Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts

Alan Baker wrote:
In article <p4fqg.115365$H71.109221@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On 30 Jun 2006 14:57:02 -0700, "Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> chose to
bless us with the following wisdom:


Mayor of R'lyeh wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jun 2006 22:38:59 -0400, ZnU <znu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> chose
to bless us with the following wisdom:

In article
<gmgraves-6EAF2F.00360528062006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
George Graves <gmgraves@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In article <pan.2006.06.28.03.20.23.556980@xxxxxxxx>,
TheLetterK <non@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:40:52 +0000, Warchild wrote:

In article <ks2dnVCl0Z7bfTzZnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"John" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27/gore.science.ap/index.html

Al Gore is not relaying a theory that he whipped up on his
own. The theory on the origin of global warming have been
around for the past fifty years.

More like 30-40. 50 years ago, they were more worried about
global cooling.

The difference now is that we are now actually being
impacted by the consequences of global warming, and that even
if we act now, we will still be suffering for many decades to
come. If we fail to act, we will be suffering much worse.

The problem is that no one has a workable plan for doing
anything useful.

That's because there is NO useful plan and even if there were
one, it would take decades to put into effect. The world simply
cannot just stop producing CO2. There is no technology or,
indeed, set of technologies, on earth that could be implemented
quickly enough or thoroughly enough to counter global warming IF
it is caused by human activity. And if it's not caused by human
activity, there's nothing we can do but ride it out.

Nuclear power. It's reasonably cheap, we know how to do it, and
unlike solar or wind, it can be scaled up pretty much as far as
you'd like.

And thanks to envirowhackos spreading lies about it 3/4 of the
population thinks a nuclear reactor is an A-bomb in a different
form and wants nothing to do with one.

Er, Mayor... a nuclear reactor *is* an A-bomb in "different form!"

Nuclear reactors cannot explode. They are not A-Bombs.

This is true given proper operation of the reactor.

This is true all the time.

Or so they would like you to believe.

<URL:http://ans.engr.wisc.edu/phpws/index.php?module=faq&FAQ_op=view&FAQ_
id=15>

"Q: Can a nuclear reactor explode?

A: It is physically impossible for a commercial nuclear reactor to
explode like an atomic bomb, whether by accident, sabotage, or any
other cause. The composition of nuclear fuel used to generate
electricity is quite different from the materials used in a bomb."

I provide quotes below that show bomb material and nuclear fuel are the same
material.


All you need for an atomic explosion is a big enough piece of
uranium to achieve critical mass. The first A-bombs worked by
having a piece of uranium missing from the main mass that was
forcibly assembled to it by a conventional explosive charge.

Actually the Gadget was an implosion type bomb as was Fat Man.
Little Boy was the only one of the first batch that was a gun type.
Which doesn't matter anyway. Nuclear reactors don't work like either
type.
Its a bit like saying that a patio block is the same thing as the
Collesium because they both have concrete in them.

No, it's more like I'm saying all you need for an atomic blast is to
collect enough nuclear material into a large enough lump that it
achieves critical mass. Reactors keep this amount of material
separate by containing it in fuel rods, and using control rods, but
nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. All that's
missing is the right type of sabotage or accident.

No, Edwin. Atomic reactors don't use the same mix of isotopes as
atomic bombs.

Yes, Alan, they do. Read my quotes below.

The uranium in a reactor can't achieve criticality
because it isn't sufficiently enriched (enriching is the name for the
process by which the natural mixture of uranium isotopes is modified
to favour more Uranium-235).

Enriching just means increasing the percentage of U-235, or Pu-239, which my
quotes below identify as both bomb material and as nuclear fuel. That just
means you need a bigger pile of it to get an atomic blast.

"The isotopes desirable for a nuclear weapon are those which have a high
probability of fission reaction, yield a high number of excess neutrons,
have a low probability of absorbing neutrons without a fission reaction, and
do have a low spontaneous fission rate. The primary isotopes which fit these
criteria are U-235, Pu-239 and U-233."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design

"The most common fissile nuclear fuels are 235U and 239Pu, and the actions
of mining, refining, purifying, using, and ultimately disposing of these
elements together make up the nuclear fuel cycle, which is important for its
relevance to nuclear power generation and nuclear weapons"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Al Gore Gets Global Warming Science Right According To Experts
    ... Nuclear reactors cannot explode. ... Can a nuclear reactor explode? ... I provide quotes below that show bomb material and nuclear fuel are the same ... nonetheless what's needed for an atomic bomb is there. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Condi in Moscow
    ... be necessary to use tactical nukes without a guarantee that nuclear ... materials it is only couple hundred kilograms. ... surely you can hide a bomb - but not a production. ...
    (soc.culture.baltics)
  • Target Countries Galore for the Nuking.
    ... Russia to build atomic plant for Burmese junta ... Russia has agreed to supply Burma with its first nuclear reactor, ... about the spread of nuclear technology around the world. ... government wanted a nuclear reactor, ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • fRANTZA si ienergiea niukilara
    ... French nuclear reactor maker eyes UK ... Areva's factory in Burgundy has built a quarter of all the world's ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: Myanmars Nuclear Power Generator
    ... Myanmar over the purchase and installation of a nuclear power station. ... buy a nuclear reactor from Russia have been in the pipeline for years, ... the planned research center will come under the control of the IAEA. ...
    (soc.culture.china)