Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
Yes, he offed himself; but, with nukes it wouldn't be JUST him. On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:03 PM Robin wrote: > In reply to Robin's message of Sat, 12 Mar 2022 07:58:26 +1100: > Hi, > > ...more worried than he appears... > > [snip] > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > >
Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
In reply to Robin's message of Sat, 12 Mar 2022 07:58:26 +1100: Hi, ...more worried than he appears... [snip] Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2022 14:51:54 -0500:
Hi,
[snip]
>Rumors are that Poutain ('whore' in french) has a terminal illness.
Any rumor might be true, but if I had a terminal illness, I think I would
probably look more worried that he appears to
be, judging by the footage I have seen of him on TV.
>
>If Hitler had a nuclear push button, would he have taken the world with him
>or just offed himself?
I suspect that if he had had nuclear weapons, he would have used them, and
history might have turned out very
differently.
BTW IIRC history records that he did off himself.
Regards,
Robin van Spaandonk
[Vo]:Hagelstein paper in JCMNS 35
Years ago, Peter Hagelstein wrote one of the best essays I know of about science and human nature: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf He wrote another wide-ranging paper in JCMNS 35: "Theory and Experiments in Condensed Matter Nuclear Science" https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/BiberianJPjcondensedzh.pdf#page=55 It is mostly technical, about theory, but it ends with this paragraph about human nature. I recall a conversation that I had in 1989 with a well-known skeptic, who explained to me that it would be really nice if the excess heat in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment was real. The key problem, he said, was that he just didn’t believe measurements done with isoperibolic calorimetry. If there were even one measurement done with a better calorimetric technique, such as flow calorimetry, then he assured me that he would become a believer in the effect. Some time later I informed him that some very nice positive excess heat results had been obtained at SRI in a flow calorimeter. He immediately became angry. He explained that the only way he would believe that energy had been produced would be if a commensurate number of neutrons were measured. This is called "moving the goalposts." I wonder if this person even realized he was doing that. Did he realize he was contradicting his earlier statements? Surely he knew that cold fusion -- if real -- does not produce "commensurate" neutrons in the same ratio to the heat as plasma fusion does. That was one of the first things revealed about it. I have often encountered similar attitudes. The 2004 DoE panel members opposed to cold fusion had only irrational, emotional, factually wrong arguments, listed here on p. 43: https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJresponsest.pdf These arguments violate junior high school textbook science. It is shocking that professional scientists would make such mistakes. I cannot read minds. I do not know if the person Peter spoke to and the DoE reviewers sincerely believed what they said, or whether they were being disingenuous trolls. I usually assume that people mean what they say. I assume these people were irrational because they were ruled by emotion. Their scientific training went out the window. If they had examined some other experiments, they would not make such mistakes.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
Rumors are that Poutain ('whore' in french) has a terminal illness.
If Hitler had a nuclear push button, would he have taken the world with him
or just offed himself?
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:40 PM Robin
wrote:
> In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:32:21 -0500:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >These are detonated underwater (assuming the drone submarines actually
> >exist). The tsunami is likely more deadly than a purely atmospheric
> >explosion.
>
> The most recent Richter scale 9 underwater Earthquake near Indonesia a few
> years back created a tsunami that crossed
> half the planet, and IIRC killed in total about 20 people. A 100 MT
> bomb exploded on one of the Worlds mega cities
> would annihilate the whole city, and kill everyone in it. The loss of life
> would be in the millions.
>
> There is another reason not to use nuclear weapons:- The fallout from your
> own bombs will get carried around the planet
> by the jet stream and end up killing many of your own people.
> Nuclear weapons are lose - lose.
> In fact war in general is lose - lose. It always results in loss of both
> life and property, and sets the whole of
> society back. As a race, humanity is much too quick to solve its problems
> by killing someone else.
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
In reply to Terry Blanton's message of Fri, 11 Mar 2022 12:32:21 -0500: Hi, [snip] >These are detonated underwater (assuming the drone submarines actually >exist). The tsunami is likely more deadly than a purely atmospheric >explosion. The most recent Richter scale 9 underwater Earthquake near Indonesia a few years back created a tsunami that crossed half the planet, and IIRC killed in total about 20 people. A 100 MT bomb exploded on one of the Worlds mega cities would annihilate the whole city, and kill everyone in it. The loss of life would be in the millions. There is another reason not to use nuclear weapons:- The fallout from your own bombs will get carried around the planet by the jet stream and end up killing many of your own people. Nuclear weapons are lose - lose. In fact war in general is lose - lose. It always results in loss of both life and property, and sets the whole of society back. As a race, humanity is much too quick to solve its problems by killing someone else. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
Re: [Vo]:OT: Why Chernobyl ?
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 1:25 AM Robin wrote: > I think 100 MT is about the limit. When they get that big they punch a > hole in the atmosphere, which reduces the > pressure. > Regards, > > Robin van Spaandonk > These are detonated underwater (assuming the drone submarines actually exist). The tsunami is likely more deadly than a purely atmospheric explosion.
