[LAU] OT: metal, money, changes, bleg

[Patrick Shirkey]

On 04/04/2011 01:51 AM, Arnold Krille wrote:
> On Sunday 03 April 2011 10:56:38 Patrick Shirkey wrote:
>    
>> On 04/02/2011 09:46 PM, Hartmut Noack wrote:
>>      
>>> Am 02.04.2011 05:27, schrieb Patrick Shirkey:
>>>        
>>>> more time to enjoy your remaining days on this planet until the nuclear
>>>> cloud of death from the impending atomic explosion at Fukushima of 1760
>>>> metric tonnes of radioactive fuel blankets the earth and kills us all.
>>>>          
>>> Could you elaborate on that?
>>>
>>> What makes you think, radioactive fuel could blow up in a "atomic
>>> explosion"?
>>>        
>> What makes you think it couldn't?
>>      
> The fact that there is not enough material there to form a critical mass.
>
>    

How say you? Has anyone modelled how much non compressed Plutonium is 
required for it to go to critical. Considering that it is melting 
through the earths crust at more than 5000 deg C and it only takes a few 
kilos of fuel to create Kilo Tons of explosive force it is a fairly high 
risk of a worst case scenario whereby the much denser plutonium 
seperates out and goes boom. Given how bad it is already I would not be 
surprised if it did go to critical and consume the whole facility. 
Although I have it on good authority that it is more likely to just 
explode with the force of a conventional weapon instead. Even if it only 
makes it to that point it would make a very big mess. I'm hoping for it 
to burn it's way deep enough into the crust so that it will effectively 
be an underground nuclear test if it takes off. I shudder to think of 
the results if it is close enough to the surface to escape into the 
atmosphere or ignite the whole facility.


> The stuff in an atomic reactor is not as clean and dangerous as the stuff needed
> for an atomic bomb.
>    

There is more than enough Pu-239 in the melted cores each containing 160 
- 180 metric tonnes of fuel to create a serious problem. In addition 
reactor 3 had 5% enriched MOX to start with. That still leaves 890 
metric tonnes of "spent" fuel rods which essentially means lots of Pu-239...

> The problem with the reactor material is when something else blows up and
> spreads the radioactive material like a dirty bomb (this is also what happened
> 25 years ago).

You mean like on Saturday 12 March or Sunday 13 March? Why do you think 
the Ronald Regan decided to haul arse out of the vicinity and then 
immediately swab the decks? It's not cause they were worried about a 
little Cesium or Iodine that's for sure!


> Another problem is that even the non-radioactive plutonium and
> uran are chemically bad stuff and poisonous for biological things.
>
>    

Yep. Injesting Pu-239 will poison you first before you get cancer. Just 
see Litvenenko for the results of that problem. However walking into a 
cloud of Cesium or Iodine which is currently blanketing The US and 
Europe will also cause you significant issues. Remember that just cos 
the total amount of it is dispersed that doesn't mean it was dispersed 
evenly. If I was in the Northern Hemisphere I would be staying away from 
diary, meat and foods grown outside for the next few months and keep in 
mind that Cesium has a half life of 30 years but the full life is more 
like 300 years...


> Carpe diem,
>
>    

At least time is relative :-)

My heart goes out to the Japanese in this tragedy. They are the ones 
suffering the greatest pain right now. It's absolutely categorically 
heart breaking. I don't know how the elite can be so cruel to require 
Fukushima as clandestine weapons program when there are already enough 
nukes to kill us all anyway.

It just defies all logic and rationale.

Something needs to change! This failed system we call the global 
military industrial complex and their puppet governments is a complete 
disaster!


-- 
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd.