NRC Wants 100 Times Higher Acceptable Exposure Level
The NRC is battling the EPA in order to increase the 'acceptable' public exposure limit to 100 times more than currently 'acceptable' in the case of a severe nuclear power plant accident. The NRC has already limited liability to the owners of the nuclear power plants to the resources of that plant alone (the melted down one), and now they want to increase the amount of allowable public exposure. BRAWM members, will this new 100 fold increase in the acceptable radiation exposure be acceptable for you and your children? View Arnie Gunderson's current post; also includes discussion on the fallacy of the MACCS2 method of exposure analysis which the NRC uses and it's designer has repudiated. GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out.
"Are Regulators And The Nuclear Industry Applying The Valuable Lessons Learned From Fukushima?"
http://fairewinds.com/content/are-regulators-and-nuclear-industry-applyi...
Eddie Haskell Math
:(
Eddie Haskell Math Errors
Things would be just peachy-keen in the mathematical model world, except for that gosh-darned atomic explosion in the Fukushima Daiichi Unit#3.
Apparently, the 'spherical chicken' assumption did not work out 'so pretty good' in the all too real physical world of MOX fueled GE Mark-1 containment system core meltdowns.
Gee whiz 'Wally', if we had not been expecting this for 30 years, it might have been a surprise. Yeah 'Beve' we're in BIG TROUBLE this time. Just wait till Dad gets home, we're gonna catch it for sure.
:(
The choice is clear...
The choice is clear.
On one hand, we have the pro-nukes who have been enlightening us with discussions of the Boltmann transport equation, Hermitian matrices, radiation physics....all matters of science. All pertinent physics to the question of whether the Unit 3 explosion was nuclear or not.
On the other hand, we have the anti-nukes and their proffer of proof for their claims, which is nothing more than snide remarks and the intricacies of "Leave it to Beaver".
I think intelligent people can discern who is giving us good information.
And then we have the actual
And then we have the actual Unit 3 explosion itself.
So why don't we approach this the other way around?
Is it possible, from the conditions assumed to be in the building just before it exploded, to make a Hydrogen explosion that is as powerful as the Unit 3 explosion?
Sure!!
Sure - a reactor core has about a ton of zirconium in it. Add to that all the zirconium in each of the spent cores in the spent fuel pool. When that zirconium overheats, it reacts with the water to form zirconium oxide. The zicronium, in essence "steals" the oxygen from the water molecule, and dissociates the water molecule. That leaves the hydrogen to be released. With all that zirconium overheating, the Fukushima power plants produced an awful lot of hydrogen. Combine that hydrogen with atmospheric oxygen and an ignition source and BOOM.
Unit-3 Nuclear Bomb
Thermolysis of water into hydrogen and oxygen increases dramatically with temperature.
An earlier misrepresentation by the Pro-Nuke crowd, was that the zirconium was non-combustible. Unfortunately for the earlier propagandists, Arnie Gunderson burned a small tube section in a video, using an acetylene torch and a water spray bottle.
Such continuous dissembling inspires ZERO confidence in the 'integrity' of nuclear powered electrical generation station designers, operators and/or owners; or the governments that sponsor their work.
The hydrogen explosions in the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-1 and Unit-2 were (subsonic) deflagrations. The explosion in the MOX fueled Unit-3 was a much more powerful (super sonic) detonation. Unit-3 was an impromptu atomic bomb.
The nuclear blast in Unit-3 points to an inherent contradiction in the CTBT provisions and the massive (wasted) international investment in MOX fuel production. The military industrial complex has egg on its face, (lots of egg). Their choices are lying or 'heads will roll'. Pretty easy to see which option was selected.
WRONG!
The hydrogen explosions in the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-1 and Unit-2 were (subsonic) deflagrations. The explosion in the MOX fueled Unit-3 was a much more powerful (super sonic) detonation. Unit-3 was an impromptu atomic bomb.
=====================================
Evidently, you don't know that a sufficient concentration of hydrogen can also detonate, and, by definition; the shockwave will be supersonic. Unit 1 had only 1 day's worth of hydrogen build-up. Unit 3 had about 3 days of hydrogen build up.
Chemical reactions also cause explosions with super-sonic shockwaves, counter to what Gunderson says.
The US nuclear weapons laboratories tell us that Pu-239 in concentrations of less than 14% in U-238 will not support a nuclear explosion. Gunderson has the physics of how chemical explosion driven nuclear implosions work all wrong. The work of Seth Neddermeyer at Los Alamos during the Manhattan Project showed that implosion doesn't work unless focused by explosive lenses. Where were the explosive lenses at Fukushima.
The initial flash and fireball of a nuclear explosion is always WHITE because nuclear explosion radiate X-rays, and therefore also radiate the full visible spectrum, yielding a white color.
Gunderson points out that the Unit 3 flash and fireball is yellow. That means it wasn't hot enough to radiate greens, blues, and violets. Yellow fireballs are a hallmark of a chemical blast; not a nuclear one.
Gunderson is all wet. He not a weapons physicist; he doesn't even have a PhD. Why would you discount the PhD weapons physicists who actually designed the US stockpile, and listen to Gunderson instead?
OOPS!
“The long-hairs have let it get away from them!” in the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 nuclear explosion.
http://dakotabeacon.com/entry/dennis_stillings_theology_of_the_atom_bomb/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1794/pg1
At the time of the Manhatten Project Trinity atomic bomb explosion, 5:29:45 a.m., July 16, 1945, General Thomas Francis Farrell exclaimed, “The long-hairs have let it get away from them!”
The next day he described the blast a bit more accurately. “For the first time in history there was a nuclear explosion; and what an explosion! The lighting effects beggarded description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun. It was golden, purple, violet, grey and blue. It lighted every peak.....of the nearby mountain range with a clarity and beauty that......the great poets dream about but describe most poorly and inadequately. Thirty seconds after the explosion came, first, the air blast pressing hard against people and things, to be followed almost immediately by the strong, sustained, awesome roar which warned of doomsday and made us feel that we puny things were blasphemous to dare tamper with the forces heretofore reserved to the Almighty.”
So many problems here.
So many problems here. First zircalloy is not combustible as long as there is water on it. If there is even an inch of water touching the bottom the conduction prevents combustion. Spraying water and using an acetylene torch is not an equal comparison.
You say it was an atomic bomb and a detonation. Any proof? You do know hydrogen can also detonate.
MOX has nothing to do with the military except that it is made with old weapons Pu. Also, the amount of mox was less than .1% of the fuel in the reactor at that time. Also, what CTBT provisions? There was no nuclear test.
NOPE
MOX has nothing to do with the military except that it is made with old weapons Pu.
============================
NOPE!! MOX is NOT made with weapons Pu. MOX is made from the plutonium from spent fuel from commercial reactors. The plutonium in MOX is "reactor grade" plutonium.
The weapons grade Plutonium made by the US Dept of Energy and its predecessors is either in a weapon, or in a DOE research or storage facility.
NOPE
MOX has nothing to do with the military except that it is made with old weapons Pu.
============================
NOPE!! MOX is NOT made with weapons Pu. MOX is made from the plutonium from spent fuel from commercial reactors. The plutonium in MOX is "reactor grade" plutonium.
The weapons grade Plutonium made by the US Dept of Energy and its predecessors is either in a weapon, or in a DOE research or storage facility.
I was
I was right.
http://www.moxproject.com/about/
Thats a plan
If you read your own post; you will see that there are future plans to dispose of excess weapons Plutonium by converting it to MOX.
However, that facility is yet to be built, and at present, MOX only uses Plutonium from spent reactor fuel.
Well the only mox is in
Well the only mox is in japan and some in Europe. There is no American mox since ours will be with weapon material. That was the whole point of mox, at least for us.
Orignially...
The USA was prepared to recycle reactor bred Plutonium as MOX back in the 1970s. However, the Carter Administration, and Congress in subsequent bills, namely the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1987; forbid reprocessing / recycling of spent fuel, and stated that the US policy on spent fuel would be a once-through fuel cycle with geological waste disposal at Yucca Mountain.
The use of weapons Plutonium is a more recent proposal, now that the US is drawing down its nuclear stockpile.
Wrong, wrong, wrong!
You're wrong - No, you're wronger!
This is one of the more ridiculous threads I've seen on this forum.
A humble and cautious empiricist would acknowledge that we do not know with certainty. TEPCO may have data that would tell us definitively whether the Reactor 3 explosion was hydrogen or nuclear. The fact that they haven't provided it means that either it was nuclear, or they don't have such data. We do not know.
Be at peace with that ambiguity because there is much more we do not know about what happens when nuclear reactors go wrong. Inaccurate statements of certainty are harmful. Secrecy - by anyone - is the most harmful. Let us collect data. Let us postulate what it suggests to us. Let us refrain from declaring certainty far too prematurely. Be a skeptic. If your hunch turns out to be correct, you can take pleasure in having a good intuition. If it turns out to be incorrect, instead of being mortified by the one-man parade of egoism you made out of yourself touting something incorrect, and having to deal with the cognitive dissonance creeping over your conscious awareness somehow, you'll instead think, with self-esteem fully intact, "Ah! I never thought of that! How fascinating. I'm glad I kept my mind open to all the evidence."
Come on now
Come on now. You know that if TEPCO came out tomorrow and said that the Unit 3 explosion was not nuclear, the antinukes would just say they are lying.
That's not going to resolve anything.
You're not advocating having an open mind. You are advocating having an empty one.
There's a problem with your
There's a problem with your logic.
First Principles
We don't need to rely on TEPCO, we can calculate the limits from first principles.
There is a minimum concentration of fissile material for a nuclear explosion. As an analogy, suppose I were to take some gasoline and water and mix them 99% gasoline and 1% water; that would still work in your car. But if I mixed them 1% gasoline and 99% water, that sure as heck isn't going to run in your car. So somewhere between 1% gasoline and 99% gasoline, there is a minimum percentage to work in a car.
Likewise, there is a minimum percentage of fissile material in bomb fuel or the bomb doesn't work. We can calculate what that percentage is.
There is also a minimum percentage for a reactor. If we want to fuel a reactor with natural uranium which is only 0.7% fissile U-235; then there are only two materials that can be used as the moderator; graphite and heavy water. A natural uranium reactor will not work with ordinary light water ( which is why our power reactors have fuel enriched to 3-4% ).
We can determine if a fuel will work or not by solving the Boltzmann transport equation for neutrons. Suppose we have a Boltzmann transport equation solver program for our computer. We can have the code turn off the calculation of neutron leakage. In reality, there is always leakage - it is a detriment to going critical. So if we turn the leakage off; that helps the system go critical. If the system can't go critical with the leakage off, it sure as hell can't go critical with the leakage on since leakage represents an additional loss of neutrons.
So if we take this "infinite medium" representation for natural uranium and water, and solve the Boltzmann equation; which is an eigenvalue equation, and we don't get a fundamental eigenvalue greater than one, the system won't go critical.
If we do such a solution for natural uranium and ordinary light water, we don't get a fundamental eigenvalue greater than one. We get a fundamental eigenvalue less than one. This tells us we can NEVER make a reactor go critical with natural uranium and light water moderator.
We can do the same thing for a bomb; with a modification. Bombs have to explode, which works on a very short time scale. Therefore, we can't wait for neutrons to slow down to low energies - the explosion would be over before then. So for the bomb calculation, if neutrons fall below a certain energy, then they are useless to a bomb. A bomb is inherently a fast neutron device. So we modify our Boltzmann solver to discard low energy neutrons which can not be used to run a bomb on.
We do the same type of calculation before with fissile material percentages of varying magnitudes. If you don't get an eigenvalue greater than one, then that percentage of fissile material can't be used to make a nuclear explosive.
The weapons laboratories have calculated the minimum percentages of fissile material. If the fissile isotope is U-235 mixed with U-238; there is a minimum concentration of U-235 that can be used to make a bomb. The precise value has not been released; but that value is above 20%. That means 20% enriched uranium can not be used in a bomb, and we don't need the type of security for 20% enriched, as we do for highly enriched uranium.
Likewise, there is a minimum percentage of Pu-239 in U-238 that can be used to make a bomb. Again, the precise value is not released, but for reactor grade Pu; that minimum percentage is above 14% That means if we have 14% Pu-239 mixed with U-238; we don't have to worry about that being used for bomb fuel.
Just as the case with 1% gasoline in 99% water; 14% Pu-239 in 86% U-238 just flat out WILL NOT WORK as a bomb.
Fresh MOX fuel for nuclear reactors starts out at 7% Pu-239, and goes down from there with burn-up.
We know from first principles and solving the Boltzmann transport equation that it is just plain flat out IMPOSSIBLE under the laws of Physics for 7% Pu-239 MOX fuel to explode as a nuclear explosive.
Sorry, but we DO KNOW
First, a mixture of Pu-239 and U-238 will NOT support a nuclear explosion if the percentage of Pu-239 is below 14%. If the percentage of U-235 in U-238 is less than 20%, it will also not support a nuclear explosion.
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.
This limit is given by the following paper, also courtesy of Princeton:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1977/7705/770508.PDF
Page 6 of the PDF ( page 143 of the paper ) states that the Plutonium concentration threshold for a nuclear explosion is about 14% Pu-239 (reactor grade) in U-238. Note in the footnote that this value was provided by Robert W. Selden of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos are the two US nuclear weapons design labs; and hence would be the most definitive of any source. After all, they are the ONLY two labs in the USA that have designed and actually tested nuclear weapons. They are also the only ones legally permitted to do same.
The concentration of Pu-239 in MOX is only 7%.
Additionally, the color of the fireball, and the lack of the "double flash" is CONCLUSIVE that the explosion was not nuclear.
Double Flash
The interested reader will note that Arnold Gunderson pointed out the DOUBLE FLASH, at the Fukushima Daiichi Unit-3 explosion, months ago in his video.
These strident pro-nuke propagandists have ZERO interest in truth, honesty, integrity, consistency, or scientific accuracy.
Thus, I seldom directly address their elaborate, tiresome and long-winded obfuscations.
But of course, the strident anti-nuke obfuscating propagandists are no better.
WRONG!
What Gunderson pointed out is NOT a nuclear "double flash"
Idiot Gunderson, who can't even do high school level mathematics; pointed to what he called the double flash WAY AFTER the shock which causes the double flash was long gone.
Idiot Gunderson wouldn't know a double flash if it was directly in front of him.
You would not get a double
You would not get a double flash. Even when prompt criticallity occurs, there is no explosive shock to create a critical density within the air to block the light. Prompt criticality events are nothing like a full nuclear explosion. So now you are saying Arnie is saying there is a double flash. This "expert" is pretty funny.
Correct
Correct. We actually make laws and regulations based on those numbers.
We don't want any old entity to be able to possess nuclear material that is usable in a weapon. In the USA, we generally restrict possession of weapons usable fuel to the Government. ( There are a few exceptions. )
So the USA had the weapons laboratories determine concentration limits, so that we can say, "If we give a corporation access to nuclear material of X% to use in a reactor, there is no possible way that material could be put to use as bomb fuel."
The idea that we have to rely only on TEPCO to determine if Unit 3 was nuclear is ludicrous. Are we going to dispense with all our knowledge of Physics.
Suppose a United Airliner crashes, and some idiot says that the Boeing 777 exceeded the speed of light in a vacuum. Some physicist says, "No - that is impossible".
However, some other person says, "NO, Dr. Physicist, we can't say that. We have to have an open mind. United Airlines might have the data as to whether the Boeing 777 exceeded the speed of light, but they aren't saying. Because they aren't saying, we will have to assume that the Boeing 777 actually exceeded the speed of light in vacuum".
The poster above can keep an "open mind" if he wants, but he better be careful that all his knowledge doesn't fall out.
What a nuclear meltdown does to children
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fCCVU4y7oE
I know how terrible the
I know how terrible the video is. But that was not caused by Chernobyl. There has not been a statistical increase in birth defects in that region shown pre 86 and post 86. Propaganda has no place here.
Interesting thread
In reading this thread, one can certainly discern the manifest difference in intellectual levels of the pro-nukes vis-a-vis the anti-nukes. A word to the anti-nukes, being snide, self-righteous, and full of bravado doesn't equate to intellect.
We see once again the anti-nukes parroting the anti-nuke websites claiming that there is a difference in harm due to radiation depending on whether the radioactive species is "natural" or "man made".
We see in this thread that the anti-nukes are not conversant with the correspondence between radiated color and temperature. How long have our pediatricians and veterinarians had those digital thermometers that you stick in a child's or animal's ear in order to take their temperature? You would think most people would have a clue. These thermometers work on the basis of analyzing the spectrum of the radiated energy.
However, the anti-nukes so desperately wish the explosion at Unit 3 to be a nuclear explosion, that they are willing to totally discount a rather useful tenant of physics. They compound their error by not knowing how stars work, and that the light we see from stars does not come from the nuclear core.
We also see the dismal spectacle of the anti-nukes' ability in logic. Yes, the anti-nuke websites tell them that "natural" radioactivity is OK, but that "man-made" radioactivity is sinister and a plot by corporate America to kill all its customers.
The central question to ask is when an electron from a radioactive nucleus damages the DNA in a human cell, how does the cell know whether that electron came from a "natural" or "man-made" radioactive species? According to the anti-nukes, if the radiation was from a "natural" radioactive species, everything is OK because we've adapted. If it is from a "man-made" species, then that human cell should turn into a cancer.
How does the cell know?
The point is that the cell can't know. That means "natural" radioactivity is every bit as cancer causing as "man-made" radioactivity. Humans and other animals have evolved DNA repair mechanisms to cope with natural radiation, and those mechanisms work equally well on "man-made" radiation.
However, the anti-nukes never appear to have the intellectual "horsepower" to ask this question. What ever happened to "critical thinking"? The anti-nukes just appear to parrot the arguments they read on anti-nuclear websites without analyzing them for consistency.
Of course, that's what the anti-nuke website owners are counting on. I guess if you don't have the brainpower, you don't have the brainpower.
just a small mistake
Dismiss and categorize. Categorize and dismiss. So much eloquence finely focused has undone what it seems you've set out to do.
The effects of novel radioisotopes on living systems include the synergy of novel chemistry and novel atomic decay. This is really just common sense for anyone involved with life sciences.
Long suppressed research in this area is just now being published. If your still learning and would like to know more about how these novel isotopes do their damage I suggest regularly looking for papers as there are few today but quite a number in weeks and months to come.
I look forward to your critical thinking enhanced with the latest research.
Condescending
Well, speaking as a member of the technically cognizant, who slightly leans toward continued nuclear use in defense, space, medical, research and electrical power generation ...
I am NOT planning on drinking the Puple Koolaid. The differential hazards of Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Neutron irradiation and radionuclide ingestion, are quite simple.
Certainly, the spectral correlation to temperature is simple. Duh, but it is evidentiary and not probative. Observed color does not always correlate to the core temperatures at the source. Filtration is common, as evidenced by the sun and moon changing colors as they move from horizon to overhead. No change in temperature, but rather dramatic variations in observed color.
We have Greenies and Pro-nukes on these threads and BOTH blow a considerable amount of smoke up our collective keisters. Both sides are rather preachy, condescending and obfuscating fools. I routinely LAUGH at the nutball assertions of both sides.
I remain slightly pro-nuclear, due to long familiarity with the real plusses and minuses of the technology. The childish liars do not sway me in either direction. A frank assessment of reality is satisfactory. Thus the range of discussion between most of the BRAWM Team, Arnie Gunderson and the Russian academy are given much more weight than the rude protestations of the prevaricating propagandists from the fringe elements of Pro-Nukes and Anti-nukes.
RAINBOW
Here are a few atomic explosion photos, including the KIWI fission rocket intentional explosion. Nukes may display any of the colors of the rainbow.
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/testpix/index.html
http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=1204597
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/06/nuclear-bomb-testing-photos_n_8...
Do the calculation if you can
The Sun's color is filtered by the atmosphere which gives us the red dawns and sunsets. However, you have miles and miles of air filtering the Sun's rays.
As was pointed out to you, the distance between the source of the blast in the Unit 3 reactor building until we can see the fireball is on the order of the dimensions of the reactor building. How much filtration do you think a couple hundred feet of air can do; especially when you have such a large amount of energy coming off a nuclear explosion?
Your pathetic argument about filtration doesn't hold water. The other posters are correct. All the flashes from nuclear fireballs have been white.
Additionally, there is another characteristic of all nuclear explosions that is missing from the Unit 3 explosion, and that is the "double flash".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
The high temperatures and radiation cause gas to move outward radially in a thin, dense shell called "the hydrodynamic front." The front acts like a piston that pushes against and compresses the surrounding medium to make a spherically expanding shock wave. At first, this shock wave is inside the surface of the developing fireball, which is created in a volume of air by the X-rays. However, within a fraction of a second the dense shock front obscures the fireball, causing the characteristic double pulse of light seen from a nuclear detonation.
The shockwave from a nuclear blast can compress the surrounding air above the "critical density". Light can't propagate in air above this density, and the air becomes opaque. However, because it is now opaque, it absorbs all the radiation coming from the explosion, and heats up, and becomes less dense. The density falls below the "critical density" and we can once again see the fireball. Hence, the "double flash".
That happens on all nuclear explosions, but didn't happen on the Unit 3 explosion.
WRONG - it does with a nuke
Certainly, the spectral correlation to temperature is simple. Duh, but it is evidentiary and not probative. Observed color does not always correlate to the core temperatures at the source.
=============================
WRONG!! It does with a nuke. A substantial portion of the energy of a nuclear blast comes out as radiation.
Now; why don't you tell me what physics can drop the radiation temperature of that much energy in a fairly small distance - like the size of the Unit 3
reactor building.
WRONG!!! Does three
WRONG!!!
Does three exclamation points mean that I am more right? That can be left for another day. Back to the point at hand. A nuke's temperature cannot be judged by the light emitted. The plasma generated by the nuclear explosion has a critical density that is opaque to radiation emitted by the core of the explosion. The light is reflected around in the plasma until its density has changed to the point of being transparent to the radiation.
Either way the fact is the unit was not a nuclear explosion. Even if a recriticality event occurred, it would not even be that powerful. People say the explosion looked like it was not a hydrogen explosion because it was larger. I can fill a balloon with hydrogen and it would look different than the hydrogen explosions at the reactors, doesn't mean it wasn't hydrogen.
Which takes a fraction of a second.
The light is reflected around in the plasma until its density has changed to the point of being transparent to the radiation.
----------------------------------------------------
That takes a fraction of a second, and we once again have a plasma that is transparent to radiation, and hence we can judge its temperature from its spectrum.
QED
At that point the
At that point the temperature is far below what it was initially.
many people in this country
many people in this country do not care about what is happening in japan. every last person should care.
But still in the millions
At that point the temperature is far below what it was initially.
======================================
Not really "far" below. It is still in the many millions of degrees when the opaque layer "burns through". The device is still radiating primarily in the X-ray region, and of course every frequency below the X-ray region.
That means the ENTIRE visible spectrum is radiated at that time, and hence the color is WHITE
Thus someone looking at the event would see a WHITE fireball.
You're HALF right!
The plasma generated by the nuclear explosion has a critical density that is opaque to radiation emitted by the core of the explosion. The light is reflected around in the plasma until its density has changed to the point of being transparent to the radiation.
====================================
You are half right. Now think it through!!
Yes - the shockwave compresses the air above the critical density, and the air becomes opaque. However, because it no longer can transmit the radiation, it has to absorb the radiation.
That heats the air, it expands, and its density falls below the critical density and we get the double flash.
Not absorb,
Not absorb, reflect.
Link
search electron critical density.
Someone needs to study their plama physics
Not absorb, reflect.
======================
Some refection, some absorption. However, if you absorb even a tiny fraction of the radiated energy ( which is at least several kilotons ), then the opaque matter is going to heat and expand until it is no longer opaque.
This is very well known physics and is responsible for the "double flash" seen in every atmospheric nuclear explosion.
It cools when it expands.
It cools when it expands. The shock wave causes the rapid expansion which lowers the critical density. I somehow feel like we are debating the same thing.
WRONG!!
The PdV cooling is INCONSEQUENTIAL compared to the absorption of radiation energy from the bomb.
Are you saying that the cooling would cause the density of the material to once again go over the critical density? If that were the case, then it would mean that the light from the fireball would again be blocked by a opaque layer.
In that case, we would have a "triple flash". But we don't!
Have you ever heard of someone talking about a "triple flash"?
NOPE -because it doesn't happen.
Nuclear explosions will "double flash" and not "triple flash".
This isn't a game. It is a Physics problem. Mother Nature has decreed one and only one answer. In this case, your answer is WRONG
Besides, your own quote says that the plasma again becomes transparent to radiation. When it does, then the radiation can escape, we can see that radiation and measure its spectrum.
The weapons laboratories used the radiation as a diagnostic. Atmospheric tests had "light pipes" to catch the radiation so they could determine internal temperatures.
Take a look at the following article about the Ivy Mike device:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivy_Mike
Take a look at the second picture and its caption which states
The long pipes would receive the first bits of radiation from the primary and secondary ("Teller light") just as the device was detonated.
See if you can find an aerial view of a nuclear test like Ivy Mike. You will see surrounding the island are a series of towers with mirrors on them. Those mirrors reflected light back to the diagnostics bunker on nearby Bogon Island. There's a picture in Hansen's book, "Nuclear Weapons", that shows the arc of the mirror towers. I have yet to find an online picture. However, I do have this reference to the arc of the mirror towers, as a similar setup was used on Castle Bravo:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo
It was mounted in a "shot cab" on an artificial island built on a reef off Namu Island, in the Bikini Atoll. A sizable array of diagnostic instruments was trained on it, including a number of high-speed cameras which were trained through an arc of mirror towers around the shot cab.
The precise reason for having those mirrors is so the light from the fireball can be reflected to the diagnostics bunker and measured. If you can't tell anything from the radiation, then why did the weapons labs field diagnostics which precisely looked at the radiation spectrum?
You are not looking at the
You are not looking at the radiation temperature. You are looking at the plasma temperature and conditions. Plasma temperatures are do not follow the Planck distribution since it is not a black body. The plasma is also in non-LTE conditions. The color is white, but the temperature cannot be calculated by assuming it is a black body.
Where did I say LTE?
You are not looking at the radiation temperature. You are looking at the plasma temperature and conditions. Plasma temperatures are do not follow the Planck distribution since it is not a black body. The plasma is also in non-LTE conditions. The color is white, but the temperature cannot be calculated by assuming it is a black body.
========================================
You have a serious problem with reading comprehension!!!
Where did I say LTE? Where did I say Planckian? Where did I say radiation temperature.
You will note that when referring to the data taken during the nuclear test, I specifically said "radiation spectrum"
I chose the word "spectrum" precisely because temperature was not apt!
It was like "pulling teeth", but you finally admitted that the color of the nuclear fireball is WHITE.
Gunderson notes the Unit 3 fireball is yellow, not white.
The Unit 3 explosion is not a nuclear explosion.
QED
I never said it wasn't
I never said it wasn't white. I was saying you can't get the information you were saying from it. Either way I still think we are really just arguing semantics.
OK!
OK - we agree. The flash from a nuclear explosion is WHITE
Gunderson specifically pointed out that the color of the Unit 3 explosion fireball was YELLOW.
A Yellow fireball; where the combustion doesn't have enough energy to radiate the greens, blues, and violets; is the hallmark of a CHEMICAL explosion.
So I guess we agree that the Unit 3 explosion was not nuclear.
Now how do we educate the others here who have been DUPED by Gunderson's faulty Physics?
Is Gunderson applying valuable lessons from High School
http://fairewinds.com/content/are-regulators-and-nuclear-industry-applyi...
======================================
Some "engineer"; Arnie Gunderson can't even do high school math properly.
In the above video, Gunderson takes a 6% probability for a single plant and multiplies it by 60 plants to get a probability of 360%
Evidently, Gunderson doesn't know how to add probabilities.
Let's take the case of finding the probability of getting at least one head from a toss of 2 coins. The probability of a head from one coin is 50%, so if we use the technique Gunderson uses in the video, we multiply 50% by 2 which equals 100%. So we have a 100% chance of getting a head.
In reality, there are 4 possible outcomes, each with a probability of 25%:
25% Coin A is Heads Coin B is Heads
25% Coin A is Heads Coin B is Tails
25% Coin A is Tails Coin B is Heads
25% Coin A is Tails Coin B is Tails.
If we want to know the probability of getting at least one head, then the probabilities of the first 3 cases need to be summed to yield 75%
There is a 75% chance of at least 1 head, and 25% chance that both coins come up tails - which is the logical negation of the question asked. The correct answer is 75% and not 100% by Gunderson's method.
How can Gunderson talk probabilities about complex systems like nuclear power plants, when he can't do simple high school probability math.
Appalling!
Yes - that is an appalling lack of mathematical skill on the part of someone who claims to be a "nuclear expert".
For those that don't know, the correct formula for the probability of at least one occurrence of an event when the unit probability is 6% and there are 60 units is:
P = 1 - (1 - 0.06)^60
That is nothing like Gunderson's formula where he multiplies 0.06 and 60.
Gunderson is a paid shill for the anti-nukes, who has been WRONG the vast majority of the time. Still the gullible simpletons that are the anti-nukes hang on every word he says, because they like what he says.
They should, they bought and paid for it.
Isn't that what the anti-nukes claim the nuclear industry is doing - paying for media shills? I don't see nuclear industry paid media shills posting on YouTube.
Another case of the pot calling the kettle black
Also looks like reality in
Also looks like reality in nuclear energy production--2 level 7 accidents in 25 years--is a little different from the probabilities calculated and promoted by the nuclear industry, isn't it? Where did they learn their probability math?
And I wonder who you are
And I wonder who you are paid for.
I'm not paid by anyone.
I'm not paid by anyone to post here.
I am a scientist; and when I see people listening to a scientific charlatan, I want to do my best to educate them.
What do you think a medical doctor would do if some medical "quack" was offering people a bunch of poor medical advise that could harm their health?
A good medical doctor would attempt to educate the people. A good M.D. would demonstrate that the "quack" is a "quack" and people should not listen to the "quack".
Besides, does it really matter what my motives are?
If you are half-way intelligent, you can CLEARLY see that Gunderson got that high school level mathematics problem WRONG.
Whether I am paid or not doesn't change the reality; Gunderson got it WRONG. Gunderson can't do mathematics that we expect high school students to do.
As someone said above, some "expert" (term used loosely)