell expands far enough that it blows through the outer shell and the glowing surface of the now exposed inner fireball can be seen, hence the second flash.
Conventional explosions produce mushroom clouds too.
It looks like a turkey, so I guess it's no duck.
bang - suck - BOOM
:(
This video shows the initial flame at Fukushima-3, before you even click to start. You are staring directly at it.
Once you push the start button, reclick. It is almost a double click.
If you freeze-frame this video between 0.00 and 0.02 Seconds you can see the initial blast.
Slide the time back and forth. Watch the bang/boom of Fukushima-3.
http://nuke-me.com/nuclear-power/fukushima-reactor-3-explosion-hd-march-...
This video auto-starts and you can see the initial flame bang/boom …
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx6IS0vrZOk
Oh, and one other thing … I am not certain that a double-flash is necessary and/or sufficient. It is however credible evidence of a nuclear blast.
Pack of liars
:(
Just another pack of lies by another pack of liars.
There was a double flash. Arney Gunderson pointed that out in a recemt video. The initial flame was sucked right back into the building.
CTBTO ruling
:
A formal CTBTO finding of an atomic explosion at the Fukushima Daiichi plant should be forthcoming. It is an open and shut case.
http://www.nrl.moh.govt.nz/faq/nrlreport2005-1.pdf
The CTBTverification significance of particulate radionuclides detected by the International Monitoring System
It is concluded that the significant fuel-products are:
237U, 239Np and 241Am;
and
significant fission products are:
95Nb, 95Zr, 97Zr, 99Mo, 103Ru, 105Rh, 115Cd, 126Sb, 127Sb, 131I, 131mTe, 132Te, 133I, 136Cs, 140Ba, 140La, 141Ce, 143Ce, 144Ce, and 147Nd;
This selection is validated by comparison with historical monitoring records; and these nuclides proposed to be the primary nuclides necessary for NDC screening of detections reported by the IMS.
CTBTO has spoken and you're not going to like it...
The CTBTO is charged with detecting clandestine nuclear tests. It monitors the air for signs of the radioactivity signature of a nuclear explosion. In order to do its job, CTBTO has to be able to distinguish between a nuclear explosion and a reactor accident. Otherwise, a nascent nuclear weapons country could claim that the radioactive signature was from a reactor accident.
Nuclear explosions and nuclear reactors have differing neutron spectra. This in turn means that they have differing fission product distributions. By taking ratios of two differing fission products, CTBTO can determine which fission product distribution is represented by a captured sample, and hence CTBTO can discriminate between a nuclear explosion and a nuclear reactor accident. From the CTBTO:
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.
The CTBTO states that the radioactivity measured clearly indicate radionuclide releases from a damaged nuclear power plant
The CTBTO detected the signature of a damaged nuclear power plant; and NOT the radiological signature of a nuclear explosion.
No smoking gun. The only thing smoking is the smoldering pile of discredited arguments of those that claimed it was a nuclear explosion.
Another feeble lie
:(
Actually, the referenced pages do NOT make any such conclusion.
The pages only chart radioactive Iodine and Cesium.
The signature radionuclides are not even mentioned.
Just another feeble lie.
The interested reader may wish to use a language translater to view the CTBTO blurb in English, Japanese or some other language.
Go to:
http://translate.google.com/#
Paste the referenced URL:
http://www.ctbto.org/press-centre/highlights/2011/fukushima-related-meas...
You missed the whole point
The signature radionuclides are not even mentioned.
==============
You completeley missed the whole point.
Iodine and Cesium and the ratios between them ARE the signature I'm referring to.
You get different ratios of Iodine to Cesium depending on whether they were produced by a reactor or a nuclear explosion.
CTBTO says the ratios they see are the signature of a reactor, and not a nuclear explosion.
NOPE
:(
I was just thumbing through my copy of the NRL Report to see if ANYTHING related to the I/Cs ratio popped up as relevant to atomic blast detection.
NOPE!
http://www.nrl.moh.govt.nz/faq/nrlreport2005-1.pdf
The CTBT verification significance of particulate radionuclides detected by the International Monitoring System
:(
Then you need to go study some PHYSICS!!
Evidently the people in New Zealand that wrote your reference don't understand nuclear explosions and fission products.
Here's a little primer. Nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons operate on two different neutron spectra. Nuclear reactors operate on a slow / low energy neutron spectrum. Nuclear explosions, by necessity, operate on a fast / high energy neutron spectrum.
The distribution of fission products; how much Cesium vs how much Iodine vs how much Strontium is dependent on the neutron spectrum.
Therefore, the fission product distribution is different for reactors and bombs. Therefore, to get a normalization-independent metric, you take ratios of the Cesium and Strontium concentrations for example.
Fission products from a nuclear reactor exhibit one ratio, and fission products from a nuclear explosion exhibit another ratio.
That's why the CTBTO referred to the ratio in their press release. They use that ratio to distinguish between a reactor accident and a nuclear explosion.
CTBTO has to have a method to make this distinction, otherwise a country attempting to make nuclear weapons that conducted a nuclear test could just claim to have had a reactor accident when CTBTO traced the fission products to them. Therefore, they could avoid international sanctions for violating the CTBT.
CTBTO uses the ratio to distinguish between reactor accidents and nuclear explosions. The CTBTO press released referred to above states that their measurements were consistent with a reactor accident, not with a nuclear explosion.
Let's see the spectral
Let's see the spectral analysis
What did the 'Eye in the Sky' pick up?
We already know there is a meltdown and criticality.
We already know about the seawater cooling contamination.
What are the hallmark radionuclides as indicated above.
CTBTO disclosure of .0001% of the data is not satisfactory.
There was evidently an atomic blast, as the CTBTO and the member states have been unwilling to disclose the data.
It is indicative of SHAME!
Ooh La La La
;)
Ooh La La La La LaLaLaLa
Caught like a rat .. . Even Frenchy economists are catching on.
http://economicsnewspaper.com/economics/fukushima-3-nuclear-explosion-19...
Stay Connected Thursday, August 11, 2011
Fukushima 3: Nuclear Blast
The discovery of concrete blocks in highly radioactive debris from the reactor 3 confirms the hypothesis that, contrary to what has been announced, the explosion of 14 March 2011 was not caused by hydrogen but by a chain reaction in nucléraire. NHK has published the news on April 24 but only experts understood what it meant http://www3.nhk.or.jp/daily/english …
“Among the debris of the building of the No. 3 reactor in Fukushima, we found a piece of concrete highly radioactive. block of 30 cm in width from 5 to diffuse thickness of 900000 microsiverts doses per hour, which is the sign that he was in contact with radionuclide Extremely active. TEPCO workers, heavily protected, we removed from the site and put in a special container. The débrits highly radioactive.”
This discovery confirms the theory of some experts that the powerful explosion that occurred on the Building No. 3 has nothing to do with hydrogen but is the consequence of a chain reaction of fuel nuclear, ie an atomic explosion.
The hypothesis of a nuclear explosion is also advanced by the member Japanese Takeshi Tokuda after he visited the hospital Minami Soma and talked with Dr. Oikawa, responsible for treating the injured from the accident. Dr. Oikawa explained that “When the explosion occurred hydrogen March 12, the débrits and rubble fell back on Futaba-machi located 2 kilometers of the plant. When we checked the rates irradiation of evacuated personnel from around the central rates REC SELECT disaine one of them exceeded the maximum capacity of the Geiger counter of the hospital, well beyond the permissible doses. This does not correspond to the official statement from the Head Cabinet Secretary (Minister 1) Yukio Edano who asserted that containment was not endomagée, there had been no dispersal of radioactive materials.
Ooh La La Classics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlhOgQ36m8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYPTX12L5Uw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7qGejxErTA
100 Monkeys
;)
There is a story about 100 monkeys. When the 100th monkey learned a certain trick, the entire species suddenly knew the trick. Whether or not that is a verifiable animal story is unknown.
However, with humans there is a critical mass. It appears that the Fukushima Nuclear Bomb notion has 'gone viral' at this point.
I entered a simple query into some common engines, with these results:
prompt criticality fukushima
Google: About 97,000 results (0.17 seconds)
Yahoo: ..56,000 results
Ask: total hits not shown, tired of clicking at 39 Pages