Lately, Japanese former prime minister Naoto Kan said that "Almost all the causes by which the nuclear accident became large were before last year's March 11th". He had been a prime minister since June 8th 2010 to Sept. 2nd 2011. He has been obviously shifting responsibility.
@leobarp98 the end of the world like we know it is beginning, richest people elites gonna hide in underground bunker anti-nuclear, and 99% of us will die like bitch thanks to monetary system and his rich ass familys like Rothschilds detroying our world
Of course you could, in fact you could make a great deal of money every day 24 hours per day. Well that's what I'm revealing to the world, I'm a scientist and discovered this "code" 4 years ago and now I'm revealing it to anyone who wants to learn it and make money trading Gold. Google “Gold Trading Academy” to learn more.
@netscapepizza, not all big explosions have mushroom clouds. And as I note @ 2:03, not all explosions that are mushroom shaped are nuclear. I think that's the point you meant to make.
That said, if you check out my video response below, I'm now more inclined to believe Unit 3's unique characteristics vs Unit 1 were attributable to it being an ex-vessel steam explosion, vs Unit 1 being an upper-deck hydrogen explosion.
STEAM explosion is NOT possible at these temerpatures: 4,000 - 5,000 °C . The steam ionises and dissociates into gases - oxygen and hydrogen. Both detonating gases do NOT explode at such temperatures.
Fukushima and Chernobyl were both nuclear explosions. Chernobyl was 4,000 - 5,000°C - at these temperatures no chemical explosion of hydrogen and oxygen is possible. Simple. But a well hidden secret of the atomic industry. The yield of the Chernobyl explosion was more than 1000 Gigajoules = 0,2 - 0,3 Kiltons TNT - like a W45 nuclear warhead of the US forces, in the 1960ies. Nuclear Explosions of the reactor type.
@Tekknorg, indeed! In the description of this video is a link to a peer-reviewed study that concludes Chernobyl involved a nuclear explosion. This is news to most people, even those well-versed in nuclear matters.
Pakhomov, S.A., & Yuri V. Dubasov. (2010). Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 167(4-5): 575-80.
@hoyoyomi2008, this video was removed for 14 days between August 15 and 29 whereupon YouTube reinstated it after accepting my Fair Use appeal and rejecting Fukushima Central Television's copyright claim.
Mushroom cloud, vortices, bla bla bla. An armchair nuclear physicist speculates that a nuclear criticality incident occurs by watching a video. In reality, a nuclear power plant does not contain enough material for critical mass, and even if it did, it needs to be enriched to a point far beyond what it is in the average plant.
@CheezyDee, actually an NPP has more fissile material than a warhead. The important differences include level of fuel enrichment and implosive lensing in warheads.
Underlying Busby's thesis are the findings of Pakhomov and Dubasov (cited in annotations and linked-to in the description of this video) that the Chernobyl explosion may have in part been nuclear. Perhaps a hydrogen explosion might provide asymmetrical implosive compression on melted fuel to facilitate a low-yield nuclear blast.
I can tell you why it wasnt a nuclear fission event...if it was, it would have taken out a larger area. Nuclear detonations have a temperature of 10-15 million degrees celcius, that generates an ENOURMOUS shockwave, the main cause of destruction from nuclear weapons...
Yet, the paint on the other reactor buildings isnt scratched.
Yes, it seems like it implodes first, that can have lots of reasons actually...
@dgl1962 "Plutonium is listed as the most toxic substance to mankind on earth by? the Guiness book of records..."
Is it? As in: is it really listed in GBoWR? And is it concidered that toxic?
I doubt it, since chemical toxicity is about that of cadmium and caffeine, and nowhere near for instance botulinum toxin where nanograms are lethal. And the radioactivity is much less than for instance Iodine-131 which is approx. million times as active.
@dgl1962 And as I said: as far as radiotoxicity goes, I-131 is one *million* times as active as Pu. Not only that but iodine accumulates in the thyroid, and is volatile, while it's difficult to Pu into the body.
So it's nonsense: plutonium is *not* a very "deadly" substance. This myth about plutonium being "extremely deadly" or "deadliest substance on earth" is just scaremongering. Substances that are *much* more toxic people gladly inject into their faces to get rid of wrinkles.
The step from events in Japan to Germany's abandonment of nuclear power is not based on logic. Fukushima tells us to avoid grossly incompetent, virtually designed to disastrously fail, *bad* nuclear power, not *all* nuclear power as such (though if you're pushing this conclusion anyway, the current crisis is useful in propaganda terms).
Rather, the German "reaction" is a clue to the larger strategy wherein the Fukushima plant plays a role akin to impossibly imploding steel skyscrapers.
Today an Italian newspaper "Il Sole 24 Ore " has reported the news!
The Germany will stop Its the last nuclear reactor in 2022, becoming the first industrial power to renounce nuclear power. This was announced today, the German Environment Ministry. Currently, Germany derives from nuclear the 23 percent of its needs. "It is a final decision, " announced the minister Norbert Rottgen (CDU).
@DreamPiano And we will fill the gap with environment unfriendly coal, which will be kindly supplied by the russians and buying nuclear energy from france, which has 51 Nuclear Plants RIGHT AT OUR BORDER!
The initiative to stop nucler power in germany will NOT make anyone safer, it will just skyrocket electricity prices and therefore tax...it is also a measure to win voters, as a hardline pro-atom policy would be recieved unfavorabely here...
The basic information is that of the 6 reactors five are BWR boiling water reactors, they used light enriched uranium water. number is a mox fuel reactor, that uses plutonium and weapons grade fuel, from the united states. Both use light uranium water. A Mox reactor is supposed to clean and reuse the atomic nuclear weapons grade fuel. Mox is Metal oxides, versus boiling venting uranium enriched water. Neither fuels are hydrogen like the Atomic hiroshima bombs.
@cip12345, I'm increasingly skeptical that there was a criticality here (see my follow-up video linked at the end of this one).
However, read the description for recently published evidence that Chernobyl's blast may be been driven in part by a criticality. So it may not be as impossible as has been assumed. The thesis of Gundersen is that the impulse of a hydrogen explosion exerted compressive forces on the fuel.
@cip12345 The most recent (June 3) theory is that there were three explosion sounds, possibly a first hydrogen explosion which shoves the fuel in the spent fuel pool together very rapidly, causing the prompt criticality.
Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen has joined Professor Busby in opining that Unit 3 more likely suffered a *nuclear blast* than a hydrogen blast. See his analysis here:
@yyuta1124, Google: "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident"
New evidence says Chernobyl may have involved a nuclear explosion: "the hypothesis of a nuclear mechanism of enormous instant energy yield in the Chernobyl accident seems quite convincing, as is supported by experimental data; these data are in good agreement with the calculated results."
Tepco has recently denied, that in the contaminated water there was Chrol 38. But this denial has been published almost after a month after the first analysis.
If this Professor Busby had a good grasp of physics, he would realize that all of this is completely decoupled from the initial explosion mechanism. For example, mushroom clouds are a feature of ANY large explosion, not limited to nuclear ones.
@si1127, as I say: "not all explosions with these characteristics are nuclear." (2:08)
But the point is *not all* large explosions display such mushroom formation, as for example
1) the explosion of Unit 1
2) 1000s lbs of gunpower : watch?v=IlS6535HBNk#t=1m19s
3) this blast watch?v=FsWh0oohsjw
4) this blast watch?v=hzKwbggkwiM
Many blasts have a similar 'cauliflower' rotation but lack the distinct uni-capped mushroom form seen in the Unit 3 blast and the fission nuke shown side-by-side.
It's unlikely that it's a critical-mass explosion. First, the satellites that Russia and the US have in place for the purposes of NPT monitoring would have detected it - it's how we know Korea's underground bomb tests were fizzles. Second, the three towers around the building are undisturbed. Third, an uncontained critical mass results in a sloppy explosion. 4. The implosion is consistent with an explosion beneath ground level that is vented straight upward, as is the cloud.
@stealthbadger, to your points: 1, NPT monitoring didn't detect Chernobyl (see the video description, it was probably a criticality event). 2, The tower by the Chernobyl blast was undisturbed. 3, Can you point me to an example of an uncontained critical-mass explosion? 4, If the Unit-3 blast displays predictable hydrogen-explosion behavior, why didn't the Unit-1 blast display the same behavior?
@GoddardsJournal #1 "it was probably a criticality event" evidence?
#2 See #1.
3. The first North Korean nuclear test, possibly the second as well (which is why I mentioned it).
4. Because the environment/terrain/obstacles involved at the site of an explosion can change how the force is directed and the pressure in the initial blast zone?
@stealthbadger, 1 & 2) As I said, read the video description, there you'll find evidence that Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion. 3) Okay, but what's your point? 4) Of course, but Units 1 and 3 are virtual 'carbon copies' of each other. If your saying the walls of Unit 3 made that blast like it was underground and thus forced to shoot upwards through the roof, well, Unit 1 had the exact same walls yet it's forces where lateral, not all upwards.
@GoddardsJournal 1 & 2 - you must not have read it carefully, because the amount of fuel involved was VERY small, and other signs point to it being an extremely "local" event not contributing much to the total of the explosive force. Not to put too fine a point on it, you're taking Chernobyl (which was possibly like a dirty bomb) and saying that it was *definitely* a subcritical event, and then applying the physics of a supercritical event to the explosion's airflow. (cont)
@stealthbadger 3. The comparatively low-energy subcritical event you're speaking of (Chernobyl) as well as the deceptive lack of scale on the cloud pictures you show undermine your entire argument. You may very well be correct, but the way you make your argument does not support you at all.
4. "Unit 1 had the exact same walls" before the earthquake. Afterward, not so much. There are variables involved here that I suspect you're minimizing, not the least of which being the temperature (cont)
@stealthbadger of the outer containment vessel in #3, which was substantially different from #1 - and would have had commensurate effects on the structural strength of the unit (and therefore where the blast went), to say nothing of the physical deformation of the structure itself from the earthquake.
Basically, I call shenanigans. You saw a clip of a mushroom cloud and are running with it to make a point, even though it doesn't support your case well at all.
@GoddardsJournal The entire quote (verbatim) is "the temperature of the outer containment vessel in #3, which was substatially different from #1" For a skeptic/debunker, you are incredibly dishonest. The temperature in the reactors at the moment of explosion most certainly WAS NOT the same, nor were the reactors in the same condition AT THE TIME OF THE RESPECTIVE EXPLOSIONS.
@stealthbadger, I sincerely apologize! I see that you didn't say what I answered, and it was because I didn't notice that your full statement continued from another of your flurry of multiple comments.
I didn't spent 15 minutes researching that answer because I thought it addressed a point you didn't make. Your hair-trigger personal accusations and misrepresentation of my obviously restrained statements on the Chernobyl findings are not constructive critique and as such should not be welcomed.
@GoddardsJournal Apologies for the tone and suspicion, and for generally going RAWR in your comment thread. As someone who has followed Fox News for a long time, I am overly suspicious of this (just asking questions) form of presentation, since it has been so horribly abused - but that is no excuse to whack it every time it comes up.
That being said, I stand by my analysis of the argument and still feel that the case for it being a subcritical event is relatively weak.
@stealthbadger, actually the Chernobyl data is cited just to show that nuclear-energy explosions may happen in reactors, contra prior assumptions.
The fact that only a fraction of Chernobyl's fuel is estimated to've released "enormous" nuclear energy is irrelevant to the fact that those findings exist and suggest the possibility that it could happend again, verus not citing those findings and assuming it can't possibly happen, as has been assumed for decades.
@GoddardsJournal In other words, the Chernobyl data isn't something you're basing something on, just something you're building a circumstantial case around (yet presenting said case as fact despite its speculative nature).
Thank you very much for this balanced video, stating clearly at the end that consistency =/= evidence.
Indeed, while I have no experience in demolition or the study of explosions, the very nature of explosions means that two explosions with identical causes in 'Apparently' identical situations can produce different results. And without a full understanding of what non-nuclear components could have caused the formation of the super-heated ring etc, we are limited to mere speculation.
Here's a hydrogen-tank explosion: watch?v=wlyCPbmO7Ts
It's structurally identical to the Unit-1 blast with both vapory shockwave and significant lateral force, but lacking a dense dust cloud flowing with its forceful projection.
@utubeaccount00 Who said a word about coal?NPPs use the same elements nuclear bombs are made of.They're designed to control fission reactions so the energy is harnessed for electricity instead of released in explosions.The problem is that all it takes is a control rod out of place,an explosion knocking uranium & plutonium pellets into one another, thereby simulating a gun-type fission device, or for the pellets to melt and mix.All it takes is 1 stray neutron.A very delicate & dangerous balance.
@utubeaccount00 You mean to say that there are only two ways (coal and nuclear) to turn turbines to make power? And you call other people fucking dolts?
@utubeaccount00 Insults aren't an argument. Mature a little and then come back and join in on civilized adult dialogue. Nuclear power is a government subsidized failure of epic proportions. It's not safe. It's not cheap. It's not clean. It's a criminally insane way to make steam to turn turbines.
The designs of the reactors which the US sold around the world were not only bad for the time but bad since.
I compare the designs they use to filling blimps with hydrogen, under supervision they are perfectly safe but when something abnormal like happened in Japan happens then things can go wrong, but in the end we are better off filling them with Helium and have far less to deal with.
Nuclear power should be the way we go forward, but there's no money in it for investors.
I would definitely give that one to ya. The unit 1 explosion definitely looks like an explosion due to chemical ignition -- which can still produce mushroom cloud rendering fireballs if they're powerful enough and the ignition is contained/tampered. One of our rocket fuel plants here in the States produced a mushroom cloud by accident, but it also produced a ground-level shockwave that leveled the whole factory....
Unit 3's explosion doesn't appear to have a powerful enough shockwave for the size of it's mushroom cloud to be chemical ignition, but the video isn't high enough to see it's shockwave well enough, so I can't be certain, but it's definitely very likely to be a nuclear blast.
These first generation nuclear powerplants have to go. The technology is fifty years old, they are using nuclear material to BOIL WATER. They were designed on PAPER. Even if you support nuclear power, these things are simply death traps.
@dangerouslytalented We don't need any at all. Wave Power: youtube dot com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8 Imagine rows of those along the beach and extended out to sea as far as engineering would allow.
@HyperIndividualist Germany has made such a big move into solar, that they are considering shutting down their nuclear plants. I wass saying that even IF nuclear power WAS necessary, THESE old first generation nuclear power plants are not worth the risk, and should be very carefully shut down.
An excellent overview, and hopefully it will spark further research. I'll go out on a limb & say it was no mere hydrogen blast, & that regardless of the mechanism behind it, the reactor played a big roll in what is one of the largest and dirtiest dirty "bomb" detonations over a populated area in history.
@HyperIndividualist, so many times I've heard nuclear-energy advocates promise that a mushroom-cloud explosion could never emerge from a nuclear-power plant. How high the price of being wrong about nuclear technologies!
Hay, thanks for your help on researching this topic!
@GoddardsJournal You're welcome. The nuke industry & their slogan repeaters have at least 3 core beliefs/lies (some actually believe in them): Chernobyl can't happen again, radiation is basically safe enough anyway, & in any case 'we' just can't live without it. In order to keep the lights on (& the bombs fueled) they're willing to sacrifice y number of people over x time span. That doesn't compute to the rational mind, but we're obviously not dealing with completely rational people.
@GoddardsJournal All large explosions are mushroom cloud explosions. Actually, the only difference between an FAE (Fuel Air Explosion) and a nuclear explosion is the presence high radiation in the the latter. There NO distinct "nuclear fission" characteristics of the explosion in question.
@Exmech2, yes, I agree. That's why I said: "not all explosions with these characteristics are nuclear" (2:08). So, as I also noted, the cited characteristics are not proof of a nuclear blast.
But the point is: not all explosions have these characteristics, as for example the explosion of Unit 1. Are you aware of a hydrogen explosion that looks like the #3 blast?
What do you think about the black smoke and darker color of #3 ejecta? Would it imply burnt or ejected matter as opposed to gas?
@GoddardsJournal Explosion: A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.
There are videos of large explosions of amunition in Iraq with similar characteristics to both the explosions.
BTW: Busby is a loon. Your video stinks more of conspiracy theory.
@Exmech2 "Criticality occurs when too much fissile material is in one place. Criticality can be achieved by using metallic uranium or plutonium OR BY MIXING compounds or liquid solutions of THESE ELEMENTS." (Emphases mine)- /wiki/Criticality_accident The question isn't really "could it have gone critical," but how couldn't it have? Molten relatively spherical blobs of uranium & plutonium MIXING, as in MIXED OXIDE=stray neutron spark?I suggest you look up the "Demon Core".One wrong move=kaboom
@Exmech2: "There are videos of large explosions of ammunition in Iraq with similar characteristics"
True! Here's a great example: watch?v=nUUXEvHBDgw And that's why I said, "not all explosions with these characteristics are nuclear" (2:08).
Keep in mind that military-munitions explosions aren't necessarily the same as hydrogen-gas explosions. So again, please let me know if you find a hydrogen-gas explosion that resembles the Unit-3 blast.
@HyperIndividualist Actually physics is always in charge, whether "engineering" has "failed" or not. The problem is... physics says that a nuclear fuel won't create a nuclear explosion of any kind. Small or large.
@HyperIndividualist Actually physics is always in charge, whether "engineering" fails or not. The problem for your side , and Busby, is that physics says that a nuclear fuel pile won't create a nuclear explosion. This has been quite clear for... oh... 70 years now.
@Exmech2 That's not what the abstract to Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident linked to above in the video description suggests. Scientists being wrong for 70 (and many more) years is nothing new in the annals of science. Now it's time for the nuke industry to drop the hubris, pride, arrogance, and subsidized greed in order to address the real scientific problem of our time - how to clean up their presently insoluble and ever-increasing messes.
こんな国が非核三原則唱えたって矛盾してるだけ
原発か非核かどっちかにして欲しい
Galapa1221 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is true though regrettable.
The Japanese government has hidden information.
Television does not report truth, either.
People have fallen victim to the foolish government.
Freedom is not in Japan.
This is a den of the communism which covered the liberal skin.
BlueSeaTrue 2 weeks ago
Lately, Japanese former prime minister Naoto Kan said that "Almost all the causes by which the nuclear accident became large were before last year's March 11th". He had been a prime minister since June 8th 2010 to Sept. 2nd 2011. He has been obviously shifting responsibility.
yt20070906 2 weeks ago
これは核爆発・核暴走ではありえません。
第一に、溶けた核燃料は、圧力容器（一番内側）や格納容器（その外側）の底、もしくは、さらにそれらをつきぬけたところ、にたまりますが、その核燃料が爆発（「核爆発」）したとなると、その上にある圧力・格納容器などは、当然他の瓦礫とともに真っ先に空高く吹き飛ばされているはずです。
しかし、3号機は、建屋の上半分の外壁が吹き飛ばされた状態にあります。その中の格納容器等は、傷を負いながらも、もとからある場所にまだあります。ということは、これは、炉内部（もしくはその下部）の核燃料によって引き起こされる「核爆発」「核暴走」ではありえない、というわけです。
第二に、燃料プールでの「核暴走」でも同様です。もしそこで「核爆発」があったのなら、燃料プール及びそこにあった核燃料はもはや原型をとどめてはいないはずです。
第三に、核爆発であったなら、東京やその周辺地域で検出される放射線量は、現在の比ではなかったでしょう。東日本全体で、飯舘村並みの放射性物質で汚染されることになっていたとしてもおかしくはありません。核暴走とはそれほどおそろしいことなのです。
mylittleemperor 1 month ago 2
I don't understand Japanese can somebody translate please?
Pd I don't think this was a nuke test
leobarp98 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@leobarp98 the end of the world like we know it is beginning, richest people elites gonna hide in underground bunker anti-nuclear, and 99% of us will die like bitch thanks to monetary system and his rich ass familys like Rothschilds detroying our world
motarido 2 weeks ago
これは3号機の炉心で起った爆発ではなく、格納容器の外にある使用済燃料プールで起った核暴走だということが重要です。
ototosan1 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Of course you could, in fact you could make a great deal of money every day 24 hours per day. Well that's what I'm revealing to the world, I'm a scientist and discovered this "code" 4 years ago and now I'm revealing it to anyone who wants to learn it and make money trading Gold. Google “Gold Trading Academy” to learn more.
francises12 2 months ago
all big explosions have mushroom clouds, not just nuclear ones
netscapepizza 2 months ago
@netscapepizza, not all big explosions have mushroom clouds. And as I note @ 2:03, not all explosions that are mushroom shaped are nuclear. I think that's the point you meant to make.
That said, if you check out my video response below, I'm now more inclined to believe Unit 3's unique characteristics vs Unit 1 were attributable to it being an ex-vessel steam explosion, vs Unit 1 being an upper-deck hydrogen explosion.
GoddardsJournal 2 months ago
核爆発の事実か・・・・いくらこれを残してもあまり意味はないだろうなぁ
隣の韓国も新しく建設するんでそ？東南アジア、その他もでしょ？
日本ですら全く懲りてないよね？まだまだ原発利権だのでウハウハですよね
東電の社員も高額ボーナスでウハウハですよね？
いくら真実の映像を残しても、人類は進むべく方向にしか進まない
破壊と人類滅亡の道
人は同じ過ちを何度もくりかえし、最後は宇宙から天誅くらって破滅するんだろうね
まぁ破滅しないと不公平かもしれんね？他の生物に対しても・・・
gokipurin 2 months ago
Comment removed
gokipurin 2 months ago
STEAM explosion is NOT possible at these temerpatures: 4,000 - 5,000 °C . The steam ionises and dissociates into gases - oxygen and hydrogen. Both detonating gases do NOT explode at such temperatures.
Tekknorg 3 months ago
Fukushima and Chernobyl were both nuclear explosions. Chernobyl was 4,000 - 5,000°C - at these temperatures no chemical explosion of hydrogen and oxygen is possible. Simple. But a well hidden secret of the atomic industry. The yield of the Chernobyl explosion was more than 1000 Gigajoules = 0,2 - 0,3 Kiltons TNT - like a W45 nuclear warhead of the US forces, in the 1960ies. Nuclear Explosions of the reactor type.
Tekknorg 3 months ago
@Tekknorg, indeed! In the description of this video is a link to a peer-reviewed study that concludes Chernobyl involved a nuclear explosion. This is news to most people, even those well-versed in nuclear matters.
Pakhomov, S.A., & Yuri V. Dubasov. (2010). Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 167(4-5): 575-80.
iamgoddard 3 months ago
凄いですね
MrMogura07 4 months ago
必死で核爆発じゃなかったって言ってる連中がいるみたいだけど、この動画見てもそう思ってるんだとしたらだいぶおめでたいね。
chervbim 4 months ago
核実験と双子みたいな原発爆発の部分、民放のＣＭに混ぜて流してほしい・・・
一般の年寄りはネット見てないし話が通じないのです。
hirokomatsumoto 4 months ago
P-239 that went in with uranium is weapons grade theres your fission stupid people,saying they know everything.just sheep looking at there demize.
Dave6x9 5 months ago
クリストファー・バズビー教授は福島第一の事故についてのインタビューの中で
バズビー「福島第一の核爆発では・・・」
ニュースキャスター「核爆発？」
バズビー「核爆発とかそうじゃないとか問題じゃない」
というやりとりをしただけなんだよな。
バズビーは放射線症の専門科学者で、物理学者でも原子力専門家でもない。
うっかり言い間違えただけだろう。
bluesinpain 5 months ago
この動画が削除されませんように。
hoyoyomi2008 6 months ago
@hoyoyomi2008, this video was removed for 14 days between August 15 and 29 whereupon YouTube reinstated it after accepting my Fair Use appeal and rejecting Fukushima Central Television's copyright claim.
GoddardsJournal 5 months ago
「キノコ雲」というのは、爆発ならいつでも発生するモノではありません。その爆発が、周囲の空気を一瞬にして高温に熱した時にのみ起こる、特徴的な「雲」です。戦闘機が爆弾を落としているのに地上でキノコ雲が発生していない爆発を皆さんも見たことがあるのではないでしょうか。「ただの急激な膨張」だけではキノコ雲は発生しません。一瞬にして熱せられた周囲の空気が熱膨張を起こし膨らみ、それが冷えていく過程でゆっくりと元に戻る、つまり収縮したとき、中心部分の煙が縮まってくる空気により上空へと押し上げられる現象なのです。核兵器の様に一瞬で周囲の空気を高温に加熱膨張させる時に特徴的に現れます。しかし・・・Fukushimaがまさか核反応の可能性があったとは。
94570094 6 months ago
もし核爆発だったら、こんなもんもんじゃなしい
もう、核爆発するほど核分裂
するものはないだろ
核爆発だったら、建物溶けるし
taseryota 6 months ago
Mushroom cloud, vortices, bla bla bla. An armchair nuclear physicist speculates that a nuclear criticality incident occurs by watching a video. In reality, a nuclear power plant does not contain enough material for critical mass, and even if it did, it needs to be enriched to a point far beyond what it is in the average plant.
CheezyDee 7 months ago
@CheezyDee, actually an NPP has more fissile material than a warhead. The important differences include level of fuel enrichment and implosive lensing in warheads.
Underlying Busby's thesis are the findings of Pakhomov and Dubasov (cited in annotations and linked-to in the description of this video) that the Chernobyl explosion may have in part been nuclear. Perhaps a hydrogen explosion might provide asymmetrical implosive compression on melted fuel to facilitate a low-yield nuclear blast.
iamgoddard 7 months ago
Fukushima nuclear power plant was broken.and made a lot of radioactive beef.
Japanese goverment says it will take over 10 years until become safe.
tomueki 7 months ago
I can tell you why it wasnt a nuclear fission event...if it was, it would have taken out a larger area. Nuclear detonations have a temperature of 10-15 million degrees celcius, that generates an ENOURMOUS shockwave, the main cause of destruction from nuclear weapons...
Yet, the paint on the other reactor buildings isnt scratched.
Yes, it seems like it implodes first, that can have lots of reasons actually...
Chrinik 7 months ago
Ｕｎｉｔ３はなんと言おうと核爆発である。
HiroyaM108 7 months ago
上に突き上げれば上で拡散するからキノコ雲になるだろ。
urakotodai 7 months ago
こんなのに巻き込まれたらたまったもんじゃないな...
KYNKO2013 7 months ago
現首相がｶｲﾜﾚ農家に喧嘩売った時期とは違い、今はﾈｯﾄがあるんですよ現首相さん
例えば、当時ﾏｽｺﾐが余り発表していなかった、諫早湾の通称ｷﾞﾛﾁﾝ、あれの許可を出したのが現首相であるという事や、諫早湾の視察に訪れた時に、"今すぐ開ければ良いだろ!誰が許可したんだ!"と叫んだのも調べれば数秒でわかるんですよ。
もう八方塞ですよ。
RB26DETTEX 8 months ago 2
It's pronounced nuclear and not nukelar.
Otherwise your analysis is good.
nexus040670 8 months ago
Very nice job on the videos, with the slow motion and the forward/reverse, it's very easy to see exactly what you're describing. Well done.
mscir 9 months ago
The amounts of Pu released by the explosion of unit 3 was silly!
Plutonium is listed as the most toxic substance to mankind on earth by the Guiness book of records...
dgl1962 9 months ago
@dgl1962 "Plutonium is listed as the most toxic substance to mankind on earth by? the Guiness book of records..."
Is it? As in: is it really listed in GBoWR? And is it concidered that toxic?
I doubt it, since chemical toxicity is about that of cadmium and caffeine, and nowhere near for instance botulinum toxin where nanograms are lethal. And the radioactivity is much less than for instance Iodine-131 which is approx. million times as active.
mkarnerfors 3 months ago
@mkarnerfors You're mixing chemical toxicity with the toxic effects of radiation.
Pu is supposedly the most "deadly" material that you can injest.
dgl1962 3 months ago
@dgl1962 And as I said: as far as radiotoxicity goes, I-131 is one *million* times as active as Pu. Not only that but iodine accumulates in the thyroid, and is volatile, while it's difficult to Pu into the body.
So it's nonsense: plutonium is *not* a very "deadly" substance. This myth about plutonium being "extremely deadly" or "deadliest substance on earth" is just scaremongering. Substances that are *much* more toxic people gladly inject into their faces to get rid of wrinkles.
mkarnerfors 3 months ago
That reactor built part of my Walkman.
gavincurtis 9 months ago
The brown colour of the cloud in unit 1 blast is one very significant tell tale sign of nuclear.
GrassPossum 9 months ago
The step from events in Japan to Germany's abandonment of nuclear power is not based on logic. Fukushima tells us to avoid grossly incompetent, virtually designed to disastrously fail, *bad* nuclear power, not *all* nuclear power as such (though if you're pushing this conclusion anyway, the current crisis is useful in propaganda terms).
Rather, the German "reaction" is a clue to the larger strategy wherein the Fukushima plant plays a role akin to impossibly imploding steel skyscrapers.
Californius 9 months ago
これだけは言える。
日本オワタ＼(＾o＾)／
mk00001978 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Japanese goverment is crazu. they kills us soon. plesase help me.
afout 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Japanese goverment is crazu. they kills us soon. plesase help me.
afout 9 months ago
Today an Italian newspaper "Il Sole 24 Ore " has reported the news!
The Germany will stop Its the last nuclear reactor in 2022, becoming the first industrial power to renounce nuclear power. This was announced today, the German Environment Ministry. Currently, Germany derives from nuclear the 23 percent of its needs. "It is a final decision, " announced the minister Norbert Rottgen (CDU).
DreamPiano 9 months ago 5
@DreamPiano, Great News! At least Germany has learned from Japan's mistakes! :)
GoddardsJournal 9 months ago
@GoddardsJournal Thats not great news...live here, and you would know.
Chrinik 7 months ago
@DreamPiano And we will fill the gap with environment unfriendly coal, which will be kindly supplied by the russians and buying nuclear energy from france, which has 51 Nuclear Plants RIGHT AT OUR BORDER!
The initiative to stop nucler power in germany will NOT make anyone safer, it will just skyrocket electricity prices and therefore tax...it is also a measure to win voters, as a hardline pro-atom policy would be recieved unfavorabely here...
Chrinik 7 months ago
御用学者は、まだ安全と言うのかな？これで安全だったらカルト教団と同じ。
maemaetoku1 9 months ago
キノコ雲だ
purejam 9 months ago
The basic information is that of the 6 reactors five are BWR boiling water reactors, they used light enriched uranium water. number is a mox fuel reactor, that uses plutonium and weapons grade fuel, from the united states. Both use light uranium water. A Mox reactor is supposed to clean and reuse the atomic nuclear weapons grade fuel. Mox is Metal oxides, versus boiling venting uranium enriched water. Neither fuels are hydrogen like the Atomic hiroshima bombs.
hurchel 9 months ago
Both also lack a critical mass can be critical if the compression is possible but
In that case, the uranium needs to be compressed evenly from all directions.
Something like that without anything implosion lens that would not be obvious.
cip12345 10 months ago
@cip12345, I'm increasingly skeptical that there was a criticality here (see my follow-up video linked at the end of this one).
However, read the description for recently published evidence that Chernobyl's blast may be been driven in part by a criticality. So it may not be as impossible as has been assumed. The thesis of Gundersen is that the impulse of a hydrogen explosion exerted compressive forces on the fuel.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@cip12345 The most recent (June 3) theory is that there were three explosion sounds, possibly a first hydrogen explosion which shoves the fuel in the spent fuel pool together very rapidly, causing the prompt criticality.
drceuler 9 months ago
Scientific knowledge, whether or not this is a brain test.
Know that no nuclear explosion.
The explosion of low-enriched uranium nuclear fuel for power plants that use is impossible.
48kg of uranium but only 100% is the critical level can get together.
Fuel for power plants but the majority of the alloy, even if the fuel rods melted
Accumulated so much material other than uranium, a critical mass that is less obvious.
cip12345 10 months ago
beautiful...beautiful...
gengoro1 10 months ago
そっくり、そのままに唖然とした・・
核爆発だったのか・・・
nowiget 10 months ago
この"Goddard's Journal"とかいう投稿者ID、 アポロの月着陸の写真はFakeとか書いてないか？ 9.11のペンタゴンの破壊の分析とか。 典型的な陰謀論「ジャーナル」じゃ？
funakichi 10 months ago
@funakichi, いいえ！レポートをお読みください。
iamgoddard 10 months ago
Japanese translation of nuclear engineer's analysis of Unit 3
3号機の核技術分析の日本語訳
watch?v=P4KXX24Dv1U
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
Nuclear engineer Arnie Gundersen has joined Professor Busby in opining that Unit 3 more likely suffered a *nuclear blast* than a hydrogen blast. See his analysis here:
watch?v=NbULpA4q2aU
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
軽水炉の原発では核爆発しませんが…
yyuta1124 10 months ago
@yyuta1124, Google: "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident"
New evidence says Chernobyl may have involved a nuclear explosion: "the hypothesis of a nuclear mechanism of enormous instant energy yield in the Chernobyl accident seems quite convincing, as is supported by experimental data; these data are in good agreement with the calculated results."
By Translate.Google :
チェルノブイリの事故で膨大なインスタントエネルギー収率の核メカニズムの仮説は、実験データによってサポートされており、非常に説得力のあるようだ。これらのデータは、計算結果とよく一致している"。
iamgoddard 10 months ago
icetookratiodala→isotope ratio data 同位体比率
shenweiyezijp 10 months ago
原子力専門家のクリストファー・マスビー氏
ayanuhito 10 months ago
当局は水素爆発と発表しましたが、原子力専門家クリストファー氏は致命的な核爆発ではないかと見ています。１号基と３号基の爆発を較べてみると、違いは爆発の大きさだけではありません。このビデオで、私達その違いを見出せます。最初の瞬間から、３号基の爆発は拡大化しています。最初の煙が真っ黒です。１号基は全体的に左右分裂して沈む一方で、３号基のは上昇しています。かなりの量の煙が建物の５倍も上がっています。そこに極端な引っ張る力が掛かり、小さな円を描く様な合流点が現れています。炎は煙の中に上へ引っ張られ吸い込まれています。これは典型的な核爆発のパターンです。キノコ雲が風船の様に上がっていく爆発は特定の熱作用で起こります。 ３号基の爆発と兵器実験の核爆発を較べても、キノコ雲の大きさは同一でまた、他の核爆発でも同じ熱作用のキノコ雲が表れます。視覚による判定は補助材料に過ぎず、３号基が核爆発を起こしたという事実確定証拠にはできません。icetookratiodala(?)というTEPCOが提出していないものが事実確定には必要なのです。しかし、核爆発の特徴のあるこの映像を見て、誰が疑問を抱かずにいれるのか?!
ayanuhito 10 months ago 47
@ayanuhito 煙の形が似てる、ってだけじゃぁ判断に苦慮しますね。しかし日本のNHKでは見た記憶がない映像なので貴重。日本政府あるいは東電は、これが核爆発ではない証拠（データ）を示すことで信頼を回復できるでしょう。
haga1013 10 months ago 3
I agree, that there was a localized criticality.
Tepco has recently denied, that in the contaminated water there was Chrol 38. But this denial has been published almost after a month after the first analysis.
I guess, that the Tepco tells a lie.
TheSurialpaca 10 months ago
If this Professor Busby had a good grasp of physics, he would realize that all of this is completely decoupled from the initial explosion mechanism. For example, mushroom clouds are a feature of ANY large explosion, not limited to nuclear ones.
si1127 10 months ago
@si1127, as I say: "not all explosions with these characteristics are nuclear." (2:08)
But the point is *not all* large explosions display such mushroom formation, as for example
1) the explosion of Unit 1
2) 1000s lbs of gunpower : watch?v=IlS6535HBNk#t=1m19s
3) this blast watch?v=FsWh0oohsjw
4) this blast watch?v=hzKwbggkwiM
Many blasts have a similar 'cauliflower' rotation but lack the distinct uni-capped mushroom form seen in the Unit 3 blast and the fission nuke shown side-by-side.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
They said they detected neutron beams. I accept that as evidence of localized criticality. There certainly is enough material there to achieve that.
KirkMcLoren 10 months ago
pwnd
TrooperCX 10 months ago
Comment removed
stealthbadger 10 months ago
Comment removed
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger Sorry, didn't chain my comments - moved them, and apologies for the thread mess.
stealthbadger 10 months ago
It's unlikely that it's a critical-mass explosion. First, the satellites that Russia and the US have in place for the purposes of NPT monitoring would have detected it - it's how we know Korea's underground bomb tests were fizzles. Second, the three towers around the building are undisturbed. Third, an uncontained critical mass results in a sloppy explosion. 4. The implosion is consistent with an explosion beneath ground level that is vented straight upward, as is the cloud.
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger, to your points: 1, NPT monitoring didn't detect Chernobyl (see the video description, it was probably a criticality event). 2, The tower by the Chernobyl blast was undisturbed. 3, Can you point me to an example of an uncontained critical-mass explosion? 4, If the Unit-3 blast displays predictable hydrogen-explosion behavior, why didn't the Unit-1 blast display the same behavior?
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal #1 "it was probably a criticality event" evidence?
#2 See #1.
3. The first North Korean nuclear test, possibly the second as well (which is why I mentioned it).
4. Because the environment/terrain/obstacles involved at the site of an explosion can change how the force is directed and the pressure in the initial blast zone?
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger, 1 & 2) As I said, read the video description, there you'll find evidence that Chernobyl was a nuclear explosion. 3) Okay, but what's your point? 4) Of course, but Units 1 and 3 are virtual 'carbon copies' of each other. If your saying the walls of Unit 3 made that blast like it was underground and thus forced to shoot upwards through the roof, well, Unit 1 had the exact same walls yet it's forces where lateral, not all upwards.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal 1 & 2 - you must not have read it carefully, because the amount of fuel involved was VERY small, and other signs point to it being an extremely "local" event not contributing much to the total of the explosive force. Not to put too fine a point on it, you're taking Chernobyl (which was possibly like a dirty bomb) and saying that it was *definitely* a subcritical event, and then applying the physics of a supercritical event to the explosion's airflow. (cont)
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger 3. The comparatively low-energy subcritical event you're speaking of (Chernobyl) as well as the deceptive lack of scale on the cloud pictures you show undermine your entire argument. You may very well be correct, but the way you make your argument does not support you at all.
4. "Unit 1 had the exact same walls" before the earthquake. Afterward, not so much. There are variables involved here that I suspect you're minimizing, not the least of which being the temperature (cont)
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger of the outer containment vessel in #3, which was substantially different from #1 - and would have had commensurate effects on the structural strength of the unit (and therefore where the blast went), to say nothing of the physical deformation of the structure itself from the earthquake.
Basically, I call shenanigans. You saw a clip of a mushroom cloud and are running with it to make a point, even though it doesn't support your case well at all.
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger : "the outer containment vessel in #3, which was substantially different from #1"
Actually, Fukushima Daiichi Units 1-5 all have the same containment. Google:
"Units 1 through 5 have a Mark 1 (light-bulb-torus) type of containment structure."
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal The entire quote (verbatim) is "the temperature of the outer containment vessel in #3, which was substatially different from #1" For a skeptic/debunker, you are incredibly dishonest. The temperature in the reactors at the moment of explosion most certainly WAS NOT the same, nor were the reactors in the same condition AT THE TIME OF THE RESPECTIVE EXPLOSIONS.
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger, I sincerely apologize! I see that you didn't say what I answered, and it was because I didn't notice that your full statement continued from another of your flurry of multiple comments.
I didn't spent 15 minutes researching that answer because I thought it addressed a point you didn't make. Your hair-trigger personal accusations and misrepresentation of my obviously restrained statements on the Chernobyl findings are not constructive critique and as such should not be welcomed.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal Apologies for the tone and suspicion, and for generally going RAWR in your comment thread. As someone who has followed Fox News for a long time, I am overly suspicious of this (just asking questions) form of presentation, since it has been so horribly abused - but that is no excuse to whack it every time it comes up.
That being said, I stand by my analysis of the argument and still feel that the case for it being a subcritical event is relatively weak.
stealthbadger 10 months ago
@stealthbadger, actually the Chernobyl data is cited just to show that nuclear-energy explosions may happen in reactors, contra prior assumptions.
The fact that only a fraction of Chernobyl's fuel is estimated to've released "enormous" nuclear energy is irrelevant to the fact that those findings exist and suggest the possibility that it could happend again, verus not citing those findings and assuming it can't possibly happen, as has been assumed for decades.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal In other words, the Chernobyl data isn't something you're basing something on, just something you're building a circumstantial case around (yet presenting said case as fact despite its speculative nature).
Have a nice life.
stealthbadger 10 months ago
Dear Ian,
Thank you very much for this balanced video, stating clearly at the end that consistency =/= evidence.
Indeed, while I have no experience in demolition or the study of explosions, the very nature of explosions means that two explosions with identical causes in 'Apparently' identical situations can produce different results. And without a full understanding of what non-nuclear components could have caused the formation of the super-heated ring etc, we are limited to mere speculation.
Ujames1978 10 months ago
Here's a hydrogen-tank explosion: watch?v=wlyCPbmO7Ts
It's structurally identical to the Unit-1 blast with both vapory shockwave and significant lateral force, but lacking a dense dust cloud flowing with its forceful projection.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
oh noes nuclear energy i dont understand how you work so you must be terrible! better throw up 10,000 more coal plants!
you fucking dolts
utubeaccount00 10 months ago
@utubeaccount00 Who said a word about coal?NPPs use the same elements nuclear bombs are made of.They're designed to control fission reactions so the energy is harnessed for electricity instead of released in explosions.The problem is that all it takes is a control rod out of place,an explosion knocking uranium & plutonium pellets into one another, thereby simulating a gun-type fission device, or for the pellets to melt and mix.All it takes is 1 stray neutron.A very delicate & dangerous balance.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@utubeaccount00 You mean to say that there are only two ways (coal and nuclear) to turn turbines to make power? And you call other people fucking dolts?
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist no im saying nuclear energy is fine and you are alarmist scare mongering shitheels
utubeaccount00 10 months ago
@utubeaccount00 Insults aren't an argument. Mature a little and then come back and join in on civilized adult dialogue. Nuclear power is a government subsidized failure of epic proportions. It's not safe. It's not cheap. It's not clean. It's a criminally insane way to make steam to turn turbines.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist come back when you have proof of any of your idiotic assumptions, IE it's not safe, its not clean
utubeaccount00 10 months ago
@utubeaccount00 Go snort some plutonium, True Believer.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist
The designs of the reactors which the US sold around the world were not only bad for the time but bad since.
I compare the designs they use to filling blimps with hydrogen, under supervision they are perfectly safe but when something abnormal like happened in Japan happens then things can go wrong, but in the end we are better off filling them with Helium and have far less to deal with.
Nuclear power should be the way we go forward, but there's no money in it for investors.
Harizl 10 months ago
New-Q-ler
jahigh1 10 months ago
nu-clear
ORz42 10 months ago
I would definitely give that one to ya. The unit 1 explosion definitely looks like an explosion due to chemical ignition -- which can still produce mushroom cloud rendering fireballs if they're powerful enough and the ignition is contained/tampered. One of our rocket fuel plants here in the States produced a mushroom cloud by accident, but it also produced a ground-level shockwave that leveled the whole factory....
MultiPaulinator 10 months ago
Unit 3's explosion doesn't appear to have a powerful enough shockwave for the size of it's mushroom cloud to be chemical ignition, but the video isn't high enough to see it's shockwave well enough, so I can't be certain, but it's definitely very likely to be a nuclear blast.
MultiPaulinator 10 months ago
I must say that this is an extremely interesting hypothesis.
AtheismTV 10 months ago
These first generation nuclear powerplants have to go. The technology is fifty years old, they are using nuclear material to BOIL WATER. They were designed on PAPER. Even if you support nuclear power, these things are simply death traps.
dangerouslytalented 10 months ago 29
@dangerouslytalented We don't need any at all. Wave Power: youtube dot com/watch?v=gcStpg3i5V8 Imagine rows of those along the beach and extended out to sea as far as engineering would allow.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist Germany has made such a big move into solar, that they are considering shutting down their nuclear plants. I wass saying that even IF nuclear power WAS necessary, THESE old first generation nuclear power plants are not worth the risk, and should be very carefully shut down.
dangerouslytalented 10 months ago 5
@dangerouslytalented I agree with you.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
An excellent overview, and hopefully it will spark further research. I'll go out on a limb & say it was no mere hydrogen blast, & that regardless of the mechanism behind it, the reactor played a big roll in what is one of the largest and dirtiest dirty "bomb" detonations over a populated area in history.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist, so many times I've heard nuclear-energy advocates promise that a mushroom-cloud explosion could never emerge from a nuclear-power plant. How high the price of being wrong about nuclear technologies!
Hay, thanks for your help on researching this topic!
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal You're welcome. The nuke industry & their slogan repeaters have at least 3 core beliefs/lies (some actually believe in them): Chernobyl can't happen again, radiation is basically safe enough anyway, & in any case 'we' just can't live without it. In order to keep the lights on (& the bombs fueled) they're willing to sacrifice y number of people over x time span. That doesn't compute to the rational mind, but we're obviously not dealing with completely rational people.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal All large explosions are mushroom cloud explosions. Actually, the only difference between an FAE (Fuel Air Explosion) and a nuclear explosion is the presence high radiation in the the latter. There NO distinct "nuclear fission" characteristics of the explosion in question.
Exmech2 10 months ago
@Exmech2, yes, I agree. That's why I said: "not all explosions with these characteristics are nuclear" (2:08). So, as I also noted, the cited characteristics are not proof of a nuclear blast.
But the point is: not all explosions have these characteristics, as for example the explosion of Unit 1. Are you aware of a hydrogen explosion that looks like the #3 blast?
What do you think about the black smoke and darker color of #3 ejecta? Would it imply burnt or ejected matter as opposed to gas?
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@GoddardsJournal Explosion: A release of mechanical, chemical, or nuclear energy in a sudden and often violent manner with the generation of high temperature and usually with the release of gases.
There are videos of large explosions of amunition in Iraq with similar characteristics to both the explosions.
BTW: Busby is a loon. Your video stinks more of conspiracy theory.
Exmech2 10 months ago
@Exmech2 "Criticality occurs when too much fissile material is in one place. Criticality can be achieved by using metallic uranium or plutonium OR BY MIXING compounds or liquid solutions of THESE ELEMENTS." (Emphases mine)- /wiki/Criticality_accident The question isn't really "could it have gone critical," but how couldn't it have? Molten relatively spherical blobs of uranium & plutonium MIXING, as in MIXED OXIDE=stray neutron spark?I suggest you look up the "Demon Core".One wrong move=kaboom
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@Exmech2: "There are videos of large explosions of ammunition in Iraq with similar characteristics"
True! Here's a great example: watch?v=nUUXEvHBDgw And that's why I said, "not all explosions with these characteristics are nuclear" (2:08).
Keep in mind that military-munitions explosions aren't necessarily the same as hydrogen-gas explosions. So again, please let me know if you find a hydrogen-gas explosion that resembles the Unit-3 blast.
GoddardsJournal 10 months ago
@Exmech2 When engineering fails, physics take over.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist Actually physics is always in charge, whether "engineering" has "failed" or not. The problem is... physics says that a nuclear fuel won't create a nuclear explosion of any kind. Small or large.
Exmech2 10 months ago
@HyperIndividualist Actually physics is always in charge, whether "engineering" fails or not. The problem for your side , and Busby, is that physics says that a nuclear fuel pile won't create a nuclear explosion. This has been quite clear for... oh... 70 years now.
Exmech2 10 months ago
@Exmech2 That's not what the abstract to Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident linked to above in the video description suggests. Scientists being wrong for 70 (and many more) years is nothing new in the annals of science. Now it's time for the nuke industry to drop the hubris, pride, arrogance, and subsidized greed in order to address the real scientific problem of our time - how to clean up their presently insoluble and ever-increasing messes.
HyperIndividualist 10 months ago 15