Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
thedudeabides

The 1984 movie threads. The hidden messages within.

9 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

The full film.

So I have been sitting here for the past 3 years thinking this all seems so familiar. Then I remember today. The 1984 movie threads. It predicted all of this shit going on in the middle east. The coming war between Russia and the United states is about to start.

Watch for Airborne troops being dropped into Syria.

The beginning will be the use of tactical nukes on borders, to halt infantry and land unit incursion.

Shortly after, Strategic locations will be reduced to ash and fire.

Once the radiation returns to nominal levels within a few months. Whatever forces that remain will fight it out for the remaining resources. Contrary to belief, the only true danger from the nuclear blast is within the blast zone and the subsequent radiation directly after the detonation. That radiation however over a short period of time decays rather rapidly. The only truly dangerous place after this will be the location of the primary explosion, which will remain irradiated for a few generations.

Contrary to the fruit loops saying nukes are fake. They are real, those of us with actual knowledge know this. So, to be prepared. Have some clothing prepared in some air tight bags. Some water for washing. Then have a few planned routes, that are uncommon out of your area, if effected. Once out of that area wash your body off with the clean water. Then put on the clean clothes. Without touching the dirty and contaminated clothing. Take Iodine once free of the radiation cloud. If you do not have any, look into it and purchase it, rather cheap.

Watch the middle east folks, its coming.

Edited by thedudeabides
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thedudeabides said:

 

Contrary to the fruit loops saying nukes are fake. 

Your ego knows no bounds. Your "ct" is the true ct. Everyone else is a crazy idjit. The mighty Dude has spoken.   :worship:We bow to your amazing powers of perception. Yeah, like stating the obvious -- the US and Russia provoking each other in the dusty arm pit of ancient history and current world events. 

So please explain, Mr. Nuclear Expert, what is the half-life of uranium 235? How about plutonium? How long did it take for inspection teams to declare two bombed Japanese cities to be free of radiation? 2000 years? 200 million years? 

Oh, I see. A few months. So which is it? Radioactive decay estimates are off by months or millennia? 

 

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, grav said:

So please explain, Mr. Nuclear Expert, what is the half-life of uranium 235? How about plutonium? How long did it take for inspection teams to declare two bombed Japanese cities to be free of radiation? 2000 years? 200 million years? 

Oh, I see. A few months. So which is it? Radioactive decay estimates are off by months or millennia? 

 

such a simple and succinct question. How could the cities have been nuked and people continued living there pretty much immediately afterward? Either everything we've been taught about radioactive decay from nuclear fallout is BS, or ... is there even an alternative? Is there a sensible answer to this question? I've seen it asked of nuclear apologists many times and it was expertly dodged each time. Let's hope the dude abides this time.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

4 hours ago, grav said:

Your ego knows no bounds. Your "ct" is the true ct. Everyone else is a crazy idjit. The mighty Dude has spoken.   :worship:We bow to your amazing powers of perception. Yeah, like stating the obvious -- the US and Russia provoking each other in the dusty arm pit of ancient history and current world events. 

So please explain, Mr. Nuclear Expert, what is the half-life of uranium 235? How about plutonium? How long did it take for inspection teams to declare two bombed Japanese cities to be free of radiation? 2000 years? 200 million years? 

Oh, I see. A few months. So which is it? Radioactive decay estimates are off by months or millennia? 

 

Simple answer? type of detonations. The more in depth answer below, not my words.

 

 

These are not my word, but, they suit the purpose.

 

Quote

Atom bombs like the ones dropped on Japan produce two types of radiation: initial and residual. (I'm getting this from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings, an exhaustive Japanese study, published in English in 1981.) Initial radiation is released by the explosion itself. Residual radiation comes later from radionuclides, radioactive isotopes either generated by the explosion or else induced in soil, building materials, bodies, etc, by neutron bombardment unleashed by the blast.

The bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki produced their share of residual radiation, but it didn't stick around long, for two reasons. First, both bombs were detonated more than 500 meters above street level so as to wreak maximum destruction (surrounding buildings would have blocked much of the force of ground-level explosions). That limited surface contamination, since most of the radioactive debris was carried off in the mushroom cloud instead of being embedded in the earth. There was plenty of lethal fallout in the form of "ashes of death" and "black rain," but it was spread over a fairly wide area.

Second, most of the radionuclides had brief half-lives--some lasting just minutes. The bomb sites were intensely radioactive for the first few hours after the explosions, but thereafter the danger diminished rapidly. American scientists sweeping Hiroshima with Geiger counters a month after the explosion to see if the area was safe for occupation troops found a devastated city but little radioactivity. Water lilies blackened by the blast had already begun to grow again, suggesting that whatever radioactivity there had been immediately following the blast had quickly dissipated.

U.S. military authorities touted these findings to an apprehensive world as proof that A-bombs really weren't so bad. A rumor widespread among Japanese civilians--evidently based on comments made by an American science writer in an interview published shortly after the bombings--held that Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be uninhabitable for 70 or 75 years. To quell such talk, American military leaders held a press conference at which they suggested that the explosions had been massive but otherwise ordinary, denied any lingering danger, and predicted there would be no further deaths.

None of this turned out to be true. Although residual radiation was a relatively minor threat, many of those who survived the blasts had already absorbed the initial radiation doses that would eventually kill or cripple them. Radiation deaths began a week after the bombings and peaked three or four weeks later. People with few apparent injuries would suddenly develop ghastly symptoms--hair loss, purple skin blotches, and bloody discharge from various orifices were among the more obvious--and die soon after. Of the 103,000 people estimated by the U.S. military to have been killed by the bombs, 36,000 died a day or more after the blasts. (Granted, many had multiple injuries and didn't die of radiation poisoning alone.)

Radiation deaths subsided after seven or eight weeks but latent effects continued to appear for a long time. Fetuses irradiated in the wombs of their mothers were subject to high rates of miscarriage, stillbirth, and birth defects--many kids were retarded or had unusually small heads (microcephaly), stunted growth, or other afflictions. Cases of leukemia surged in 1947 and peaked in the early 1950s. Additional problems included other cancers and blood disorders, cataracts, heavy scarring (keloid), and male sterility. However, no genetic damage was detected in children conceived after the blasts. Oddly enough, notwithstanding all the calamities visited on the Japanese by the bombs, the two things everybody now expects to happen in a nuclear war, mutant kids and the land glowing blue forevermore, didn't. .

Nuclear power plants and nuclear bombs. The difference, and why Chernobyl is uninhabitable.

 

Quote

 

 

While they work on the same principles, the detonation of an atomic bomb and the meltdown of a nuclear plant are two very different processes.

An atomic bomb is based on the idea of releasing as much energy from a runaway nuclear fission reaction as possible in the shortest amount of time. The idea being to create as much devastating damage as possible immediately so as to nullify enemy forces or intimidate the opposing side into surrender. Both effectively ensuring the conflict ends quickly. Thus, it would be important that the area bombed does not remain uninhabitable long after the two sides make peace (Ok, that's my own speculation, but I think it's a nice ideal to work with).

A nuclear reactor is based on the idea of producing low amounts of power using a controlled and sustained nuclear fission reaction. The point being that it does not release all of the energy at once and slower reaction processes are used to ensure maximum lifetime of the nuclear fuel.

Moving beyond the ideas behind each, the radioactive isotopes created in an atomic blast are relatively short-lived due to the nature of the blast and the fact that they are normally detonated above the ground to increase destructive power of the concussive wave. Most radioactive materials from an atomic blast have a maximum half-life of 50 years.

However, in the Chernobyl meltdown, most of the actual exploding was due to containment failure and explosions from steam build-up. Chunks of fuel rods and irradiated graphite rods remained intact. Furthermore, the reaction has, both initially and over its life, produced a far higher amount of radioactive materials. This is partly due to the nature of the reaction, the existence of intact fuel to this date, and that the explosion happened at ground level. A fission explosion at ground level creates more radioactive isotopes due to neutron activation in soil. Furthermore, the half-lives of the isotopes made in the Chernobyl accident (because of the nature of the process) are considerably longer. It is estimated that the area will not be habitable for humans for another 20 000 years (Edit: to prevent further debate I rechecked this number. That is the time before the area within the cement sarcophagus - the exact location of the blast - becomes safe. The surrounding area varies between 20 years and several hundred due to uneven contamination).

Long story short, an atomic bomb is, like other bombs, designed to achieve the most destructive force possible over a short amount of time. The reaction process that accomplishes this ends up creating short-lived radioactive particles, which means the initial radiation burst is extremely high but falls off rapidly. Whereas a nuclear reactor is designed to utilize the full extent of fission in producing power from a slow, sustained reaction process. This reaction results in the creation of nuclear waste materials that are relatively long-lived, which means that the initial radiation burst from a meltdown may be much lower than that of a bomb, but it lasts much longer.

In the global perspective: an atomic bomb may be hazardous to the health of those nearby, but a meltdown spreads radiation across the planet for years. At this point, everyone on Earth has averaged an extra 21 days of background radiation exposure per person due to Chernobyl. This is one of the reasons Chernobyl was a level 7 nuclear event.

All of this contribute to why even though Hiroshima had an atomic bomb detonate, it is Chernobyl (and Fukushima too I'll wager) that remains uninhabitable.

Most of the relevant info for this can be found in Wikipedia.

One further thing:
As pointed out, one thing I forgot to mention is that the amount of fissionable material in an atomic bomb is usually considerably less than the amount housed in a nuclear reactor. A standard nuclear reactor can consume 50000lb

(∼22700kg) of fuel in a year, whereas little boy held significantly less (around 100−150lb or 45−70kg). Obviously, having more fissionable material drastically increases the amount of radiation that can be output as well as the amount of radioactive isotopes. For example, the meltdown at Chernobyl released 25 times more Iodine-129 isotope than the Hiroshima bomb (an isotope that is relatively long-lived and dangerous to humans) and 890 times more Cesium-137 (not as long lived, but still a danger while it is present).

 

Sources: Web=http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/64916/why-can-hiroshima-be-inhabited-when-chernobyl-cannot

Edited by thedudeabides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Quote

 

Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?

The practical answer is, "No."

There are two ways residual radioactivity is produced from an atomic blast. The first is due to fallout of the fission products or the nuclear material itself--uranium or plutonium (uranium was used for the Hiroshima bomb whereas plutonium was used for the Nagasaki bomb)--that contaminate the ground. Similar ground contamination occurred as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but on a much larger scale (click here for more-detailed explanation). The second way residual radioactivity is produced is by neutron irradiation of soil or buildings (neutron activation), causing non-radioactive materials to become radioactive.

Fallout. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded at altitudes of 600 meters and 503 meters, respectively, then formed huge fireballs that rose with the ascending air currents. About 10% of the nuclear material in the bombs underwent fission; the remaining 90% rose in the stratosphere with the fireball.

Subsequently, the material cooled down and some of it started to fall with rain (black rain) in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, but probably most of the remaining uranium or plutonium was dispersed widely in the atmosphere. Because of the wind, the rain did not fall directly on the hypocenters but rather in the northwest region (Koi, Takasu area) of Hiroshima and the eastern region (Nishiyama area) of Nagasaki.

The maximum estimates of dose due to fallout are 0.01-0.03 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at the hypocenters are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values.

Nowadays, the radioactivity is so miniscule that it is difficult to distinguish from trace amounts (including plutonium) of radioactivity caused by worldwide fallout from atmospheric (as opposed to underground) atomic-bomb tests that were conducted around the world in past decades, particularly in the 1950s and 1960s.

Neutron activation. Neutrons comprised 10% or less of the A-bomb radiation, whereas gamma rays comprised the majority of A-bomb radiation. Neutrons cause ordinary, non-radioactive materials to become radioactive, but gamma rays do not. The bombs were detonated far above ground, so neutron induction of radioactivity on the ground did not produce the degree of contamination people associate with nuclear test sites (Nevada test site in Southwest U.S., Maralinga test site in South Australia, Bikini and Mururoa Atolls, etc.).

Past investigations suggested that the maximum cumulative dose at the hypocenter from immediately after the bombing until today is 0.8 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.3-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. When the distance is 0.5 km or 1.0 km from the hypocenter, the estimates are about 1/10 and 1/100 of the value at the hypocenter, respectively. The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly 80% of the above-mentioned doses were released within a day, about 10% between days 2 and 5, and the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward. Considering the extensive fires near the hypocenters that prevented people from entering until the following day, it seems unlikely that any person received over 20% of the above-mentioned dose, i.e., 0.16 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.06-0.08 Gy in Nagasaki.

 

 

Source: Web= http://www.rerf.jp/general/qa_e/qa12.html

Edited by thedudeabides

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have not been dismissed. Dropping equipment is a childish stunt.

We have seen this superficial information before. It is official garbage, not what we do in ct. Now go do your homework properly, this time looking through the eyes of a critical thinker. Look at other threads about nukes, sites which actually explore, investigate, and dig for buried truth. Look at trucks loaded with tons of TNT, napalm, white phosphorus, Agent Orange, Dresden fire bombing, other ways wars have been conducted. Then, instead of copy and paste, express your new-found knowledge in your own words. Get with the program, Dude. Why are you on a conspiracy site anyway? You always side with the control system. hmm. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, grav said:

You have not been dismissed. Dropping equipment is a childish stunt.

We have seen this superficial information before. It is official garbage, not what we do in ct. Now go do your homework properly, this time looking through the eyes of a critical thinker. Look at other threads about nukes, sites which actually explore, investigate, and dig for buried truth. Look at trucks loaded with tons of TNT, napalm, white phosphorus, Agent Orange, Dresden fire bombing, other ways wars have been conducted. Then, instead of copy and paste, express your new-found knowledge in your own words. Get with the program, Dude. Why are you on a conspiracy site anyway? You always side with the control system. hmm. 

 

None of your posts involved on nukes involve logic,proof, or reality. Go be paranoid somewhere else. This is meant to be a discussion of conspiracy. Not delusions. Just claiming everything as CGi does not make you credible, correct, or even remotely reliable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't make me step into this thread.  I don't like doing it.  

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Restore formatting

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.