The Dumb And The Dumber.

[ilikekicks]

http://news.yahoo.com/atom-bomb-nearly-exploded-over-north-carolina-1961-230654850.html

 

I came across that article on Yahoo. I wanted to laugh but found I couldnt. I find it sad that human beings still play with such things.

 

Any of us whom have taken a history course know 2 bombs of such type were dropped on Japan. The devastation it caused and all of its after effects.. Yet we moved on.

 

This story in the link shows yet another possible disaster.

 

Then there were some submarines. Both the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had nuclear submarines lost. The gamble with the planets water supplies from such a thing.

 

Now, in modern times, we had the reactor meltdown in Japan.

 

Am I the only one whom feels the gamble with such things really isnt worth it? How safe is such an energy form in reality?

 

Thoughts?

 

[Dr. Shoe]

People who play with fire....

[SF]

....and the safety systems worked as designed.....

today the U.S. can't even launch a man into space.....

[hoverfly]

That period was a hot time in the Cold War. Those bombs were put into service where the risk of war was more of a concern than the perfection of safeties on nukes. The B-47 and B-52 were kept airborne 24/7 to guarantee that a response was available after first strike attack. Several accidents had happen, not one bomb detonated because of the safeties. Keep in mind the technology was kind of primitive. After the ICBM was perfected, the bombers stayed on the ground unless there was an actual need to be airborne. The risk of an accident was reduced, and if anything happened to the ICBM in the silo it was contained, I can recall one incident for the U.S. As for nuclear power, it’s a new technology stuff happens. The fear from accidents and unjustified fear from those accidents, the delay of the construction of safer power plants have actually made the situation much more dangerous. When the nuclear power plant was first developed in the U.S., the first 2 generations of reactors were developed and built between the 1940’s and 1960’s with a completion of the last two in the 1990’s after a period of long delays. The nuclear power plants in the United States are 2nd generation or 2nd plus generation and construction for the next generations is almost at a standstill. As experience was gained newer and safer generations would halve fallowed to replace the previous ones here in the U.S. however this has not happened. All because government will not take action no matter what the politics are. I ask you this question, was the automobile any safer back then compared to todays? But we did not stop building them and we still continue to pollute the air. Japan was in the process of replacing their aging reactors, Fukushima reactor one was to be shut down the same year of the meltdown. Though this has a side to it, life in Japan continued after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it will with Fukushima.

[meganiwish]

Ah, but the thing is, it was kept secret.

[hoverfly]

Ah, but the thing is, it was kept secret.

Well if it actually went of it would not have been a secret.

[meganiwish]

No, and your point is?

[Guest]

Either I heard about this incident several years ago or there has been others. Dropped in error in the air and on the ground even in the UK!

 

Fuel drop tanks also released inadvertently due to cross connections or due to the switches being so close a clumsy finger.

Empty makes a dent, full is at the minimum a wet smelly puddle and if splashed on clothes takes many washes to get the smell out. Hiding the fact of a spillage doesn't go away.

 

Supposedly it is alleged, a USAF aircraft at Greenham Common dropped 2 fuel tanks one landing near 65ft from a B47E with a 1.1megton bomb on board. it took 16 hours to put out the fire and over 1000000 gallons of water to extinguish. The normal explosive ignited and spread the atomic particles over a radius of 8 miles. 

It is searchable on google.

 

What isn't findable is that the Indian navy when it was buying their Harriers. The reps on site at Kingston were often asking for certain cable assemblies that were not being installed on their aircraft. Harriers had a nuclear capability. However the Indian ones were not fitted with any part of the system.

The reps got banned from the procurement and drawing/design offices unless invited (and escorted).

 

We only know of what has or may have happened in the western world, we do not know of the easts incidents.

 

We live in trust with a lot of hope, a hell of a lot!

 

Al

[Pumped]

There was another instance where an atomic bomb was released of the coast of the state of Georgia, USA. The bomb was released because of some problem with the airplane and it was never recovered. In recent years people have searched for it but it is believed to be burried under several feet of silt and is very difficult to locate even with modern equipment.

[hoverfly]

No, and your point is?

Boom=very big hole in ground.

[meganiwish]

I think you're mistaking my point.  We all know what a nuclear weapon can do.  But the chaps who are so keen to know what you're putting on-line were less keen for anyone to know what they very nearly did.  I think we're singing from the same hymn book.

[docs41]

If we knew of all the nuclear accidents, or near accidents, few people would support nuclear energy. Think of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the most recent in Japan. Couple those with the accidents with nuclear weapons that have occurred since WWII, why do we mess with it? It's is pretty obvious that nuke plant builders can't cover every eventuality considering the accidents that I mentioned. We even build them near active earthquake faults. The plant in San Onofre, CA is one of them. Einstein worked on the Manhattan Project, and he had serious reservations about what they had created,

[dww]

I watched a telly program not so long ago, about the Russians and their suitcase nuclear bombs, they made about 120 of these things for spies etc to keep around the world. The bad thing is they cannot account for about 80 of them and don't know where they are, about 2 mega tons each if I remember correctly. Bit worrying.

[hoverfly]

I watched a telly program not so long ago, about the Russians and their suitcase nuclear bombs, they made about 120 of these things for spies etc to keep around the world. The bad thing is they cannot account for about 80 of them and don't know where they are, about 2 mega tons each if I remember correctly. Bit worrying.

More like in the low kiloton range.  Mega ton bombs are very heavy! 

[heels59]

Any "suitcase nuke" is a dirty bomb, spewing radioactive material around with conventional explosives. You cannot reach critical mass in anything remotely near the size a man can carry. Furthermore dirty bombs have a very short shelf life, since lethal dosages of radiation require a high decay rate and thus a short half-life.

[Shafted]

since lethal dosages of radiation require a high decay rate and thus a short half-life.

If that were true, plutonium should be pretty safe stuff, but guess what, it's the most dangerous material on the planet.

[hoverfly]

Any "suitcase nuke" is a dirty bomb, spewing radioactive material around with conventional explosives. You cannot reach critical mass in anything remotely near the size a man can carry. Furthermore dirty bombs have a very short shelf life, since lethal dosages of radiation require a high decay rate and thus a short half-life.

Davy Crockett MK 54 warhead was less then 80 pounds.  A bit heavy for one to carry in a suitcase, but not impossible.

[ilikekicks]

My whole issue is.. we have harnessed the power of the Atom. And the whole risk/benefits of it havent been truly looked at.

 

Every year, I have to take my car and truck in for an ' emissions ' inspection. Theres laws in regards to toxic waste, dumping, what we are allowed to burn.. Recycling..

 

Yet theres these Nuclear reactors all over the planet and it only takes 1 to have a good meltdown, and all those inspections, recycling and everything else to go along with it wont matter one bit.

 

A lot of us complain about China and its miserable air quality. Its worse then the smog that used to cover LosAngeles, California in the States. Yet in the same breathe of air.. we put up nuke plants and have missiles sitting in silos? Seriously?

 

I hunt. I make no apologies to any vegan or PETA/Animal lovers. Critters are tasty and they fill my freezer every season! If any type of nuke at all screws up the ecology of my area.. there wont be any crops for me to harvest nor will there be any critters to eat.

 

We know what the effects of a ' disaster ' really are. The effects from the Japan meltdown arent being fully released/represented according to quite a few institutes that have monitored the whole tsunami and after waves. True or not, theres some valid concerns that should be drawn.

 

It may sound odd, but theres only 2 things I really fear. One is dying and finding out there is some kind of god and I get judged. The second : Nukes. I dont see any need at all to have them.

 

I dont want to sound political though it probably will be taken as such, but I dont see the need to have such destructive power. Its also ' electrical ' power for many cities, I get that.

 

I would rather burn coal for steamturbins and electrical energy then have a reactor around. Some will say ' well the coal pollutes more ' and I would openly agree with them. But WHEN that reactor has an issue.. how much more severe will it be then carbon dioxide?

 

Regardless of all the testing and examples out there of Nuclear Energy and how ' safe ' it is, in a world filled with terrorists and knowing how ANYONE can have a bad day on the job.. or a component can fail.. Murphy could show up.. 

 

I dont think its worth the risks.

[meganiwish]

'Homer, your quick thinking and bravery have turned a potential Chernobyl into a mere Three Mile Island.  Bravo!

[Dr. Shoe]

Nukes are just like very, very big guns. They were designed for one purpose and one purpose only. Nuclear reactors on the other hand are just huge heat sources for generating steam. The problem is that an accident can turn the latter into the former like at Chernobyl and a disaster could make them dangerous too.

 

But by the same token steam engines were dangerous too until they found a way of keeping them safe.

[ilikekicks]

http://news.yahoo.com/once-decade-typhoon-heads-japan-nuclear-plant-001544104.html

 

And now a typhoon..

[Amanda]

ilik, you'll be glad you had all those nukes in view of the looming energy Cold War. Gosh, you must have nearly as many as the Russians .

[Shafted]

Very bad news indeed. The damaged spent fuel pools will never stand against a typhoon. This could be it folks.

[ilikekicks]

ilik, you'll be glad you had all those nukes in view of the looming energy Cold War. Gosh, you must have nearly as many as the Russians .

 

Highest point I believe was right around 11,000 for both sides. Thats 22,000 warheads the planet doesnt need.

 

There have only been 2 tactical nuke strikes in mankinds history. Both were against Japan in WW2. Why is there a need for these things? Arent the 2000lb bombs the B52's presently carry enough? Cruze missles with conventional warheads? Planes.. tanks.. Naw.. we need Thermo-Nukes! Its stupid

 

Very bad news indeed. The damaged spent fuel pools will never stand against a typhoon. This could be it folks.

 

Could be quite a bad thing for sure.