Article

2003-08-14 -Short Attention Span Theater-

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2003-08-14 12:19:06 PM|| || Front Page|| [9 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I wonder what effect this bomb would have on man-in-the-moon marigolds.

Posted by Paul Zindel 2003-8-14 12:27:15 PM|| 2003-8-14 12:27:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Neutron bomb?

Posted by Chuck 2003-8-14 1:29:14 PM|| [http://blog.simmins.org] 2003-8-14 1:29:14 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Chuck--My first thought, too. Are they re-hashing 20 year old headlines?

Posted by Dar 2003-8-14 1:39:15 PM|| [http://users.stargate.net/~dsteckel/] 2003-8-14 1:39:15 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 All nukes produce heat, blast, and radiation. Radiation is from alpha and beta particles, and gamma rays. Not sure on this, but I believe alpha particles are electron-free protons, and aren't very energetic, so quite easily stopped (piece of paper takes care of 70% or more, even tight-woven clothing can stop them). Beta particles are different - may be high-energy neutrons released during explosion. They're harder to stop, but two feet of concrete does a good job, as does sufficient dirt or water.

Gamma rays are another kettle of fish. Gamma rays are high-energy particles travelling at the speed of light, and can penetrate several feet of concrete, eight inches of steel, etc. Gamma rays provide lethal dosages of radiation.

From what I understand, regular nukes produce loads of all three, along with energized secondary particles that have been irradiated, including dirt and debris. Neutron weapons are enhanced to produce larger than normal number of neutrons, which will kill people and soft targets, but don't damage infrastructure. These weapons also don't do much with hardened facilities.

Enhancing the production of gamma rays (significantly more energetic than x-rays, but otherwise working on much the same principle) would enhance the killing capacity of the bomb by making more people die of radiation sickness. It would probably also increase the secondary radiation effects, since gamma rays can affect the nucleus of some atoms. A gamma ray weapon would be a massive benefit against an attack by airborne forces, say (See the articles on China - coincidence?), or those in landing craft or other such vehicles. I don't think anywhere but the very center of a large vessel would be completely secure from a gamma ray weapon. Not only that, but secondary radiation may make the entire vessel/aircraft 'hot', rendering it useless for a considerable time, possibly forever.

Posted by Old Patriot 2003-8-14 2:17:16 PM|| [http://users.codenet.net/mweather/default.htm] 2003-8-14 2:17:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 The Guardian says:

"According to New Scientist magazine, the gamma ray bombs are already included in the US department of defence's militarily critical technologies list - a wish list of possible weapons technology that America considers essential to maintaining its superior firepower."

Well it's true that the Guardian largely draws from this article of the New Scientist. The interesting part here says:

"Scientists have known for many years that the nuclei of some elements, such as hafnium, can exist in a high-energy state, or nuclear isomer, that slowly decays to a low-energy state by emitting gamma rays. For example, hafnium-178m2, the excited, isomeric form of hafnium-178, has a half-life of 31 years.
The possibility that this process could be explosive was discovered when Carl Collins and colleagues at the University of Texas at Dallas demonstrated that they could artificially trigger the decay of the hafnium isomer by bombarding it with low-energy X-rays (New Scientist print edition, 3 July 1999). The experiment released 60 times as much energy as was put in, and in theory a much greater energy release could be achieved.

But not so fast: What sounds like the Incredible Hulk come true probably isn't (at least not yet): What the New Scientist fails to mention is that

"...physicists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, in collaboration with scientists at Los Alamos and Argonne national laboratories, have new results that strongly contradict recent reports claiming an accelerated emission of gamma rays from the nuclear isomer 31-yr. hafnium-178, and the opportunity for a controlled release of energy. The triggering source in the original experiment was a dental X-ray machine.
Using the Advanced Photon Source at Argonne, which has more than 100,000 times higher X-ray intensity than the dental X-ray machine used in the original experiment, and a sample of isomeric Hf-178 fabricated at Los Alamos, the team of physicists expected to see an enormous signal indicating a controlled release of energy stored in the long lived nuclear excited state. However, the scientists observed no such signal and established an upper limit consistent with nuclear science and orders of magnitude below previous reports.

Obviously neither the New Scientist and The Guardian did their homework. Took me 5 minutes. A journalist should spend some more time on the web, don't you think?

Posted by True German Ally 2003-8-14 3:09:43 PM|| 2003-8-14 3:09:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 FYI - There are radioactive decay processes (such as fission, alpha decay, and beta decay) and several different products (gamma particles (photons), beta particles (electrons), alpha particles (helium nucleii), and large fragments (lower atomic weight isotopes) and neutrons from fission). It gets a little complicated since radioactive decay can accompany fission.

Posted by Spot 2003-8-14 4:07:23 PM|| 2003-8-14 4:07:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Do you think Al-Guardian guy really thought about all this when he wrote it up? All he probably thought was, "Ooooooh! Gamma Rays! Scary!"

Posted by tu3031 2003-8-14 4:34:19 PM|| 2003-8-14 4:34:19 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Oh ya scary. Just like nuke power. Until you realise that the largest on going sustained nuke plant is about 93 million miles from the planet. Commonly referred to as the Sun. Similiarly, the Earth is constantly bombarded by gamma rays from space. People aren't running around scared of these things, even though thousands die every year from skin cancers and heat related injuries [France is up to several thousand this summer]. Just doesn't make good scare headlines for 'news' organizations.

Posted by Don 2003-8-14 4:53:22 PM|| 2003-8-14 4:53:22 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Actually, it isn't only ludites and anti-human tree huggers who don't like nuclear energy.

It titilates those easily excited by the promise of vast energy for little input but the price is heavy: it is not clean or cheap.

IT is very expensive to set up a nuke plant and extremely expensive to decommission one. The waste is a huge problem: nobody wants it for good reason.

Just look at Russia: decaying nukes all over the place. It's a disaster. The Soviet Union collapsed but all those N-plants are still radioactive. A proportion of land is now uninhabitable by human beings forever. But social systems have a habit of decaying long before forever.

Chernobyl is the least of anyone's worries. There are hundreds of minor accidents every year at reactors around the world. And the effects of radiation are cumulative and well-documented as both carcinogenic (cancer-causing) and terratogenic (monster-producing ie: genetic deformities).

Yes radiation from the sun causes cancer: who would know better than me? I live in the skin cancer capital of the world, my father nearly died of it. But that does not reduce the health threat of radiation from other sources!

The fact is there WILL be future generations after we have come and gone, and it is not fair to saddle them with this kind of legacy. Particularly since they may not be as technically advanced as us. They may have no knowledge of the danger and no way to combat it.

Posted by Anon1 2003-8-14 8:02:21 PM|| 2003-8-14 8:02:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Anon1--I understand, but regardless of what method we choose we're always going to have some sort of waste produced. At least with nuclear power, we can contain that waste and dispose of it (unlike coal or natural gas, which emit waste gases into the atmosphere). The nuclear waste can be contained, transported, and disposed in known locations.

We're gonna have to write off some location and say "Nuclear waste goes here," and bar it from all human and (ideally) animal access. There is no solution that's 100% pollution-free, and we need to make a trade off somewhere.

Posted by Dar 2003-8-14 9:35:05 PM|| [http://users.stargate.net/~dsteckel/] 2003-8-14 9:35:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Adding to Dar's response to Anon1, I'd note that the cost can be managed (somewhat) by standardizing on a single (or limited) number of plant designs that incorporate more passive fail-safe features, by making the regulatory process more rational, and by actually implementing the plans for long-term storage of waste (Yucca Mountain here we come).

The French get something like 60 to 70% of their electricity from nukes. If the friggin' French have figured this out, we ought to be able to as well.

Posted by Steve White 2003-8-14 10:07:15 PM|| 2003-8-14 10:07:15 PM|| Front Page Top

07:08 Kathy K
04:43 R. McLeod
00:48 fullwood
00:05 mojo
00:01 mojo
23:52 mojo
23:48 mojo
23:38 AWW
23:18 Bomb-a-rama
23:09 Alaska Paul
23:05 Alaska Paul
22:58 Barbara Skolaut
22:27 .com
22:20 tu3031
22:15 Steve White
22:12 tu3031
22:08 Anonymous
22:07 Steve White
21:47 Dar
21:41 tu3031
21:41 Dar
21:37 tu3031
21:35 Dar
21:29 Dar