What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Insignia(R) HDTV view!
bestbuygiftadvice.com - Best Buy(R) Twelpforce(TM) Carolers tout the 2-year warranty as great reason to buy the Insignia HDTV.
75 Comments
- malanic, on 04/11/2009, -1/+30Twenty seven nuclear tests were conducted under Plowshare, and the Russians conducted 115 nuclear explosions under a similar plan.
That crater photo in the article isn't labeled, but it could be 'Sedan', pictured in this Wikipedia entry;
"The shot, "Sedan", displaced more than 12 million short tons (11 teragrams) of soil and resulted in a radioactive cloud that rose to an altitude of 12,000 ft (3.7 km). The radioactive dust plume headed northeast and then east towards the Mississippi River."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Plowshare
"Sedan's fallout contamination exposed a little under 7% of Americans to harmful radiation, more than 13 million people; the highest number exposed by any nuclear test explosion in the continental USA. Sedan's effects were similar to shot "George" of Operation Tumbler-Snapper, detonated on June 1, 1952, which also exposed about 7% of American citizens to radioactive fallout, though in 1952 the country's population count was lower than in 1962; shot George exposed about 11 million people to radioactive fallout. Uncertainty regarding exact amounts of exposure prevent knowing which of the two nuclear tests exposed the greatest percentage of the American populace"
That’s absolutely shocking, and a fact that should have been included in the article. I’m glad that Wikipedia, and the web make these facts easy to find nowadays.
Here's a summary of the Russian disasters as well;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Explosions_fo ... - StripeyMagee, on 04/11/2009, -0/+24This reminds me of the Simpson's episode where Homer turns into a gun nut and uses guns for mundane tasks like changing the tv channel.
- lonedust, on 04/11/2009, -1/+18What about Cylon detection?
- Mockylock, on 04/11/2009, -0/+17I personally use them for removing stumps.
- honeybrass, on 04/11/2009, -2/+17WOW! what great ideas! I'm going to nuke myself a new swimming pool, all those radiation poisoned from my blast are welcome to use it for free.
- digglover6, on 04/10/2009, -2/+17*** They boil down to a single fact: We can make a hole in the earth — if anybody wants to do that."
And, as Teller continues, "as a matter of fact, there are some important reasons why one should want to move big quantities of earth.
Great big holes could be useful for mining, reservoir creation, or even creating, say a new Panama Canal. ***
Well, as a matter of Fact u can build another Panama Canal this way,except that all the people within 50 miles or so will suffer genetic alteration and probably die from atomic dust, not to mention watter pollution !!!!! - CeeJayDK, on 04/11/2009, -2/+14Nukes ALWAYS produce significant amounts of radiation.
No matter where they are detonated. - someguy92, on 04/11/2009, -1/+12Read the rest of the article:
Why was it possible for people to walk around a few months after the explosion? Nordyke said the Plowshare team designed a series of weapons that contained very little fissionable material, which is what makes radioactivity dangerous to humans.
"For excavation, we put a lot of time and effort and money into developing nuclear explosives which had minimal fissionable material so that you could carry out a 100-kiloton cratering explosion and release the radioactivity equivalent to a 20-ton explosive of fissionable material," Nordyke said. - DouglasQ, on 04/11/2009, -1/+11Tomorrow on Digg;-
7 (Sensible) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs - MacParrot, on 04/11/2009, -0/+9I like using nukes to heat my pop-tarts! And best of all afterwards I can find them in the dark!
- seanovan, on 04/11/2009, -1/+10Quite the imagination you have there, friend.
- zephyear, on 04/11/2009, -0/+9pretty sure setting off 5000 nukes in a row would create a nuclear winter and kill us anyway
- WibWobble, on 04/11/2009, -5/+13Or we could nuke the same spot in the ocean 5000 times, creating a hole into the core of the earth, causing all the oceans water to drain into it. Then there would be some bloody awesome pictures of millions of tons of water meeting molten lava. After all the water drains, we will have nothing to drink and slowly all die out, saving the planet from the wreck we have made of it.
But it can all be in the name of science. Science is awesome. - DeathRay2K, on 04/11/2009, -0/+8I use them for removing warts.
- MacParrot, on 04/11/2009, -0/+8Didn't you read through the comments? So far we have:
1. Making big holes
2. Heating pop-tarts (a personal favorite)
3. Amusement to piss the MAN!
4. Making a big hole in the ocean floor to watch all the super-heated steam rise but unfortunately ending all life on Earth.
5. Removing stumps
6. Removing warts.
7. Removing unsightly hemorrhoids
8. Golf course gopher removal (A favorite of Bill Murray)
9. Getting invited into Tenpenny Towers (but not so good apparently for getting rid of Moira)
I mean...cmon! There's 9 already! - teamgwho, on 04/11/2009, -0/+8they're also great for getting invited into tenpenny towers.
sadly... not so good for getting rid of Moira. - Birukun, on 04/11/2009, -0/+7Too bad Chico, CA has a law against this.
I wonder if you can get a permit? I did not see anything in the code. I guess the $500 fine is pretty cheap though.......
http://www.bitoffun.com/stupid_laws_california.htm - MacParrot, on 04/11/2009, -0/+6That's why I ALWAYS take my nukes JUST outside city limits. That way when I detonate them, Johnny Law can only watch helplessly.
- Daxx22, on 04/11/2009, -0/+6Quik-Tan!
- DracoFlameus, on 04/11/2009, -1/+7good old 60s... they were quite naive back then
- nuclearpenguins, on 04/11/2009, -0/+5To be fair, I doubt rocketry and asteroid defense are civilian uses of nuclear explosions.
- vpshockwave, on 04/11/2009, -3/+7Detonating it far above ground would be WORSE. The radiation fallout would be over an even larger area!
- diggduggjoe, on 04/11/2009, -0/+4Plus, fallout does not equal radioactive fallout. There is a difference.
There was fallout when the twin towers collapsed, but it wasn't radioactive. It contained asbestos, which was pretty nasty in its own right.
Much of the radiation in a properly designed device will be short lived gamma rays, alpha and beta decay, light and thermal energy, most of which will dissipate within minutes of the detonation. - MOJIRA, on 04/11/2009, -0/+4Don't blame Baltar for the writers' short sighted vision and poor writing.
- molochi, on 04/11/2009, -0/+4FTFA regarding yield vs radioactivity.
"Why was it possible for people to walk around a few months after the explosion? Nordyke said the Plowshare team designed a series of weapons that contained very little fissionable material, which is what makes radioactivity dangerous to humans.
"For excavation, we put a lot of time and effort and money into developing nuclear explosives which had minimal fissionable material so that you could carry out a 100-kiloton cratering explosion and release the radioactivity equivalent to a 20-ton explosive of fissionable material," Nordyke said.
But despite the technical success of the Plowshare program, Nordyke doesn't see nuclear weapons being used for excavation or mining anytime soon because it doesn't seem politically feasible.
"I think its time came and went," he said. "I think reconciling it with the enhanced environmental concerns today and the inherent association with weapons is difficult." "
The short term problem is fallout, but you don't HAVE to make a big mushroom cloud to make a canal. The blast can instead be made to make a BIG spherical hole underground and then the roof collapses leaving a circular depression on the surface. Look for "nevada underground nuclear test" on google maps and zoom in for lots and lots examples of this, as well as other types of blast craters like Sedan, - glu0n, on 04/11/2009, -0/+4Einstein never wrote to Roosevelt begging for the bomb not to be used, he actually wrote to warn the president that the Nazi's may be developing nukes and that the USA should do so as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_letter - NastiestNate, on 04/11/2009, -0/+4How about golf course gopher removal?
- malanic, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3I forgot to add a link to that second quote;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)# ... - SkylarkT, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3It's sad that I really thought it might say personal nuclear shield having just read Asimov's Foundation
- diggduggjoe, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3Well, the use of neutron bombs would keep the fallout to a minimum. A very high efficiency nuclear weapon will not create difficult long term radiation issues. The key is a well designed small device. The biggest bombs you can make are usually dirty as hell for they break apart before complete fission or fusion occurs. You end up the hot isotopes and stuff.
This could be done with relative safety, but most people hear the term radiation and assume nuclear isotopes with 10000 year half-life. Current designs are not anything close to Little Boy or Fat Man, though Fat Man is closer to the current tech than Little Boy. - Scuzzle, on 04/11/2009, -1/+4Nuclear technology can do lots of great things for civilians. However, making light of such an awesome killing device is pretty reckless. There's no better way to desensitize people to the awful destructive power of something than to liken it to a bulldozer or a toaster.
- MacParrot, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3Wait...you can use nuclear power for energy???
You better get a patent on that before Apple does! - mine4321, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3Can somebody list a sane use for atomic weapons?
- inactive, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3that piece of crap didn't even work. It failed to detect Ellen.
- inactive, on 04/11/2009, -0/+3That doesn't make any sense. If we used all our nukes on a spaceship, then we'd just be a warty hemorrhoid infested people with stumps, oceans, and gophers everywhere; our pop tarts would be cold with apparently no holes in order to bury said useless pop tarts and if all that weren't enough, there would be no way for us to get into Tenpenny Towers! -though Moira would apparently still be a problem
- tech42er, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2For *****'s sake, it's a technology. Would you like to say the same thing about fire?
- inactive, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2I'm pretty sure it would take far less than that.
- m4ttGT, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2Dibbs on the nuclear explosion-powered spacecraft/city!
- overridemymind, on 04/11/2009, -2/+4I don't know where you got your information from, DifferentAngle, but you are terribly, terribly mistaken.
As a matter of fact, after the limited test ban treaty, atmospheric testing of nuclear devices was banned in an effort to mitigate the amounts of radioactive fallout produced by extensive weapons testing.
Any nuclear detonation, above ground or below, produces massive amounts of radiation due to the chain-reaction of fissionable material involved in a nuclear explosion. This is the reason a nuclear war would be detrimental to the entire planet, and not just the areas directly attacked.
Here's some further reading for you on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limited_Test_Ban_Trea ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout#World ... - teamgwho, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2try not to die!
- Birukun, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2I use them for removing unsightly hemorrhoids.
- inactive, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2She's always so ... cheery.
- CoD4, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2dugg for the bad guy
- MacParrot, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2I must respectfully disagree on your point about no holes to bury cold non-fission heated breakfast pastries. You COULD still make holes deep enough to bury two to three pop-tarts thereby saving your nukes for more important things like warts, hemorrhoids, stumps, and gophers. The amount of energy required to bury said cold pop-tarts would be offset by the sheer number of people pissed off enough by less than heated fake strawberry goodness and could be charted in such a way to determine the best time to use one of the few remaining nukes NOT shot off into space but still required for invitations into Tenpenny Towers.
Moira on the other hand can piss off and find her own nukes - samsmartjr, on 04/11/2009, -1/+3If they think that nukes would be such a great idea for getting natural gas and shale, why not just make a thermonuclear reactor to provide energy and save the cost that mining would do to the environment?
- Scaryclouds, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2So we destroy the worlds oceans to save the planet from ourselves? Your method seem a bit flawed...
- guttersniper, on 04/12/2009, -0/+2Maybe that's because they tend not to eat 3,000 calories at McDonald's every sitting. Americans are just better at killing themselves before the cancer can get at them.
- ChromeGhost, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2read the wikipedia entry on Project Orion, it can carry 100,000 crew members:
The Orion nuclear pulse rocket design has extremely high performance. Orion nuclear pulse rockets using nuclear fission type pulse units were originally intended for use on interplanetary space flights.
The top cruise velocity that can theoretically be achieved by a thermonuclear Orion starship is about 8% to 10% of the speed of light (0.08-0.1c).[1] An atomic (fission) Orion can achieve perhaps 3%-5% of the speed of light. A nuclear pulse drive starship powered by matter-antimatter pulse units would be theoretically capable of obtaining a velocity between 50% to 80% of the speed of light.
Missions that were designed for an Orion vehicle in the original project included single stage (i.e., directly from Earth's surface) to Mars and back, and a trip to one of the moons of Saturn.[3]
One possible modern mission for this near-term technology would be to deflect an asteroid that could collide with Earth. The extremely high performance would permit even a late launch to succeed, and the vehicle could effectively transfer a large amount of kinetic energy to the asteroid by simple impact. Also, an automated mission would eliminate the shock absorbers, the most problematic issue of the design.
Nuclear fission pulse unit powered Orions could provide fast and economical interplanetary transportation with useful human crewed payloads of several thousand tonnes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea ... - Ramble, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2If you need to get rid of nuclear bombs just make a big pile of them and set off a nuclear bomb in the middle.
- velveetaavenger, on 04/11/2009, -0/+2We should totally build that spaceship. Going to other planets and using up out old nukes is like killing two birds with one stone.
-
Show 51 - 75 of 75 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is