Friday, January 24, 2014

Fukushima WAS a Nuclear Explosion, Here Is The Proof

If you like this stuff, sign up as a follower.   Also follow the whale, LOL



The only way that the tens of tons of uranium and plutonium shown by US EPA air samples could occur was if the explosion came from within the reactor vessel, and/or spent fuel pool.   So clearly the explosion was a nuclear type of explosion from within.    Nuclear promoters have long stated that nuclear plants can't blow up in a nuclear explosion.    We know this to be a lie.  In fact Chicago's own Argonne National Lab has video from back in the day when it was "cool" to perform open air tests to blow up reactors to prove the nuclear chain reaction can blow up the reactors.    The special type of Nuclear Explosion is called a "prompt moderated criticality".



A blast from a "hydrogen explosion" would come from a wide area where hydrogen would be, Hydrogen is the lightest element, so it would float up and fill the reactor building from the top down.   If it truly was a hydrogen explosion, and it wasn't, then the blast would come from the top down.   The fuels would be compressed into their deep containments, not launched thousands of feet into the air as did occur.

I am going to stop calling these things reactor vessels, and instead call them "Radiation Cannons"

Here is the Argonne National Lab proof of concept Even Arnie Gundersen chimed in to clarify the nature of the Prompt Criticality
This Prompt criticality doubles in power every millionth of a second and causes incredibly rapid power increase that is the destructive nature of a bomb. The second type of prompt criticality is called a prompt MODERATED criticality, which is what I believed happened at Fukushima.

Here is his whole email on the subject
Gundersen Email

Now we do know that tens of tons (at least) were launched into the air and effectively aerosolized by the Radiation Canon (aka reactor vessel).   Simply using the density of the uranium and plutonium in the air as presented by EPA air sampling tests that are data mined to reveal their dirty little secrets.   All that data and the simple calculations to calculate mass using known density and area/volume of dispersion are HERE-

http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/p/uranium-aerosolized-into-atmosphere.html

Read the link above, its important.   It is the smoking gun.   Here is a excerpt table from the calcs in the link above, from EPA data


One thing to note, the nuclear promoters know that plutonium is a dirty word, and many laymen know how dangerous plutonium is.   In the table above, EPA states ND supposedly for "None Detected" but in reality, that is a lie as the real story was "not tested".    3 facts: in reactors, as uranium burns, it turns into some percentage of plutonium.   Also any "spent fuel" will therefore also contain plutonium.  And finally in Reactor, aka Radiation Canon 3, they were using MOX fuel which is a uranium with highly concentrated Plutonium.

The nuclear promoters try to lie to cover up their dirty little secrets, to protect "their precious".  

Bottom line....if there is uranium in the air, there is plutonium in the air.

Below you find 3 separate sources proving the Plutonium detected in USA and even as far as Lithuania. 

Plutonium Admission by EPA

Just today, ENENEWS broke an article showing plutonium in New Mexico with the Fukushima "signature"
http://enenews.com/facility-director-we-saw-fukushima-plutonium-out-in-the-new-mexico-desert-local-and-regional-contaminations-of-plutonium-in-the-environment-have-resulted

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22206700


And just for good measure, here is the video of Radiation Canon 3 exploding.   Note the huge chunk of steel/concrete that was launched upward, and the apex, it falls off to the left.



Wouldn't it be better to remove the Radiation Cannons from your Backyard?   Remove them all from the HOME PLANET.

Per blogger "AGreenRoad"----http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/10/fukushima-plutonium-detected-in.html
Now, why do you think that they are claiming nothing happened at Fukushima, and nothing harmful came out? They cannot afford to let you know the horrible truth of what happened.

Toxicity of both Uranium and Plutonium are functions of their radioactivity AND even more importantly, they are highly toxic heavy metals.    Their One-Two punch is a killer.

A 1996 testing of 144 Beagles given inhaled Plutonium killed 141 of the dogs within 1.5 to 5.4 years.  Bone tumors killed 93, Lung tumors killed 46, and liver tumors killed 2 (although liver tumors were found in 20 dogs, just that the Bone and Lung killed quicker).


 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8927705



Maybe we ought to stop putting this stuff into Radiation Cannons?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Engineering support for the Energy Required to create the Explosive Effect at Reactor 3 (from a reader)


Yes it was a nuclear explosion. We did the math here on March 31, 2011 and showed in the Fukushima Mega-thread that a nuclear detonation occurred.

How much energy is required to raise both the refueling crane and reactor vessel cover to a height of 450 feet?

It would require 10,968,750 horse power (HP); by assuming the height of the hydrogen vent tower to be 150 feet, the reactor containment vessel top appears to have gone two and one-half times higher or 450 feet; The top of the reactor vessel weighs 2000 tons. It requires 12.1875 HP to raise one ton in one second.

So we needed 10,968,750 HP to raise 2000 tons 450 feet in one second.

1 HP = 0.000641615568281 tons of TNT or we have 7037.7 tons of TNT.

7 kilotons of TNT just to lift the top of the containment vessel off

You have further force required to raise the refueling crane to that same 450 feet of height.

It was instantly obvious to any observer with a rudimentary knowledge of Physics that this was an explosion possessing force that could in no way be the result of a steam explosion.





40 comments:

  1. Thanks, this simple as the nose on your face analysis makes it obvious. We been dosed in the biggest ever spread of the worst of radioactive heavy metals.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't even know what to say after reading this article. You can't seem to articulate one coherent concept and none of your thought make any sense. Also the video you linked is to safety tests performed by Argon National Laboritories and demonstrates how boiling water reactors are inherently safe by producing steam which reduces their reactivity coefficients.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice reply Mike, Troll it is.

      Delete
    2. There were no "pieces of fuel rods been found several Kms away from the reactor".

      When I first heard that rumour I looked everywhere for corroboration, but with no result.

      I think it's a misinterpretation of a report that found minute quantities of Pu, and they were trying to identify if it came from Fukushima or not.

      If anyone has a good source that contradicts this, I'd love to read it.

      Delete
    3. @anon,

      Clear evidence of fuel rods blown out of reactor, video from TEPCO

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2014/01/mox-and-experimental-fuel-laying-in.html

      Delete
    4. Apparently you haven't done your research. The rods in the rubble are exactly like the experimental nuclear fuels that the French have been creating.

      Oh and does your average pipe have "closed ends" in 6" segments.....hmmmm, these aren't pieces of pipes that have been blown to pieces, and have nicely cut ends that also happened to "close up". Sorry dude, you are treading on pro nuke troll grounds already.

      Oh wait....did you say pellets....I thought rods were only long and thin, oh you mean the outer casing and not just the fuel inside. Sorry dude, you been busted again.

      Oh yeah....that's why they bulldozed the access roads to the plants with remote bulldozers, and then steel plated them...same with the parking lots and access to the control building. hmmmm.....do you think that is because the rods were too hot to pick up and they needed immediate access.....

      Check out these rods...exactly the same thing as what is in the rubble. And check out the "rust paths" in the rubble. Now what is your theory on those?

      http://nukeprofessional.blogspot.com/2012/01/fuel-rods-in-rubble.html

      Delete
    5. The above calculation is WRONG!!! First the statement that 1 HP = some amount of TNT equivalent is NOT dimensionally correct. HP is a unit of power and TNT equivalent is a unit of energy. So you have power = energy which is WRONG. Power is the rate of energy = energy per time.

      Let's do the calculation correct. Let "2000 tons" be 2000 metric tonnes = 2 million kilograms = 2.0e+06 kg

      The height is 450 feet which is about 150 meters

      The gravitational potential energy is mgh ( the product of mass, gravitational constant, and height )

      E = mgh = (2.0e+06 kg) * ( 9.8 m/s^2 ) * ( 150 m) = 2.94e+09 (kg-m^2/s^2) = 2.94e09 Joules

      A ton TNT equivalent is 4.184 gigaJoules = 4.184e+09 Joules
      ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent )

      Therefore E = 2.94e+09 Joules / ( 4.184e+09 Joules/ton TNT) = 0.7 tons TNT

      Note; that's TONS, and not kilotons. The calculation above is off by a factor of 10,000

      That 0.7 tons is smaller than the smallest possible nuclear explosion

      Actually, this proves the explosion was NOT nuclear. Nuclear explosions destroy entire cities; the Unit 3 explosion didn't even destroy the building.

      Delete
    6. @Not Crazy, indeed the commenter above has done some calcs, and has completely missed the point. A moderated prompt criticality is a nuclear explosion, which is different than a nuclear bomb explosion which is designed for a particular effect (really big boom). His calc is "less than the smallest possible " completely ignoring the difference between a nuclear bomb and a prompt moderated criticality, the same DISINGENUOUS mistake that he makes while stating that a nuclear explosion destroy whole cities.

      Sad how even those with some engineering training completely lie and miss the point to protect "their precious" technology.

      Delete
  3. That troll should be the 1st one to die from radioative poison. He deserve it!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well Dude, you got it about25% right. How does an completly empty reactor- the mox explode? search the www for JIM STONE- read about what REALLY happened.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/.......Click on FUKUSHIMA after checking out the front page for the new photos of the Fu site.

      Delete
    2. Jim Stone also did a couple of radio interviews. The other one was with Kerry Cassidy

      Did the Dimona Dozen murder the Fukushima 50 (Full Interview)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9Dll2gM1Q&list=PL-nw5HJjzqdXCTNxDD710ZQE2S7xR0K5m

      Delete
    3. Jim Stone has an agenda and an ax to grind, and although he does good research and has uncovered some useful things, his willingness to depart from reality to gain hits makes everything he does have to be taken with a grain of salt.

      Delete
  5. plum-gate: Hatrick Penry

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go away freak-troll. Retarded globalist shill.

      Delete
  6. They knew BEFORE one was ever built how volatile these were and built them anyway! Bottom line, as usual, the "almighty buck"!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kids getting sick in Hawaii-

    http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/site/index.php?pageid=event_desc&edis_id=BH-20131211-41910-USA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, people think that the only risk of radiation is "cancer, somewhere far in the future", and that is not true, it brings on a lot of near term sicknesses, and weakens the body to defend against "native stuff" in our environment that we would otherwise just shrug off. How much you want to bet these 25 sick school kids recently did a school trip to a shoreline area?

      Delete
  8. 1 millionth of a gram of Plutonium is enough to kill 1 human.
    After it can be absorbed by other animals / humans since it stays radioactive for very time. Thats not safe!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stevens

      Delete
    2. I see, the Manhattan project secretly gave him almost a full micro gram of P238 and P239, and it did kill him, although it didn't give him cancer.

      Just shows how evil the nukers are.

      Delete
    3. How about them beagles with inhalation rather than injection? 100% death in 1.4 to 5.2 years and ALL died of cancer or disease directly related to the Pu inhalation.

      Delete
  9. Your Nuclear Pimp, David McFarlandDecember 30, 2013 at 11:23 AM

    It's actually due to the radiolytic decomposition of water; with a sufficient neutron flux to break water apart - present in nuclear reactors at all times - and without a sufficient gamma flux - present only during criticality (which is perfectly fine - a uranium reactor is "critical" when it's operating at power, it's not a bad thing at all, "prompt-critical" is the one you worry about). Without sufficient chemistry control (i.e. no one was in the plant to do it) there wasn't enough of an oxygen-scavenger in the coolant to get rid of all of the oxygen.

    Due to the melt-down, contamination was present within the reactor coolant; when they went to relieve pressure, the hydrogen and oxygen combined in the air - when you do it properly, it creates water. When you don't, it creates an explosion, which, along with the fact that they were relieving over a thousand-pounds of pressure to actually propel the contaminated coolant to that explosion point, and the fact that it was over a thousand points of pressure being that it will act like an explosion on it's own, you get a large amount of contamination spread.
    Still better than a nuclear explosion.
    To believe that, I'd like you to show me the physics on it.
    Considering I'm probably the only one who's viewed this webpage that actually knows the physics, I'll be waiting a while.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh I see, they were inside the reactor building, doing the manual vent, and it exploded, but no one died. I see, it all makes sense now.

      Quoting you "A thousand points of pressure" hmmm you aren't stating your point clearly, your statements ramble without coherency.

      Delete
    2. Your Nuclear Pimp, David McFarlandDecember 31, 2013 at 6:06 PM

      How is "a thousand pounds of pressure," not coherent? How about over 1000psig? That more coherent for you? How about this: Boiling Water Reactors have to get hot, and still have to use liquid water. This means they have to be at a very high pressure. Sometimes, that pressure gets too high, specifically during a melt-down, and you have to relieve that pressure. When you do, it causes a massive hydraulic-shock to the plant, dislodging contaminated particulate. This massive pressure release essentially sucked out a lot of this "CRUD," (named for Chalk River Unidentified Deposits) and blew it into the atmosphere. Bad day, but not as bad as it could be.

      Also, I'm not as familiar with the GE-BWR-3 & 4s as I like.

      Being "inside the reactor building," and being "inside the reactor compartment," are entirely different statements.
      Especially as they weren't inside the reactor compartment, they were inside the reactor building. The RC is inside of the "reactor building," just as your kitchen is inside of your house. If you just so happen to have several feet of water and steel between you and your kitchen when there's an explosion inside your kitchen, it's perfectly logical that you could survive the blast, especially when that shielding is designed for that purpose.

      So I don't see why you're being so sarcastic about people being able to survive a massive pressure/hydrogen explosion when they were behind shielding designed to be able to do just that - keep them alive in such a case.
      "Manual Vent," doesn't have to be "local", either. There are also "Remote-Manual" procedures, which involve using a series of valves to lift other valves, i.e. some valves are controlled by other air valves, which are often controlled electrically (or, for your understanding, that would NOT be considered manual), or the air-control valves can be controlled by hand (manually) to lift other the other valves that actually release the pressure. In fact, this is a common design to ensure redundant safety in reactor plants.

      Even in the event that these valves that actually release the pressure/hydrogen must be operated by hand, that is not to say that the source of the explosion will originate at the valve; the piping downstream of the valve can vent to another room.

      So, yes, it all does make sense. Turns out people thought about these things.

      I'd still very much love to see you, or anyone else for that matter, try to actually explain how poorly-enriched U-238 causes a nuclear explosion. That'd be fun. Wow me.

      Delete
    3. "In the event" in your third last tome, indeed that was the case in Fukushima and they had to manually operate. In fact, they were trying to buy car batteries to replace the battery backup system, but they werent sure the purchase would be approved by corporate TEPCO, so they didnt, and explosions resulted. Jesus, save these poor humans who think like that. And those who try to cover up.

      11 close calls in USA last year.....and yet pimps promote this crap....oh yeah....its clean , real clean, and doesnt cost much.....just your genome. c'mon man all the kids are doing it, even China

      Delete
  10. Pu 239
    is a reaction by-product ?
    It occurs naturally in the earth's core .
    maybe no evil intent , just stupid .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Very little Pu239 exists "naturally", only the "natural" OKLO fissioning event produced Pu239, and that was many half-lives ago.

      Delete
  11. Try to link a good original real floor plan of R3, use Jing

    ReplyDelete
  12. 3/11 was Japan's 9/11. It's all documented folks! :
    http://www.jimstonefreelance.com/fukushima1.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think that either of these events was planned specifically, except by arrogance, ignorance, and greed. However, nuclear can be a country/society killer.

      Delete
  13. Im fairly sure we are terraforming this mud ball for it's future inhabitants......thanks and appreciate a brake down of the dynamics in this "process".... only rational explanation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is odd for sure, and just because Occam has a cool name doesn't mean his razor cuts to the truth.

      Delete
  14. Hi stock - thanks for these articles. About the beagle experiment - I looked at the link and it says: 'The dogs inhaled one of two sizes of monodisperse aerosols of 238PuO2 to achieve graded levels of initial lung burden (ILB). '

    How much Plutonium did these dogs inhale, exactly? Again, trying to explain nuclear danger to others who won't listen.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. About 350 micrograms is a "pretty sure kill".
      Some people say 1 microgram is enough to kill. Well thats true, even I microgram could start a cancer that killed, but it is not likely to.

      At 350 Micrograms it is "pretty much for sure" going to kill

      Delete
  15. Ill say it again. Unit 3 was not a prompt moderated criticality. The neutron flux from such an event would have sent many to the hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  16. if a hydrogen explosion occured it would have exploded from the top down as hydrogen floats. A top down explosion they claim cannot fling material up into the air.

    I'm no expert but imagine this. Get a metal barrel. Fill it say 90% with water or sand. Cover the entire mouth of the barrel with paper. Place a small explosive device on top of the paper and ignite the explosive.

    Dont tell me that an explosion above the water/sand will not fling material up into the air

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Vince, now adjust your thought experiement. Fill the vessel only 20% of the way, and make the vessel pretty tall compared to overall volume.

      Now do your blast. Does more than half of it fly out?

      Therein lies the difference with Fukushima. We did not state that not a single bit of low lying material would be flung up in a hydrogen explosion/deflagration/detonation

      Delete
  17. Its now the 31st October 2014, and the troll who said "no pieces of fuel rods" has been proven wrong. Even main stream corporate media, who are usually the last to find out, have admitted this. NHK have also stated that the rods were blasted at least 130km away. It just goes to show: the truth always comes out in the end.

    ReplyDelete