Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:33:15 -0400
>
>
> > And a number of items and texts helpful in making nukes is 'tagged' by
> > the FBI... besides the plutonium, I mean. Because *THAT* is close to
> > impossible to get!
>
> So get it off Libyan terrorists :)
>

No shit eh? Anyone who would be planning to do a major act like that and
who does it (or at least the research for it) in the country he's planning to
do it to is a complete idiot and would never have gotten the funding in the
first place! There are enough people out there in the world today that hate
someone else, all you have to do is dangle a nice large (and nuclear) carrot
in front of them to get them to help you.
here's one I just thought of... what advances in mass destruction warfare
do you think will actually be feasible and ready in SR in 2057? I know
Neutron bombs are developed but I don't know if they're workable yet for use
in war... and there's lots of other things that the military probably has
thought up that we don't know yet :)
And another... with population centers getting so huge nowadays a very
simple, easy way to destabilize the country would be to do a terrorist act
against a nuclear reactor plant. I know that the Toronto area has 8 (I
believe) reactors in two or three plants near by. For those that don't know
Toronto is in the center of Ontario, metro population 3 million or so and is
in the heart of the province... all our plants use very high tech storage
ways to keep the old rods, ON SITE. I'm assuming other plants are like
this. If you got onsite and detonated with some standard explosives (what if
the Oaklahoma bombing was a nuclear plant instead of a gov't office?) it
wouldn't be a true nuclear device but it would put out a *huge* radioactive
cloud that would not only infect most of Canada, but the entire US NorthEast
coast. NY would glow more than it already does. This is reality though...
so in a way we should be worries because if you all remember Chynerboyl (sp)
that was a melt down (how many reactors was it?) Our plants hold all of
their used rods for the last couple of decades... imagine the destruction.

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>-
O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++
G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 2
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:36:58 +0100
In article <340359AB.4A9DA453@****.net>, Sir Philos Nex
<philos@****.NET> writes
>If you got onsite and detonated with some standard explosives (what if
>the Oaklahoma bombing was a nuclear plant instead of a gov't office?) it
>wouldn't be a true nuclear device but it would put out a *huge* radioactive
>cloud that would not only infect most of Canada, but the entire US NorthEast
>coast. NY would glow more than it already does. This is reality though...
>so in a way we should be worries because if you all remember Chynerboyl (sp)
>that was a melt down (how many reactors was it?) Our plants hold all of
>their used rods for the last couple of decades... imagine the destruction.

The problem is that US and Canadian plants are water-moderated. That
means that, if you blow up the core, it might melt down but that's it.
Some transient radioactivity from the steam, no more.

The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl had a major design weakness: they were
graphite-moderated and water-cooled. Pressurised water at several
hundred degrees Celsius passed through zirconium tubes less than a
millimetre thick, through a solid carbon core pierced through with fuel
rods.

During the accident, the water in the core of Reactor #3 boiled. Since
the tubes were no longer in contact with liquid water, but were filled
with steam, the core rapidly heated up (no way to get the heat out) and
yet the moderator - the graphite - was still there.

In a pressurised water or CANDU reactor, the water is both coolant and
moderator: if it boils, then the nuclear reaction stops. In the RMBK, if
the water boiled the reactor ran away destructively.

Very quickly, one of the zirconium tubes was perforated, and superheated
steam hit red-hot carbon. The result was instant catastrophe, as the
steam and carbon reacted to form carbon monoxide and hydrogen gas that
raised the pressure inside the reactor vessel so high that it cracked
open and the highly explosive gases vented to atmosphere.

As they rushed out, air rushed in, and oxygen reached the red-hot
graphite moderator; the result was an instant blast-furnace effect,
blowing the roof off the reactor and melting everything inside the core,
blowing the contents out as a fine smoke of soot, carbon and vapourised
fuel rods. And _that_ was why the accident was so bad.

By the way, two of the site's reactors are back on line... the Ukranians
need the power desperately.



Neither a pressurised water reactor, nor fuel rods stored in water, can
present this hazard, unless you have some way to vapourise them: and
vapourising significant quantities of metal is no easy task, unless you
have several hundred tons of superheated graphite to hand.

Destroying a nuclear reactor is a far harder task than most realise. The
Soviet RMBK design is almost a "how not to" of reactor design, but it
was designed with the primary aim of producing weapons-grade plutonium
for nuclear warheads, and its ability to generate some electricty was a
side bonus. With a PWR or CANDU, the best that could be achieved would
be a Three Mile Island-style meltdown: you still have the problem of
breaching a containment vessel designed to withstand aircraft crashes to
release any significant radioactivity.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 3
From: John E Pederson <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:47:05 EDT
On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:36:58 +0100 "Paul J. Adam"
<shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes:

>The problem is that US and Canadian plants are water-moderated. That
>means that, if you blow up the core, it might melt down but that's it.
>Some transient radioactivity from the steam, no more.


The US has at least one graphite-core plant somewhere on the east coast
(don't remember where off-hand).


>The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl had a major design weakness: they were
>graphite-moderated and water-cooled. Pressurised water at several
>hundred degrees Celsius passed through zirconium tubes less than a
>millimetre thick, through a solid carbon core pierced through with
>fuel
>rods.


Isn't the main idea behind a graphite core (over whatever the other
material is they use, I don't recall atm) the fact that one of the waste
materials produced in the nuclear reactions in plutonium? <shrug> Maybe
not, but that's what I got told, once-upon-a-time.


Canthros (I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I play one within my mind)
Message no. 4
From: Dave Repp <darepp@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Sat, 23 Aug 1997 22:01:24 -0700
John E Pederson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 1997 00:36:58 +0100 "Paul J. Adam"
> <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK> writes:
>
> >The problem is that US and Canadian plants are water-moderated. That
> >means that, if you blow up the core, it might melt down but that's it.
> >Some transient radioactivity from the steam, no more.
>
> The US has at least one graphite-core plant somewhere on the east coast
> (don't remember where off-hand).
>
> >The RMBK reactors at Chernobyl had a major design weakness: they were
> >graphite-moderated and water-cooled. Pressurised water at several
> >hundred degrees Celsius passed through zirconium tubes less than a
> >millimetre thick, through a solid carbon core pierced through with
> >fuel
> >rods.
>
> Isn't the main idea behind a graphite core (over whatever the other
> material is they use, I don't recall atm) the fact that one of the waste
> materials produced in the nuclear reactions in plutonium? <shrug> Maybe
> not, but that's what I got told, once-upon-a-time.
>
> Canthros (I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I play one within my mind)

In Idaho, near Idaho Falls there is a large number of experimental
nuclear reactors. Small in size for the most part, but with a lot of
different cooling media. Sodium is the one that interested me (when I
found out about this group of reactors).
Message no. 5
From: "Hayes, Ann" <ahayes@***.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Tue, 26 Aug 1997 23:44:13 -0700
greetings. roun here.

on Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:33:15, Sir Philos Nex provoked my mind with:
> here's one I just thought of... what advances in mass destruction warfare
>do you think will actually be feasible and ready in SR in 2057? I know
>Neutron bombs are developed but I don't know if they're workable yet for use
>in war... and there's lots of other things that the military probably has
>thought up that we don't know yet :)

how about a bomb that destroys all living material within a certain
radius. not very feasable given the limitations of science...but a mix of
magic and tech could produce a weapon capable of reducing all living
material to it's component elements...in say a 100 metre radius. how about
microwaves? i dunno, i'm an arts major (education) not a techie.

what about the fact that when as certain pitch in sound is reached,
bridges made a certain way will just dissolve. i do not think this can
happen to bridges built now but it is not unheard of. could a certain
sonics weapon liquify flesh? what about (p-waves or s-waves, which one?)
that go out with earthquakes and reduce the ground to a consistancy that
almost rivals water for substance? compression waves that dissolve a
living beings body?
comments/critcisms?

roun
ahayes@***.net
Message no. 6
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 15:28:30 +0100
| how about a bomb that destroys all living material within a certain
|radius. not very feasable given the limitations of science...but a mix of
|magic and tech could produce a weapon capable of reducing all living
|material to it's component elements...in say a 100 metre radius. how about
|microwaves? i dunno, i'm an arts major (education) not a techie.

Sorry to dissappoint you, but such a weapon has existed for YEARS.
It's called the Neutron bomb, and it's designed to kill people but leave
buildings and infrastructure unharmed.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 7
From: Mike Sapp <cynner29@******.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 14:24:01 -0400
<snip>

> what about the fact that when as certain pitch in sound is reached,
>bridges made a certain way will just dissolve. i do not think this can
>happen to bridges built now but it is not unheard of. could a certain
>sonics weapon liquify flesh? what about (p-waves or s-waves, which one?)
>that go out with earthquakes and reduce the ground to a consistancy that
>almost rivals water for substance? compression waves that dissolve a
>living beings body?
>comments/critcisms?
>
They had these when I was a kid, at the time it was two large mounted
Ultrasonic generators set on a tank frame, the US Army called them Big
Whistle and Little whistle. They generated focused cones of intense
Ultrasonic waves which either causes a human to explode or burst into
flames, the outcome varies from person to person. I believe the project was
"officially" dropped when the Geneva Convention declared it a weapon of
mass destruction without effective countermeasures.(side note: this was
around '78 and WNG's weren't as far along)

Trees required longer exposure to the Ultrasonic waves to suffer severe
damage but if left focused in an area long enough they were suffered
similiar effects as humans. No mention was made in the book that I read of
testing against inflamable objects or Hard Targets.

As for earthquakes, and dissolving targets, you're talking about
tremendous amounts of energy being used for spectacular results when
simpler and cheaper weapons could achieve similiar results.
Message no. 8
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Wed, 27 Aug 1997 17:05:31 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-27 01:35:01 EDT, you write:

> By the way, two of the site's reactors are back on line... the Ukranians
> need the power desperately.

You've GOT to be kidding me. Did they at least update the damned thing?
throw in additional saftey measures? ANYTHING??? (I ask because a friend of
mine's wife was living near Chernobyl at the time the meltdown occurred, and
she may have cancer because of it.)

> Destroying a nuclear reactor is a far harder task than most realise. The
> Soviet RMBK design is almost a "how not to" of reactor design, but it
> was designed with the primary aim of producing weapons-grade plutonium
> for nuclear warheads, and its ability to generate some electricty was a
> side bonus. With a PWR or CANDU, the best that could be achieved would
> be a Three Mile Island-style meltdown: you still have the problem of
> breaching a containment vessel designed to withstand aircraft crashes to
> release any significant radioactivity.

I'd imagine that enough shaped-charge explosives could blow a hole in the
containment vessel, but what effect that would have without stuffing a lot
more explosives in through the hole, I have no idea.

Wolfstar
Message no. 9
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:09:55 -0400
> Destroying a nuclear reactor is a far harder task than most realise. The
> Soviet RMBK design is almost a "how not to" of reactor design, but it
> was designed with the primary aim of producing weapons-grade plutonium
> for nuclear warheads, and its ability to generate some electricty was a
> side bonus. With a PWR or CANDU, the best that could be achieved would
> be a Three Mile Island-style meltdown: you still have the problem of
> breaching a containment vessel designed to withstand aircraft crashes to
> release any significant radioactivity.
>

Although you are correct on the difficulty to sucessfully destroy and radiate
from a reactor, you are forgetting the topic of conversation :) If a terrorist
group (we are assuming that they're actually intelligent) wanted to cripple or
frighten the eastern half of North America and perhaps even Western Europe they
*could* do it. You can get tours of most of the Ontario Hydro nuclear plants,
that'll give a terrorist a good look around (I would assume that you could even
bring in cameras and such which would give you invaluable recon), with that (with
the fact that the design of the Candu reactor is generally known so info on where
it's points are, etc are available) a group could develop a way to seize control
and plant precise charges around. I don't know what the security on the plants
sites are, but I would assume that a dedicated group could do it fairly easily..
once inside the ontario provincial police and the RCMP would sit and negotiate
(unknowing that you're planning to create a nasty situation).
Ok.. even if you can prove me wrong on this point (I must say, you are
definitely intelligent :) give me this much... even if they *couldn't* send a
giant death cloud of radioactivity by intelligently using demolitions to blow it
all up, all of our plants are beside the great lakes, using the water for cooling
purposes.. I know the water is treated and all that to make sure that what's put
back out into the ecosphere is safe, if a terrorist group used their charges in
other ways (say... removing safe guards and radioactive water seeps
uncontrollably into Lake Ontaio or Lake Huron), they could just as easily disrupt
most of eastern North America... You can't say that "there are safe guards that
computers would over see and shut things down.. blah blah" because Ontario Hydro
is closing 7 plants (temporarily I believe) because safety regulations weren't
being followed all that well and "safe but not nearly as safe as anyone would
like to have" water was flowing out untreated. If that could happen, for years
apparently it has, then a major catastraphy is quite possible. Ontario, most of
NY, Michigan, Ohio, Quebec, vermont, new hamshire (sp.. hey I'm not from the
country so give me a break:), and maine would probably all be out of their water
supplies (at least for the short term).. there would be panic even if it wasn't
all that much to worry about. People are paranoid.

> --
> There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
> praiseworthy...
>
> Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk



--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>-
O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 10
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:16:22 -0400
Hayes, Ann wrote:

> greetings. roun here.
>
> on Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:33:15, Sir Philos Nex provoked my mind with:
> > here's one I just thought of... what advances in mass destruction warfare
> >do you think will actually be feasible and ready in SR in 2057? I know
> >Neutron bombs are developed but I don't know if they're workable yet for use
> >in war... and there's lots of other things that the military probably has
> >thought up that we don't know yet :)
>
> how about a bomb that destroys all living material within a certain
> radius. not very feasable given the limitations of science...but a mix of
> magic and tech could produce a weapon capable of reducing all living
> material to it's component elements...in say a 100 metre radius. how about
> microwaves? i dunno, i'm an arts major (education) not a techie.
>

I was under the impression that the neutron bomb just kills every living thing
withinthe blast radius. It leaves the buildings and superstructure intact.. it
just rips flesh and all other living matter to pieces. I think anyways... but
don't quote me on that :)

--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++

!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 11
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:22:53 -0400
Spike wrote:

> | how about a bomb that destroys all living material within a certain
> |radius. not very feasable given the limitations of science...but a mix of
> |magic and tech could produce a weapon capable of reducing all living
> |material to it's component elements...in say a 100 metre radius. how about
> |microwaves? i dunno, i'm an arts major (education) not a techie.
>
> Sorry to dissappoint you, but such a weapon has existed for YEARS.
> It's called the Neutron bomb, and it's designed to kill people but leave
> buildings and infrastructure unharmed.

But is it feasable in warfare? I've known it existed, but I have never seen
anything on it really... has the UN banned it (I would assume that it's kinda a
horrible way to die) or has the US just decided that it likes nukes more?--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++

!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G
e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 12
From: "Wendy Wanders, Subject 117" <KGGEWEHR@******.ACS.MUOHIO.EDU>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 09:30:39 -0500
You wrote:
> I was under the impression that the neutron bomb just kills every living thing
> withinthe blast radius. It leaves the buildings and superstructure intact.. it
> just rips flesh and all other living matter to pieces. I think anyways... but
> don't quote me on that :)

Nope. Nope. Neutron bombs are designed so as to produce more ionizing
radiation than other nukes, that's all. Thus, they would kill people with
radioation in numbers disproportionate to their blast, but would still create a
serious blast just like any nuke of their size. Outside the blast radius, the
radiation may kill people without destroying structures, however.

losthalo
Message no. 13
From: Spike <u5a77@*****.CS.KEELE.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 14:49:46 +0100
|Nope. Nope. Neutron bombs are designed so as to produce more ionizing
|radiation than other nukes, that's all. Thus, they would kill people with
|radioation in numbers disproportionate to their blast, but would still create a
|serious blast just like any nuke of their size. Outside the blast radius, the
|radiation may kill people without destroying structures, however.

I don't think Neutron Bombs have Megaton capacity.
They just produce a massive burst of Neutron radiation.
And even if they do, detonate them from high enough, and they still do the
same thing. Sterilise all life and leave buildings intact.

It's all just a matter of weapon depoyment...
Do it correctly, and you get the results you aimed for.
--
______________________________________________________________________________
|u5a77@*****.cs.keele.ac.uk| "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
|Andrew Halliwell | |
|Principal subjects in:- | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
|Comp Sci & Electronics | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|GCv3.1 GCS/EL>$ d---(dpu) s+/- a- C++ U N++ o+ K- w-- M+/++ PS+++ PE- Y t+ |
|5++ X+/++ R+ tv+ b+ D G e>PhD h/h+ !r! !y-|I can't say F**K either now! :( |
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Message no. 14
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 02:59:09 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-28 09:16:41 EDT, you write:

> > on Tue, 26 Aug 1997 18:33:15, Sir Philos Nex provoked my mind
with:
> > > here's one I just thought of... what advances in mass destruction
> warfare
> > >do you think will actually be feasible and ready in SR in 2057? I know
> > >Neutron bombs are developed but I don't know if they're workable yet
for
> use
> > >in war... and there's lots of other things that the military probably
has
> > >thought up that we don't know yet :)
> >
> > how about a bomb that destroys all living material within a
> certain
> > radius. not very feasable given the limitations of science...but a mix
of
> > magic and tech could produce a weapon capable of reducing all living
> > material to it's component elements...in say a 100 metre radius. how
> about
> > microwaves? i dunno, i'm an arts major (education) not a techie.

Hmm .. lets see ...
an article in a USA News Magazine (?) ... from a couple of months ago taked
about futuristic military weapons ... if I find the article again I will post
it also ... (perhaps even copy it onto the group for each of you to read) ...

There is a prototype for ultrasonic barriers .. the closer you get the more
intense the pain becomes ...

A Sound Gun (Vortex ?) ... prototype exists ... works on th principle that it
targets a a certain category of chemicals within the brain (specifically the
ones dealing with hostility and anger and the like) ... the effect is the
person becomes extremely docile for a time ...

Myotron ... this device which exists (the Russians just bought 100,000 of
them not too long ago) ... a more advanced taser .. overloads the nervous
system making involuntary muscle activity impossible ... turns the person
into a glob of drool ...

There is also a microwave gun ... works on the same principle as the one at
home .. it fires microwaves at someone and causes damage by cooking someone
from the inside out ... a prototype exists except that the energy necessary
to fire a shot is way to high and the gun is also very bulky ... another
problem deals with focusing the beam of energy ...

Enjoy,

Mike
Message no. 15
From: Mike Bobroff <AirWisp@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 03:01:50 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-28 09:21:58 EDT, you write:

> But is it feasable in warfare? I've known it existed, but I have never
seen
> anything on it really... has the UN banned it (I would assume that it's
> kinda a
> horrible way to die) or has the US just decided that it likes nukes
more?--

This is in reference to a Neutron bomb ...

Yes, neutron bombs are horribly expensive to make.

Nukes are cheaper and easier to make.

Think from a strategic standpoint ... I hate country over there ... they have
resources that I want / need ... I nuke them and therefore can not use their
resources for years to come .. if I neutron bomb them then I have all of
their resources and access to all of the buildings in their cities and the
like ...

Have fun,

Mike
Message no. 16
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:21:45 -0600
Mike Bobroff wrote:
|
| There is a prototype for ultrasonic barriers .. the closer you get the more
| intense the pain becomes ...

Gonna use this <EGMG>

| There is also a microwave gun ... works on the same principle as the one at
| home .. it fires microwaves at someone and causes damage by cooking someone
| from the inside out ... a prototype exists except that the energy necessary
| to fire a shot is way to high and the gun is also very bulky ... another
| problem deals with focusing the beam of energy ...

Okay, I gotta say something about this. Microwaves do not cook from
the inside out. Microwaves penetrate most flesh and vegetable to a
depth of 2 inches, whereas heat energy from a regular oven hits the
surface and has to trasfer to the inside. So with a microwave that
*entire* 2 inches is getting cooked (not counting "cold" spots inside
the microwave oven).

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 17
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 10:42:00 GMT
on 28.08.97 philos@****.NET wrote:

p> > Sorry to dissappoint you, but such a weapon has existed for YEARS.
p> > It's called the Neutron bomb, and it's designed to kill people but leave
p> > buildings and infrastructure unharmed.
p>
p> But is it feasable in warfare? I've known it existed, but I have never
p> seen anything on it really... has the UN banned it (I would assume that
p> it's kinda a horrible way to die) or has the US just decided that it likes
p> nukes more?

Fortunatly, the neutron bomb is not that old, so it wasn't available in
WW2. I guess, given a chance (meaning a nuklear-war) the USA would use
this kind of bomb.

Tobias
Message no. 18
From: Tobias Berghoff <Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:19:00 GMT
on 27.08.97 W0lfstar@***.COM wrote:

W> > By the way, two of the site's reactors are back on line... the Ukranians
W> > need the power desperately.
W>
W> You've GOT to be kidding me.

Nope. IIRC they coated the blown up cell in concrete and put the remaining
cells back on line. I can't blame them, they've got nothing else.

W> Did they at least update the damned thing?

Well, the reactors actually don't need that much updating (if any). These
thinks where always damn robust.

W> throw in additional saftey measures?

There're enough of them. Just make sure nobody deactivates them again.

W> ANYTHING??? (I ask because a friend of
W> mine's wife was living near Chernobyl at the time the meltdown occurred,
W> and she may have cancer because of it.)

I just remembered the day Chernobyl melt down...feels strange, especially
as I was just six years old back then...

W> I'd imagine that enough shaped-charge explosives could blow a hole in the
W> containment vessel, but what effect that would have without stuffing a lot
W> more explosives in through the hole, I have no idea.

There was a discussion, a few years back, about jets crashing into nuklear
reactors and penetrating the hull, causing extrem radioactive
contermiation...Can't remember if they did something about it, if not,
flying and EFA into an NPP should have a devasting result.

Tobias
Message no. 19
From: Tim Cooper <z-i-m@****.COM>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 16:06:36 EDT
On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:21:45 -0600 David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
writes:

>Okay, I gotta say something about this. Microwaves do not cook from
>the inside out. Microwaves penetrate most flesh and vegetable to a
>depth of 2 inches, whereas heat energy from a regular oven hits the
>surface and has to trasfer to the inside. So with a microwave that
>*entire* 2 inches is getting cooked (not counting "cold" spots inside
>the microwave oven).

This, of course, doesn't alter the effectiveness of such a weapon.... I
don't know about you, but the cooking of 2 inches worth of my flesh is
*still* something to be frowned upon.

~Tim
Message no. 20
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 14:25:13 -0600
Tim Cooper wrote:
|
| On Fri, 29 Aug 1997 07:21:45 -0600 David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
| writes:
|
| >Okay, I gotta say something about this. Microwaves do not cook from
| >the inside out. Microwaves penetrate most flesh and vegetable to a
| >depth of 2 inches, whereas heat energy from a regular oven hits the
| >surface and has to trasfer to the inside. So with a microwave that
| >*entire* 2 inches is getting cooked (not counting "cold" spots inside
| >the microwave oven).
|
| This, of course, doesn't alter the effectiveness of such a weapon.... I
| don't know about you, but the cooking of 2 inches worth of my flesh is
| *still* something to be frowned upon.

Oh, no doubt about it.

-David
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm
--
"Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing
which ones to keep."
Message no. 21
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 21:43:07 +0100
In article <340578A3.8CDEBC37@****.net>, Sir Philos Nex
<philos@****.NET> writes
>If a terrorist
>group (we are assuming that they're actually intelligent) wanted to cripple or
>frighten the eastern half of North America and perhaps even Western Europe they
>*could* do it. You can get tours of most of the Ontario Hydro nuclear plants,
>that'll give a terrorist a good look around (I would assume that you could even
>bring in cameras and such which would give you invaluable recon), with that
>(with
>the fact that the design of the Candu reactor is generally known so info on
>where
>it's points are, etc are available) a group could develop a way to seize control
>and plant precise charges around. I don't know what the security on the plants
>sites are, but I would assume that a dedicated group could do it fairly easily..
>once inside the ontario provincial police and the RCMP would sit and negotiate
>(unknowing that you're planning to create a nasty situation).

Then what? You've blown some stuff up, maybe cracked the containment,
maybe breached the core or caused a meltdown.

I seriously doubt you'd see the RCMP sitting on their hands while a
terrorist group fortify positions and plant charges in a nuclear
reactor, but that's another story. The longer they're left in there, the
worse it will be when they do... whatever it is they're there to do.
They didn't seize a nuclear power station just because they thought it
was pretty...

> Ok.. even if you can prove me wrong on this point (I must say, you are
>definitely intelligent :) give me this much... even if they *couldn't* send a
>giant death cloud of radioactivity by intelligently using demolitions to blow it
>all up, all of our plants are beside the great lakes, using the water for
>cooling
>purposes.. I know the water is treated and all that to make sure that what's put
>back out into the ecosphere is safe, if a terrorist group used their charges in
>other ways (say... removing safe guards and radioactive water seeps
>uncontrollably into Lake Ontaio or Lake Huron), they could just as easily
>disrupt
>most of eastern North America... You can't say that "there are safe guards that
>computers would over see and shut things down.. blah blah" because Ontario Hydro
>is closing 7 plants (temporarily I believe) because safety regulations weren't
>being followed all that well and "safe but not nearly as safe as anyone would
>like to have" water was flowing out untreated. If that could happen, for years
>apparently it has, then a major catastraphy is quite possible. Ontario, most of
>NY, Michigan, Ohio, Quebec, vermont, new hamshire (sp.. hey I'm not from the
>country so give me a break:), and maine would probably all be out of their
>water
>supplies (at least for the short term).. there would be panic even if it wasn't
>all that much to worry about. People are paranoid.

Spent fuel and cores are solidly contained. How much digging are you
allowing these terrorists to do?

They're also intensely radioactive, as in several thousand rems an hour
per rod. LD50 for humans is 450 rems, and prompt incapacitation at 2600
rems. In other words, walking past a poolful of these will leave you on
the floor vomiting blood within minutes, and dead within an hour.

Unless this terrorist group brought some funky remote-control lifting
gear, how do they intend to move this stuff from inside its containment
to where it can create massive pollution? How do they prevent the
cooling water ducts being plugged by Navy divers, for instance?

The greatest safeguard around high-level radioactive waste is the fact
that it's high-level radioactivity, and thus extremely hard to handle
without the correct equipment. Will the power even be on still? Did the
terrorists prevent the reactor operators from SCRAMing the plant, and
are the police seriously leaving the mains power supply connected?

I'll grant it's not impossible. But it's not credible.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 22
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 1997 21:29:54 +0100
In article <6ckTlLggX3B@****.komet.teuto.de>, Tobias Berghoff
<Zixx@*****.TEUTO.DE> writes
>There was a discussion, a few years back, about jets crashing into nuklear
>reactors and penetrating the hull, causing extrem radioactive
>contermiation...Can't remember if they did something about it, if not,
>flying and EFA into an NPP should have a devasting result.


REAL! TV just showed footage of a Japanese test: they put a ballasted
(to represent fuel weight) F-4 Phantom on a sled with rocket boosters,
and shot it into a section of reactor containment vessel.

Impact velocity was over 480 knots, or about 520 miles an hour.

The reinforced concrete survived without penetration.

I make no comment as to where I saw it (between Star Trek TNG and
Married: With Children, and on as background noise while I was on the
computer) but that's been a fairly standard test for a long time.

Like the British Nuclear Fuels test where they rammed a spent-fuel cask
with a railway train at full speed, these things are generally designed
to be quite tough.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 23
From: Sir Philos Nex <philos@****.NET>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 1997 14:51:24 -0400
Paul J. Adam wrote: I seriously doubt you'd see the RCMP sitting on their hands while
a

> terrorist group fortify positions and plant charges in a nuclear
> reactor, but that's another story. The longer they're left in there, the
> worse it will be when they do... whatever it is they're there to do.
> They didn't seize a nuclear power station just because they thought it
> was pretty...

But what would they do? Charge in guns blazing? Could not that be just as
potentially damaging? Especially if terrorists have control of the control room?

> Spent fuel and cores are solidly contained. How much digging are you
> allowing these terrorists to do?
>

Actually I mentioned nothing of spent fuel or anything, just of the water
coolant. Nuclear plants are cooled with water. A chunk of this becomes very
radioactive and is supposidly treated before being released back into the source (say
in this case we're talking about Lake Ontario). If a group thought "Ok, we can't
blow up the reactor" they could damage the whole water treatment areas and open it so
that water is pumped directly into the lake.

> Unless this terrorist group brought some funky remote-control lifting
> gear, how do they intend to move this stuff from inside its containment
> to where it can create massive pollution? How do they prevent the
> cooling water ducts being plugged by Navy divers, for instance?
>

After watching a video inschool about the durlington nuclear powerplant (I
believe that's the one outside of Toronto) they have robotics set up to move the rods
around safely. From the beginning of this thread we've assumed that we're not
dealing with idiots but highly trained and intelligent people, they would have
someone who knew how to work with that.As for the blocking of the water ducts... we
*are* talking about the Canadian navy here! We're small, efficient and definitely
not located in Central Ontario :) It would take many hours for people to even get to
that point to be ready for something like that. And because your talking about
radioactive discharge what diver is going to want to go to the outflow areas to close
it off? You'd probably need a submersable to do that, and how many of them, menaing
subs that are capable of a)remote control b)fine manipulation and c)are Canadian, are
in the Great lakes region? If we had to get the Americans to help that would just
add on the hours, then add on the time it takes to find a sub and fly it into Toronto
(now imagine if this occurs during the day? and although I don't live in toronto, I
know the traffic fromt he few times I've had the misfortune of driving through it :(
Even if they do plug the outflows in the middle of the lake, you have radioactive
water flowing into the plant.. this effectively takes 4 or so reactors offline for
sometime.. that's a 50% reduction of nuclear power for all of Ontario, and chunks
of Michigan, NY, and other states.

> The greatest safeguard around high-level radioactive waste is the fact
> that it's high-level radioactivity, and thus extremely hard to handle
> without the correct equipment. Will the power even be on still? Did the
> terrorists prevent the reactor operators from SCRAMing the plant, and
> are the police seriously leaving the mains power supply connected?
>

Question I have is how long does it take to properly shut down a nuclear plant?
If it takes more than 10 minutes, assuming professionals, it takes too long and
probably could be stopped.. for a SR team 10 minutes is an eternity.

> I'll grant it's not impossible. But it's not credible.

Tahnks the gods for that! If it was possible and credible and feasable we'd
probably be drinking glow-in-the-dark water and all have 6 eyes :) <jk>--
Andrew Dominas
AKA Sir Philos Nex
3rd Year Honours Business Administration U of Windsor
Jedi Knight

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GB/O d-@>++ s+:+> a-- C++++>$ U P L>- !E----? W+@>++ N++ o K-?
w---(-)>- O+++
!M- V? PS+ PE++>+++ Y-- !PGP- t !5 X R++* tv- b+ DI++++(+++++)>+++++ D++ G e++
h>+ r+++ y+++++(reset)
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 24
From: George Metz <W0lfstar@***.COM>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 06:10:34 -0400
In a message dated 97-08-27 17:42:39 EDT, you write:

> | how about a bomb that destroys all living material within a
certain
> |radius. not very feasable given the limitations of science...but a mix
of
> |magic and tech could produce a weapon capable of reducing all living
> |material to it's component elements...in say a 100 metre radius. how
about
> |microwaves? i dunno, i'm an arts major (education) not a techie.
>
> Sorry to dissappoint you, but such a weapon has existed for YEARS.
> It's called the Neutron bomb, and it's designed to kill people but leave
> buildings and infrastructure unharmed.

People, and grass, and trees, and shrubbery, and Fido, and grasshoppers, and
the fish in your fishtank..... THIS is a weapon that truly would frighten me
in the hands of Hussein or Qaddafi....

Wolfstar
Message no. 25
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: A reply and an interesting thought...
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 22:56:04 +0100
In article <3409BD2C.159E2789@****.net>, Sir Philos Nex
<philos@****.NET> writes
>Paul J. Adam wrote:

>I seriously doubt you'd see the RCMP sitting on their hands
>while
>a
>> terrorist group fortify positions and plant charges in a nuclear
>> reactor, but that's another story. The longer they're left in there, the
>> worse it will be when they do... whatever it is they're there to do.
>> They didn't seize a nuclear power station just because they thought it
>> was pretty...
>
> But what would they do? Charge in guns blazing? Could not that be just as
>potentially damaging? Especially if terrorists have control of the control
>room?

There's very little you can do by shooting up the control room that is
worse than leaving determined terrorists to do as they will with the
plant. And the longer you leave the terrorists in control of the plant,
the more likely it is that they will plant nasty surprises in and around
sensitive parts of the machinery.

>> Spent fuel and cores are solidly contained. How much digging are you
>> allowing these terrorists to do?

> Actually I mentioned nothing of spent fuel or anything, just of the water
>coolant. Nuclear plants are cooled with water. A chunk of this becomes very
>radioactive and is supposidly treated before being released back into the source
>(say
>in this case we're talking about Lake Ontario). If a group thought "Ok, we
>can't
>blow up the reactor" they could damage the whole water treatment areas and open
>it so
>that water is pumped directly into the lake.

Tritium pollution. Not good, but not hugely polluting either compared to
many of the alternatives. The primary coolant loop is the water that
gets radioactive, and its quantity is relatively small and the
radioactive intensity is also low compared to that of the core.

>> Unless this terrorist group brought some funky remote-control lifting
>> gear, how do they intend to move this stuff from inside its containment
>> to where it can create massive pollution? How do they prevent the
>> cooling water ducts being plugged by Navy divers, for instance?
>>
> After watching a video inschool about the durlington nuclear powerplant (I
>believe that's the one outside of Toronto) they have robotics set up to move the
>rods
>around safely. From the beginning of this thread we've assumed that we're not
>dealing with idiots but highly trained and intelligent people, they would have
>someone who knew how to work with that.

That you can find someone skilled in operating that equipment and
willing to work with you, is a big assumption. It also assumes nobody
pulled the breakers on that handling gear during the takeover, and that
nothing intervenes (like the mains power being pulled from outside, or
carbon-fibre being dropped over the substation: how much load can the
reactor's backups handle?) to disable the system.


>As for the blocking of the water ducts...
>we
>*are* talking about the Canadian navy here! We're small, efficient and
>definitely
>not located in Central Ontario :) It would take many hours for people to even
>get to
>that point to be ready for something like that. And because your talking about
>radioactive discharge what diver is going to want to go to the outflow areas to
>close
>it off?

You're worried about tritium in this case, which is an alpha emitter. It
won't penetrate your epidermis, let alone a drysuit.

And the Canadian Navy can't charter a Gulfstream and brief in the air?

> Even if they do plug the outflows in the middle of the lake, you have
>radioactive
>water flowing into the plant.. this effectively takes 4 or so reactors offline
>for
>sometime.. that's a 50% reduction of nuclear power for all of Ontario, and
>chunks
>of Michigan, NY, and other states.

For this you have a grid, and if necessary you brownout, and if
essential you cut power in some areas.

And you could achieve the same immediate result by blowing up the
condensers of a conventional power plant, with lower risk and much less
skill needed.


>> The greatest safeguard around high-level radioactive waste is the fact
>> that it's high-level radioactivity, and thus extremely hard to handle
>> without the correct equipment. Will the power even be on still? Did the
>> terrorists prevent the reactor operators from SCRAMing the plant, and
>> are the police seriously leaving the mains power supply connected?
>>
>
> Question I have is how long does it take to properly shut down a nuclear
>plant?

Hit The Big Red Button. The sequence after that is automated. A reactor
plant can be shut down in seconds.

>If it takes more than 10 minutes, assuming professionals, it takes too long and
>probably could be stopped.. for a SR team 10 minutes is an eternity.

Try about ten seconds.

--
There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy...

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about A reply and an interesting thought..., you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!