Nuclear Weapons: do they exist or not?

Do nuclear weapons exist?

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 19.6%
  • No

    Votes: 25 49.0%
  • I do not know

    Votes: 16 31.4%

  • Total voters
    51

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
585
Reactions
1,181
Interesting for sure. I don't think it is conclusive of anything. I could easily believe M curie was a complete fabrication. I don't think that invalidates nuclear physics. I'm pretty sure radium exists, I have tested for it many times (indirectly, with a gross alpha test). We have a lot of uranium in our soil, albeit in very low concentrations, so many homes have radon issues.
 

Username

Member
Messages
11
Reactions
29
Maybe I should have used Uranium as the example.. Thanks for pointing it out. I haven't done as much research as I want into nuclear power plants but someone mentioned it was the most inefficient way to create electricity... I can't verify that yet. But what gets me is how it works. "the radioactive uranium bundle that heats water into steam. Welcome to the nuclear reactor core." So uranium emits heat.. Radioactivity is heat. Is the water filled with some magical radiation? Or just heat? No one dies working at a nuclear facility as opposed to a coal or oil facility... My old scout master was apart of the nuclear test site out here in Nevada and a member of the Atomic Energy Commission (maybe Board of Nevada). Anyways growing up in Vegas no one has ever died and no "radiation" exists anywhere in this area. Someone wrote that the testing was actually conventional bombs and TNT. Just throwing some more stuff out there...
Nuke power is very efficient, which is why I suspect the constant railing against it. It can also be incredibly safe and have minimal to no waste in a properly designed reactor. I'm partial to LFTR as it makes use of existing waste streams for rare earths and has several fail-safes by nature of it's function.

So here's how a conventional nuke plant in general works. You have an enriched, subcritical radioactive material (fuel) emitting neutrons. It is placed in a pressure chamber with something called a moderator, typically water. The moderator's job is to slow the outgoing neutrons so they have a greater chance of knocking more neutrons out. This creates a chain reaction with more and more slowed-down neutrons displacing others. Slowing the neutrons down means the energy has to go somewhere. That energy is also absorbed by the moderator (water) as heat. In these systems, the water also acts as a coolant. The high pressure, superheated water moderator/coolant is then pumped through a heat exchanger (think the radiator in your car or water heater in your house) where the heat energy is passed off to the water in the second loop. The second loop is under lower pressure and the water can become steam. The pressure of this steam forces its way through a turbine and turns a generator, producing power. The steam then continues to a condensation stage where it is cooled and condenses back into water to make the trip again.

So you have two separate, closed loops of water. The primary (moderator/coolant) and secondary (steam generation). The water in the primary doesn't really become radioactive despite the exposure because the elements in water aren't especially susceptible to the neutrons being released by the fuel. More often, it carries traces of radioactive material from the fuel or the metals of the pressure vessel and piping. The secondary is never even exposed to neutrons at all and has no way to become radioactive.

Very strict protocols are in place as the fuel does need to be refreshed in conventional reactors. You also have to consider that these operations take place every few years, so the number of possible exposures and accidents is miniscule compared to coal and oil. For an example of the types of things that can go wrong here, you'd look at Hiroshi Ouchi and the Tokaimura accident. As ISeenItFirst mentioned, newer conventional reactors using heavy water, like CANDU, don't require much enriched material at all which further minimizes anyone involved at the facility dying or being exposed.
 

Username

Member
Messages
11
Reactions
29
Nuclear power is not that efficient-it is basically a steam engine that drives a turbine. It can theoretically be 47% but in reality is closer to 35%. Any engine that operates higher than 300 degrees celsius will be more efficient than nuclear. Carnot’s Perfect Heat Engine: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Restated | Physics
You still get almost 300% lifetime efficiency with conventional nuclear power and that's without something like a LFTR that utilizes existing waste streams. The generation itself isn't terribly efficient, but as a system it's hard to beat. Wind, hydro, and geothermal outrank it. Lifetime on solar is below nuclear as well. Nuclear plants have some other perks like consistent output, placement flexibility, and footprint. I don't think they're ideal, but they're an important stepping stone.
 

blighty1

New member
Messages
9
Reactions
21
Its funny... that we all know that we've been lied to yet nuclear power is a given that its true (as above). The test to determine whether one has radon in your property ( i live in Cornwall, England, and its a given I'm breathing it in everyday) is with a detector that has mercury as the reactor in it, hmmm. So we all grew up with fear mongering propagana of nuclear annihilation, (duck and cover, under a wooden table) 50,000 year half life of an isotope yet the cities in Japan that were supposedly nuked are thriving. No mention of the lingering, invisible terror of radiation. Lets move forward to Chernobyl, a place of lush vegetation interspersed with decaying buildings that if one wants to can take a sightseeing trip of... hmmm. Alittle nearer our present time and Fukishima. No news is good news. Tepco must have it sorted. Man and woman back on the land, fishing ago-go.... hmmm
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
585
Reactions
1,181
Nuclear power is not that efficient-it is basically a steam engine that drives a turbine. It can theoretically be 47% but in reality is closer to 35%. Any engine that operates higher than 300 degrees celsius will be more efficient than nuclear. Carnot’s Perfect Heat Engine: The Second Law of Thermodynamics Restated | Physics
Lets nail down the processes which you wish to compare. Then let's nail down the methodology.

If it's heat rate, they are all about the same. If it's energy per gram of fuel, nuclear will be several thousand times more efficient.

Even with heat rate, the part about engines over 300C being inherently more efficient is outright false. Natural gas, coal, etc, all operate at well over 300C and have very similar heat rates to nuclear.
Its funny... that we all know that we've been lied to yet nuclear power is a given that its true (as above). The test to determine whether one has radon in your property ( i live in Cornwall, England, and its a given I'm breathing it in everyday) is with a detector that has mercury as the reactor in it, hmmm. So we all grew up with fear mongering propagana of nuclear annihilation, (duck and cover, under a wooden table) 50,000 year half life of an isotope yet the cities in Japan that were supposedly nuked are thriving. No mention of the lingering, invisible terror of radiation. Lets move forward to Chernobyl, a place of lush vegetation interspersed with decaying buildings that if one wants to can take a sightseeing trip of... hmmm. Alittle nearer our present time and Fukishima. No news is good news. Tepco must have it sorted. Man and woman back on the land, fishing ago-go.... hmmm
Never heard of a mercury test. They use various configurations of charcoal for passive tests, or a film that gets scratched by alpha particles. The active monitors use some sort of film that, upon being struck by an alpha particle, it alters the voltage read through the film. I've used mostly the active ones. They actually have a light on them that flashes every time an alpha particle hits the sensor. They have to be calibrated by the laboratory at least once per year.
 
Last edited:

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
133
Reactions
464
Lets nail down the processes which you wish to compare. Then let's nail down the methodology.

If it's heat rate, they are all about the same. If it's energy per gram of fuel, nuclear will be several thousand times more efficient.

Even with heat rate, the part about engines over 300C being inherently more efficient is outright false. Natural gas, coal, etc, all operate at well over 300C and have very similar heat rates to nuclear.

Never heard of a mercury test. They use various configurations of charcoal for passive tests, or a film that gets scratched by alpha particles. The active monitors use some sort of film that, upon being struck by an alpha particle, it alters the voltage read through the film. I've used mostly the active ones. They actually have a light on them that flashes every time an alpha particle hits the sensor. They have to be calibrated by the laboratory at least once per year.
Efficiency is a scientific term that means the amount of energy from an engine that can be turned into work, a usable amount of power. It is a steam engine. It has a certain maximum efficiency based on the temperature differential of the environment and the operating temperature of the engine. If you want to talk about something else fine but the efficiency of the nuclear steam engine is 47% theoretically and practically is about 35%. Two-thirds of the energy is wasted and that is why they have to have rivers, lakes or cooling ponds or seas to get rid of this waste heat. I have certain reservations about what is actually going on in a "nuclear power plant" and tend to think it's not what we are told like every thing else.
 

LetsHak

Active member
Messages
28
Reactions
134
Thermonuclear weapons are one of the deep state's favorite weapons. Indeed, they were the primary demolition devices used to destroy WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. I feel like this "nukes don't exist" meme is an effort to conceal this fact.

 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
585
Reactions
1,181
Efficiency is a scientific term that means the amount of energy from an engine that can be turned into work, a usable amount of power. It is a steam engine. It has a certain maximum efficiency based on the temperature differential of the environment and the operating temperature of the engine. If you want to talk about something else fine but the efficiency of the nuclear steam engine is 47% theoretically and practically is about 35%. Two-thirds of the energy is wasted and that is why they have to have rivers, lakes or cooling ponds or seas to get rid of this waste heat. I have certain reservations about what is actually going on in a "nuclear power plant" and tend to think it's not what we are told like every thing else.
In a Nuke plant it is two loops. It is the temperature differential between them, not ambient, although that is really nit picky.

A kW of electricity has a btu equivalent of around 3400. The heat rate is the amount of energy needed to deliver 1 kW of electricty. This ratio is where your 47% and 35% come from. This is calculated from the btu input to the generator.

Heat rate

As you can see, the heat rate for various types of power plants all fall in that 10k btu range, with a couple outliers.

Heat rates of various plants

I don't understand the fixation with the efficiency of a steam plant. They are ALL steam plants. That's why they all claim similar efficiencies. We are comparing fuels, not plant efficiencies. Much different.

I dunno, I'm no expert, I could be way off base.
In a Nuke plant it is two loops. It is the temperature differential between them, not ambient, although that is really nit picky.

A kW of electricity has a btu equivalent of around 3400. The heat rate is the amount of energy needed to deliver 1 kW of electricty. This ratio is where your 47% and 35% come from. This is calculated from the btu input to the generator.

Heat rate

As you can see, the heat rate for various types of power plants all fall in that 10k btu range, with a couple outliers.

Heat rates of various plants

I don't understand the fixation with the efficiency of a steam plant. They are ALL steam plants. That's why they all claim similar efficiencies. We are comparing fuels, not plant efficiencies. Much different.

I dunno, I'm no expert, I could be way off base.
Thermonuclear weapons are one of the deep state's favorite weapons. Indeed, they were the primary demolition devices used to destroy WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. I feel like this "nukes don't exist" meme is an effort to conceal this fact.

Yep, totally accurate, as far as I'm concerned, and it's clear as day once you know what to look for. They get used much more often than we know.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
133
Reactions
464
Thermonuclear weapons are one of the deep state's favorite weapons. Indeed, they were the primary demolition devices used to destroy WTC 1, 2, and 7 on 9/11. I feel like this "nukes don't exist" meme is an effort to conceal this fact.

So where was the flash of the nuke going off? Where was the mighty winds that would have propelled the debris away from the site instead of falling down on its foot print? What happened there defies all of their own "nuclear" bomb propaganda.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
585
Reactions
1,181
So where was the flash of the nuke going off? Where was the mighty winds that would have propelled the debris away from the site instead of falling down on its foot print? What happened there defies all of their own "nuclear" bomb propaganda.
It would take a few hundred pages to explain all of this to you in detail. In short, the devices were about 50 meters below the bedrock. Where they have been (more or less, again, severely truncated explanation) since 1977/8.

If an underground nuke made a blast wave or a flash, we'd see at least one a week, but they don't.

Now, the other device that day was a much different animal. Far, FAR more destructive, if it's detonator hadn't been disabled.
 

LetsHak

Active member
Messages
28
Reactions
134
So where was the flash of the nuke going off? Where was the mighty winds that would have propelled the debris away from the site instead of falling down on its foot print? What happened there defies all of their own "nuclear" bomb propaganda.
They were subterranean detonation, not atmospheric. Here's what that looks like:


Now picture one of those underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7 and you're getting the idea. (I also suspect this is what much of the US and Soviet nuclear testing was about -- and yes I think Russia was involved, sadly.)

Brief description:


Ground Zero. The Manhattan Project. Yeah.
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
585
Reactions
1,181
They were subterranean detonation, not atmospheric. Here's what that looks like:


Now picture one of those underneath WTC 1, 2, and 7 and you're getting the idea. (I also suspect this is what much of the US and Soviet nuclear testing was about -- and yes I think Russia was involved, sadly.)

Brief description:


Ground Zero. The Manhattan Project. Yeah.
No Russia not directly involved, but another country is, that you wouldn't expect. Their are VERY good reasons why Russia will keep the secret though, they are in tough spot on that one.

The treaties allow for civil devices of up to a certain yield, without international notification, iirc.

It actually could be a very intersting case study for our changing history studies. Dictionaries were changed as a direct result of 911. Even more interesting is that older dictionaries were reprinted and back dated and swapped out of libraries etc. Furthermore, there is absolute proof that this is the case. I believe there is a book forthcoming, just about the dictionary aspect.
 

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
494
I did see a few years back that Jared Leto has purchased one of these nuclear testing propaganda sites.

Jared Leto Bought A Former Nuclear Test Film Facility For $5 Million

The complex, once known as Lookout Mountain, has an incredible history. Between 1947 and 1969, some of Hollywood’s most talented scriptwriters, producers, editors, and directors made furtive journeys to this place to work on a top-secret project: filming nuclear explosions.
The United States Air Force established Lookout Mountain in 1947 in order to produce movies and photographs of nuclear tests. It was a full-service facility: military and civilian filmmakers would head to test sites in the Nevada desert or Pacific islands, capture footage of exploding bombs, and bring it back to Laurel Canyon for editing and post production.
The facility was equipped with a soundstage, screening rooms, film storage vaults, and, naturally, a bomb shelter.
The compound has since been converted into an eight-bedroom, 12-bathroom residence. In January, Variety reported that Jared Leto has purchased the former top-secret studios for $5 million. [Slate]
…located on a narrow canyon street behind imposing gates and towering hedges on just about 1.7 acres, has more than 50,000 square feet of multilevel interior space. Listing details show a total of 8 bedrooms and 12 — ahem — creatively tiled bathrooms, and… several kitchens and at least half a dozen living and dining spaces, both intimate and baronial in size.[Variety]

This sort of programming -

I can't verify for sure if nukes are real, im pretty sure we have some huge bombs that are capable of incredible destruction. Highly doubtful of what is said about nuclear fallout. The flora and fauna in Chernobyl seems to be thriving.

Wildlife thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant despite radiation

Wildlife is abundant around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, despite the presence of radiation released by the world’s most catastrophic nuclear explosion nearly three decades ago, researchers have found. The number of elk, deer and wild boar within the Belarusian half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone today are around the same as those in four nearby uncontaminated nature reserves. Wolves, which are commonly hunted in the region because of their impact on livestock, were seven times as abundant with the zone, according to a study published on Monday. The findings run counter to previous hypothesises that chronic long-term exposure to radiation would hit animal populations.

A couple more interesting videos.


- Couple live in exclusion zone


- Self settlers of Chernobyl​

TH
 

ISeenItFirst

Well-known member
Messages
585
Reactions
1,181
I did see a few years back that Jared Leto has purchased one of these nuclear testing propaganda sites.

Jared Leto Bought A Former Nuclear Test Film Facility For $5 Million

The complex, once known as Lookout Mountain, has an incredible history. Between 1947 and 1969, some of Hollywood’s most talented scriptwriters, producers, editors, and directors made furtive journeys to this place to work on a top-secret project: filming nuclear explosions.
The United States Air Force established Lookout Mountain in 1947 in order to produce movies and photographs of nuclear tests. It was a full-service facility: military and civilian filmmakers would head to test sites in the Nevada desert or Pacific islands, capture footage of exploding bombs, and bring it back to Laurel Canyon for editing and post production.
The facility was equipped with a soundstage, screening rooms, film storage vaults, and, naturally, a bomb shelter.
The compound has since been converted into an eight-bedroom, 12-bathroom residence. In January, Variety reported that Jared Leto has purchased the former top-secret studios for $5 million. [Slate]
…located on a narrow canyon street behind imposing gates and towering hedges on just about 1.7 acres, has more than 50,000 square feet of multilevel interior space. Listing details show a total of 8 bedrooms and 12 — ahem — creatively tiled bathrooms, and… several kitchens and at least half a dozen living and dining spaces, both intimate and baronial in size.[Variety]

This sort of programming - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mV8K9rN9Iw

I can't verify for sure if nukes are real, im pretty sure we have some huge bombs that are capable of incredible destruction. Highly doubtful of what is said about nuclear fallout. The flora and fauna in Chernobyl seems to be thriving.

Wildlife thriving around Chernobyl nuclear plant despite radiation

Wildlife is abundant around the site of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, despite the presence of radiation released by the world’s most catastrophic nuclear explosion nearly three decades ago, researchers have found. The number of elk, deer and wild boar within the Belarusian half of the Chernobyl exclusion zone today are around the same as those in four nearby uncontaminated nature reserves. Wolves, which are commonly hunted in the region because of their impact on livestock, were seven times as abundant with the zone, according to a study published on Monday. The findings run counter to previous hypothesises that chronic long-term exposure to radiation would hit animal populations.

A couple more interesting videos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48UtIAKxA40 - Couple live in exclusion zone

- Self settlers of Chernobyl

TH
That's because there was virtually no radioactive contamination there.

It was a nuclear explosion, but a planted one. Took out reactor 4. It was not nearly the world's largest or most catastrophic one.


AS for the film studio turned house in Laurel Canyon, I think that is where Kubrick shot the moon Landing, or at least did the post production work.
 

Magnetic

Well-known member
Messages
133
Reactions
464
The defenders of the nuclear bomb hoaxes just don't get it. Here is another video exposing the first nuclear bomb hoax "Trinity"(don't you love it when the parasites profane Christianity with their names).
The defenders of the nuclear bomb hoaxes just don't get it. Here is another video exposing the first nuclear bomb hoax "Trinity"(don't you love it when the parasites profane Christianity with their names).
The defenders of the nuclear bomb hoaxes just don't get it. Here is another video exposing the first nuclear bomb hoax "Trinity"(don't you love it when the parasites profane Christianity with their names).

Remember nuclear bombs ARE REAL! Here is a test of the first nuclear bomb by the Chinese communists. Remember this is real and not just acting and film trickery. It's entertaining though, go to the middle of the video to see the test and what they do. It's hilarious.
China's First Nuclear Weapons Test
 
Last edited:

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
683
I'll believe it when I see it... LOL!
(don't you love it when the parasites profane Christianity with their names).
as far as I can tell, the trinity concept predates christianity. Isis, Horis, and Set are one example. Ive also heard mention that me, myself and I are not one single/same life but parts of the trinity of One mind. (the christ consciousness?)

no offense intended, I follow the christ myself but am certainly not a 'christian' or any other label.
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
513
Reactions
2,623
Not sure about the weapons, but radiation exists, though it is mostly harmless, even beneficial in lower doses.

A couple of highly protective anti-oxidative substances even protect humans against very high levels of radiation, suggesting the biggest problem with high dose radiation is that humans have such a bad level of health nowadays.

Chernobyl is getting better quickly and the plants and animals are doing mostly fine:

 

blighty1

New member
Messages
9
Reactions
21
Would you share some of your opinions? i find this interesting.
I'll start it off...
Intro for the simpsons, i am jumping ahead alot but it makes me smile
 

Top