Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Study prove Fukushima caused byearthquake in the first minutes not the tsunami

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by WillyThePimp View Post
    Isn't it funny that a merely 60 Kg of uranium on the Hiroshima bomb released an amount of energy equivalent to 15 kilotons of TNT? Do you even have a basic insight of how nuclear fission works? Hydrogen bombs are nuclear bombs, but those release energy by means of nuclear fusion, not nuclear fission. Per mass, nuclear reactions have much much more energy potential than compared to chemical ones. Starting a nuclear explotion requires you getting the reactant to a critical mass point very fast, which requires a lot of energy. Hiroshima bombs had more chemical explosives by mass to do this part than the nuclear shit that was supposed to light up. Now i dare you to put what i have said into perpective, as i don't want to explain this furthermore, and stop being such a smart-ass.

    (Though now i think what you refer as hydrogen explotions is the literal meaning of it, not the nucler kind, my point holds still, no way a nuclear explotion could've happened at fukushima)
    o man if i want to write fission bomb then i write it.

    a hydrogen gas bomb is a chemical bomb oxidation with the oxygen in the air.

    and please watch this video: http://videos.arte.tv/de/videos/fuku...u-6439122.html in this video many international experts also a American expert (Arnold Gundersen nuclear Engineer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen)-point out that the explosion in the reactor 4 was not a hydrogen chemical one. also Japanese nuclear experts point out that the explosion in reactor 4 was not a hydrogen chemical one.

    the explosion in reactor 1-3 are hydrogen explosions "Clean" no black smoke and no "Mushroom"

    please watch the videos the first 3 explosions are hydrogen really different to the last one.

    also the reactor 4 never run! the reactor 4 was OFFLINE! but the earthquake breaks the cooling ponds of the MOX Plutonium fuel rods

    the reactor 4 was the most dangerous of all reactors.
    Last edited by Qaridarium; 03-10-2012, 02:49 AM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Any large explosion can cause a mushroom cloud, there is nothing special about nuclear explosions that cause it. Nothing except their power.

      A mushroom cloud is caused by the high temperatures at the center of the explosion, which causes the air to rise up until it begins cooling and starts spreading out at the top.

      And there's no reason having particles or a clean explosion means anything either. It just means a dirty explosion set something on fire, or otherwise created particulates in some manner.

      It's possible that the material coming out of there was radioactive (just like a normal fire could spread anything it burns, including radioactive material) but the idea that the explosion itself was nuclear is pretty laughable.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
        but the idea that the explosion itself was nuclear is pretty laughable.
        Arnold Gundersen nuclear Engineer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen is laughable ?

        this guy pointed out in this video that at minimum 50% of the energy in the explosion was based nuclear and not chemical!

        the same guy prove the new US American nuclear power reactor wrong: "Arnold "Arnie" Gundersen [...]a former nuclear power industry executive [...]who has questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000"

        and: "Gundersen holds a master's degree in nuclear engineering" he surely knows better than you!
        Last edited by Qaridarium; 03-10-2012, 03:55 AM.

        Comment


        • #19
          So, tell me Quazimodo, how do your "experts" explain how the cooling pond fuel achieved criticality?

          You do know that the fuel in the cooling pond is arranged so that even under the most optimum conditions, it will never become critical. Conditions in the cooling pond were not optimum.

          You have no idea about energy density do you? A chemical explosion being stronger than a nuclear explosion? LOL! It all depends on how much explosive you have. To have an explosion of the same 'strength' as Hiroshima, you would need a block of dynamite 20m long by 20m wide by 20m high. The 'pit' in Little Boy was about 1m in diameter.

          Hydrogen burning, which is what those explosions were (ever put a lit splint into a test tube of hydrogen at school and get a pop? That's what happened here, but on a bigger scale), releases 121 MJ (million joules) per kg. Little Boy released between 54 and 75 TJ according to wikipedia and that was only 600-800milligrams of uranium (again, according to wikipedia).

          So, which explosion is bigger again?

          Oh, sorry, these are FACTS. You don't do FACTS do you?

          Comment


          • #20
            "It all depends on how much explosive you have."

            you just claimed it the other way around. this is exactly my point! not your point!
            your point is: the explosion is small means its not nuclear.
            and this is just bullshit! you can build a smaller nuclear explosion than a chemical one.
            only stupid people think nuclear is "Bigger" explosion.

            Originally posted by Shielder View Post
            So, tell me Quazimodo, how do your "experts" explain how the cooling pond fuel achieved criticality?
            its the same way why you need less and less and LESS nuclear fuel to build a nuke today because there are ways to use LESS nuclear fuel to get a nuke!

            the expert in the video call it prompt criticality the wikipedia article about this is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical

            Wikipedia: "In nuclear engineering, an assembly is prompt critical if for each nuclear fission event, one or more of the immediate or prompt neutrons released causes an additional fission event. This causes a rapid, exponential increase in the number of fission events. Prompt criticality is a special case of supercriticality."

            also: "With the exception of research and experimental reactors, only a small number of reactor accidents are thought to have achieved prompt criticality, for example Chernobyl #4, the U.S. Army's SL-1, and Soviet submarine K-431. In all these examples the uncontrolled surge in power was sufficient to cause an explosion that destroyed each reactor and released radioactive fission products into the atmosphere."

            and:
            "It has been argued that the explosion at Fukushima Dai-ichi #3 may have also involved a prompt criticality, either before or immediately after the hydrogen explosion. Nuclear engineer Arnie Gunderson has suggested that the detonation wave visible from the explosion videos is evidence that a more energetic reaction than a hydrogen explosion was involved [1]."

            Originally posted by Shielder View Post
            You do know that the fuel in the cooling pond is arranged so that even under the most optimum conditions, it will never become critical. Conditions in the cooling pond were not optimum.
            you are just naive and dump there is a chance to become critical its called the "Prompt critical" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical

            this means you are just a ignorance person !

            "To have an explosion of the same 'strength' as Hiroshima, you would need a block of dynamite 20m long by 20m wide by 20m high."

            you are also naive here to because i show you a chemical bomb "FOAB" with much less need of Volume to get the same power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_of_All_Bombs
            Blast yield : 44 tons TNT

            "The 'pit' in Little Boy was about 1m in diameter."

            the FOAB do have similar Volume. with a higher Blast!

            its easy to build a stronger chemical bomb than a nuclear bomb! and you don't need any special tools!

            Originally posted by Shielder View Post
            Hydrogen burning, which is what those explosions were (ever put a lit splint into a test tube of hydrogen at school and get a pop? That's what happened here, but on a bigger scale), releases 121 MJ (million joules) per kg. Little Boy released between 54 and 75 TJ according to wikipedia and that was only 600-800milligrams of uranium (again, according to wikipedia).
            So, which explosion is bigger again?
            Oh, sorry, these are FACTS. You don't do FACTS do you?
            LOL you just talk bullshit really fact is: reactor 1 and 2 and 3 do have a hydrogen explosion watch the video BIG different and reactor 4 do have an explosion with a much greater blast and much different in "color" i ask you why?

            the answer given in my video is: the MOX fuel become Prompt_critical and explode and gets at minimum 50% of the energy out of nuclear atom splitting.
            Last edited by Qaridarium; 03-10-2012, 04:39 AM.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
              Arnold Gundersen nuclear Engineer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_Gundersen is laughable ?

              this guy pointed out in this video that at minimum 50% of the energy in the explosion was based nuclear and not chemical!

              the same guy prove the new US American nuclear power reactor wrong: "Arnold "Arnie" Gundersen [...]a former nuclear power industry executive [...]who has questioned the safety of the Westinghouse AP1000"

              and: "Gundersen holds a master's degree in nuclear engineering" he surely knows better than you!
              If that's what he said, then yes, he is laughable. The laws of physics don't change just because you want them to.

              I highly suspect that's not actually what he said and you're just twisting words/misunderstanding him as usual. Perhaps if you linked to somewhere he made the claims in english i could explain it to you, but i don't speak german so that video doesn't mean much to me.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                If that's what he said, then yes, he is laughable. The laws of physics don't change just because you want them to.
                in the video there are many experts with the same message for example: the japanese nuclear professor yugioh yamaguchi

                he also point out that its possible! because : he point out that so many nuclear particles can only pushes so high in the sky if it was a nuclear explosion

                is yugioh yamaguchi also laughable ?

                and there is another one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Busby

                Christopher Busby also point out that high risky particles can only be found 200km away in car filters because of the nuclear explosion he claim that no hydrogen explosion can cause this.


                Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                I highly suspect that's not actually what he said and you're just twisting words/misunderstanding him as usual. Perhaps if you linked to somewhere he made the claims in english i could explain it to you, but i don't speak german so that video doesn't mean much to me.
                the persons talk in English only the translator voice is in German if you listen carefully you can check the English original message.

                anyway you just make it easy for you only because you can not speak "german" LOL english is not my nativ language why i should read english sources? only to support your laziness ?

                Comment


                • #23
                  now its proven the japanese goverment lie 3 month in a round to the people about the meltdown of the nuclear fuel:

                  http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/t...820499,00.html

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The TEPCO leadership wanted to completely abandon the Fukushima plant. Only a threat of the Japanese prime minister to abolish TEPCO changed their mind.

                    Some things what the prime minister had to say in the TEPCO central:
                    "What the hell is going on! The survival of Japan is at risk!"

                    Yukio Edano - Chief Cabinet Secretary at the time: “Tokyo would have been finished”

                    Welt.de: Ein Wutanfall verhinderte atomares Horrorszenario
                    RT: TEPCO nearly abandoned burning Fukushima

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                      in the video there are many experts with the same message for example: the japanese nuclear professor yugioh yamaguchi

                      he also point out that its possible! because : he point out that so many nuclear particles can only pushes so high in the sky if it was a nuclear explosion
                      Again, what is in an explosion is completely separate from what feeds/causes an explosion. I highly suspect you are conflating the two concepts here, and your "experts" are talking about the former while you claim the latter.

                      It's not surprise that radioactive material was present in the fallout - we're talking about an explosion within a nuclear power plant, after all - of course nuclear particles are going to be spread.

                      anyway you just make it easy for you only because you can not speak "german" LOL english is not my nativ language why i should read english sources? only to support your laziness ?
                      Only if you want me to believe what you're saying. I know from experience you really don't, you just want to start arguments, so whatever.

                      Oh, by the way, i have proof it wasn't a nuclear explosion:
                      LLSHSJLBHF LKHB VDMKLSD KDLVHSDL VDLSHDSL LDSIKHVLDSHV SVDLIHVSL
                      Not satisfied that my argument is correct? Learn a foreign language and maybe then you can see what i'm arguing about.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        Again, what is in an explosion is completely separate from what feeds/causes an explosion. I highly suspect you are conflating the two concepts here, and your "experts" are talking about the former while you claim the latter.
                        o really.... i know the difference between the source of the energy of the explosion and the cause of setting up the setup a energy source ready to explode.
                        no in this video they realy mean: the energy in the explodion was 50% or higher made of nuclear Atomsplitting. and this is posible because of : "Prompt critical" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prompt_critical
                        a normal nuclear bomb is supercriticality.--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_mass
                        for a "Prompt critical" explosion you don't need a Critical MASS!
                        a Prompt Critical explosion is always a mix of energy sources you need a chemical explosion to make the "Setup" to become a Prompt Critical moment of the nuclear fuel.

                        and in the video they really talk about a prompt critical nuclear Explosion! this means the energy of the explosion comes also from the nuclear fuel.

                        "prompt critical nuclear Explosion" is a way to make very tiny smal nuclear explosions.


                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        It's not surprise that radioactive material was present in the fallout - we're talking about an explosion within a nuclear power plant, after all - of course nuclear particles are going to be spread.
                        thats not the question the question is: why 200km away?

                        and they point out that only a "prompt critical nuclear Explosion" can push the fallout 200km away! a hydrogen explosion CAN'T!

                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        Only if you want me to believe what you're saying. I know from experience you really don't, you just want to start arguments, so whatever.
                        last time you was surprised that my argumenation are logical and your argumentation was not.

                        but hey in the ENGLISH wikipedia about "prompt critical nuclear Explosion" is a part about fukushima! this means you don't need a english version of the video the wikipedia alone fit perfect for you!



                        Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                        Oh, by the way, i have proof it wasn't a nuclear explosion:
                        Not satisfied that my argument is correct? Learn a foreign language and maybe then you can see what i'm arguing about.
                        there are to different nuclear explosions:

                        "prompt critical nuclear Explosion" VS supercriticality (Critical mass) nuclear Explosion.

                        back in 1945 they only know about supercritically critical mass nuclear explosions!

                        the prompt critical stuf is found later and is used to downsize nuclear weapons.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Fenrin View Post
                          The TEPCO leadership wanted to completely abandon the Fukushima plant. Only a threat of the Japanese prime minister to abolish TEPCO changed their mind.

                          Some things what the prime minister had to say in the TEPCO central:
                          "What the hell is going on! The survival of Japan is at risk!"

                          Yukio Edano - Chief Cabinet Secretary at the time: “Tokyo would have been finished”

                          Welt.de: Ein Wutanfall verhinderte atomares Horrorszenario
                          RT: TEPCO nearly abandoned burning Fukushima
                          yes very SAD! these Tepco managers and General Electric Managers Really should be executed!

                          General Electric know from the start one that the nuclear power plant was NOT SAVE! and was not secure against Japanese ultra strong earthquakes and zunamis!

                          also the TEPCO managment also known that all security standarts are violated beause of capitalism and money saving!

                          Proved Tepco Quote: "Backup? LOL are you MAD this costs MONEY we need no BACKUP we NEED SAVING MONEY! to make more Profit!"
                          Last edited by Qaridarium; 03-10-2012, 09:49 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Where is there video of the reactor 4 explosion?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by johnc View Post
                              Where is there video of the reactor 4 explosion?
                              http://videos.arte.tv/de/videos/fuku...u-6439122.html

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                At what time in the video?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X