Peaceful nuclear explosions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peaceful nuclear explosions (PNEs) are nuclear explosions conducted for non-military purposes, such as activities related to economic development including the creation of canals. During the 1960s and 1970s, both the United States and the Soviet Union conducted a number of PNEs.
Six of the explosions by the Soviet Union are considered to have been of an applied nature, not just tests.
Subsequently the United States and the Soviet Union halted their programs. Definitions and limits are covered in the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty of 1976. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty of 1996 prohibits all nuclear explosions, regardless of whether they are for peaceful purposes or not.
Contents [hide]
1 The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty
2 United States: Operation Plowshare
3 Soviet Union: Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy
4 Other nations
5 Spaceflight Applications
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
[edit]The Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty
In the PNE Treaty the signatories agreed: not to carry out any individual nuclear explosions having a yield exceeding 150 kilotons; not to carry out any group explosion (consisting of a number of individual explosions) having an aggregate yield exceeding 1,500 kilotons; and not to carry out any group explosion having an aggregate yield exceeding 150 kilotons unless the individual explosions in the group could be identified and measured by agreed verification procedures. The parties also reaffirmed their obligations to comply fully with the Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963.
The parties reserve the right to carry out nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes in the territory of another country if requested to do so, but only in full compliance with the yield limitations and other provisions of the PNE Treaty and in accord with the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Articles IV and V of the PNE Treaty set forth the agreed verification arrangements. In addition to the use of national technical means, the Treaty states that information and access to sites of explosions will be provided by each side, and includes a commitment not to interfere with verification means and procedures.
The protocol to the PNE Treaty sets forth the specific agreed arrangements for ensuring that no weapon-related benefits precluded by the Threshold Test Ban Treaty are derived by carrying out a nuclear explosion used for peaceful purposes, including provisions for use of the hydrodynamic yield measurement method, seismic monitoring and on-site inspection.
The agreed statement that accompanies the Treaty specifies that a “peaceful application” of an underground nuclear explosion would not include the developmental testing of any nuclear explosive.
[edit]United States: Operation Plowshare
One of the Chariot schemes involved chaining five thermonuclear devices to create the artificial harbor.
Operation Plowshare was the name of the U.S. program for the development of techniques to use nuclear explosives for peaceful purposes. The name was coined in 1961, taken from Micah 4:3 (“And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more”). Twenty-eight nuclear blasts were detonated between 1961 and 1973.
One of the first U.S. proposals for peaceful nuclear explosions that came close to being carried out was Project Chariot, which would have used several hydrogen bombs to create an artificial harbor at Cape Thompson, Alaska. It was never carried out due to concerns for the native populations and the fact that there was little potential use for the harbor to justify its risk and expense. There was also talk of using nuclear explosions to excavate a second Panama Canal.[1]
The largest excavation experiment took place in 1962 at the Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site. The Sedan nuclear test carried out as part of Operation Storax displaced 12 million tons of earth, creating the largest man-made crater in the world, generating a large nuclear fallout over Nevada and Utah. Three tests were conducted in order to stimulate natural gas production, but the effort was abandoned as impractical because of cost and radioactive contamination of the gas.[2][3]
There were many negative impacts from Project Plowshare’s 27 nuclear explosions. For example, the Gasbuggy site,[3] located 55 miles east of Farmington, New Mexico, still contains nuclear contamination from a single subsurface blast in 1967.[4] Other consequences included blighted land, relocated communities, tritium-contaminated water, radioactivity, and fallout from debris being hurled high into the atmosphere. These were ignored and downplayed until the program was terminated in 1977, due in large part to public opposition, after $770 million had been spent on the project.[5]
[edit]Soviet Union: Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy
The Soviet Union conducted a much more vigorous program of 239 nuclear tests, some with multiple devices, between 1965 and 1988 under the auspices of Program No. 6 and Program No. 7-Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy. Its aims and results were similar to those of the American effort, with the exception that many of the blasts were considered applications, not tests.[6] The best known of these in the West was the Chagan test in January 1965 as radioactivity from the Chagan test was detected over Japan by both the U.S. and Japan. The United States complained to the Soviets, but the matter was dropped.
In the 1970, the Soviet Union started the “Deep Seismic Sounding” Program, that included the use of peaceful nuclear explosions to create seismic deep profiles. Compared to the usage of conventional explosives or mechanical methods, nuclear explosions allow the collection of longer seismic profiles (up to several thousand kilometers).[7]
There are proponents for continuing the PNE programs in modern Russia. They (e.g. A. Koldobsky) state that the program already paid for itself and saved the USSR billions of rubles and can save even more if continued. They also allege that the PNE is the only feasible way to put out large fountains and fires on natural gas deposits and the safest and most economically viable way to destroy chemical weapons.
Their opponents (include the academician A.V. Yablokov) [8] state that all PNE technologies have non-nuclear alternatives and that many PNEs actually caused nuclear disasters.
Reports on the successful Soviet use of nuclear explosions in extinguishing out-of-control gas well fires were widely cited in United States policy discussions of options for stopping the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.[9][10]
[edit]Other nations
This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.
Germany at one time considered manufacturing nuclear explosives for civil engineering purposes. In the early 1970s a feasibility study was conducted for a project to build a canal from the Mediterranean Sea to the Qattara Depression in the Western Desert of Egypt using nuclear demolition. This project proposed to use 213 devices, with yields of 1 to 1.5 megatons detonated at depths of 100 to 500 m, to build this canal for the purpose of producing hydroelectric power.
The Smiling Buddha, India’s first explosive nuclear device was described by the Indian Government as a peaceful nuclear explosion.
In Australia proposed blasting was put forward as a way of mining Iron Ore in the Pilbara [11]
[edit]Spaceflight Applications
Nuclear explosions have been studied as a possible method of spacecraft propulsion. The most well known example was Project Orion, which studied the possibility of a spacecraft propelled by the detonation of nuclear devices which it released behind itself.
Another application would be for deflecting or destroying celestial objects like comets, meteors, or asteroids on a collision course with Earth that have the potential for causing destruction.
[edit]See also
Project Gnome
[edit]References
^ “US Congressional Record pg. 25747, 1968-09-05”. Retrieved 2012-01-22.
^ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management: Rulison, Colorado, Site. Fact Sheet [1].
^ a b Peter Metzger (February 22, 1970). Project Gasbuggy And Catch-85*: *That’s krypton-85, one of the radioactive by-products of nuclear explosions that release natural gas Project Gasbuggy and Catch-85 “It’s 95 per cent safe? We worry about the other 5”. New York Times. p. SM14.
^ “DOE Environmental Management (EM) – Gas Buggy Site”. Em.doe.gov. Retrieved 2010-09-19.
^ Benjamin K. Sovacool (2011). Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy, World Scientific, pp. 171-172.
^ Nordyke, M. D. (2000-09-01). The Soviet Program for Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Explosions. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. pp. 34–35. DOI:10.2172/793554. Report no.: UCRL-ID-124410 Rev 2. U. S. Department of Energy contract no.: W-7405-Eng48.
^ University of Wyoming: http://w3.uwyo.edu/~seismic/dss/
^ “А. В. ЯБЛОКОВ, “ЯДЕРНАЯ МИФОЛОГИЯ КОНЦА XX ВЕКА””. Biometrica.tomsk.ru. Retrieved 2011-08-13.
^ Broad, William J. (2010-06-02). “Nuclear Option on Gulf Oil Spill? No Way, U.S. Says”. New York Times. Retrieved 2010-06-18.
^ Astrasheuskaya, Nastassia; Judah, Ben; Selyukh, Alina (2010-07-02). “Special Report: Should BP nuke its leaking well?”. Reuters. Retrieved 2010-07-08.
^ Nuclear blasting proposed for Pilbara Iron Ore Project in Industrial Reviews and Mining Year Book, 1970 pp.255-259
[edit]External links
Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization Preparatory Commission
Video of the 104Kt Sedan PNE as part of Operation Plowshare.
Video of the Soviet Chagan PNE
Video of the Soviet Taiga PNE
On the Soviet nuclear program
On the Soviet program for peaceful uses of nuclear weapons, American Office of Scientific and Technical Information
United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 1992 (DOE/NV-209 [Rev.14]).
ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS,Federation of American Scientists
World Reaction to the Indian Nuclear Tests, Center for Nonproliferation Studies
Nuclear Files.org Treaty between the USA and USSR on underground nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes
Peter Kuran’s “Atomic Journeys” – documentary film includes tests of Peaceful nuclear Explosions.
[hide] v t e
Nuclear technology
Science
Chemistry Engineering Physics Atomic nucleus Fission Fusion Radiation ionizing
Fuel
Deuterium Fertile material Fissile Helium-3 Isotope separation Plutonium Thorium Tritium Uranium enriched depleted
Neutron
Activation Capture Cross-section Fast Fusion Generator Poison Radiation Reflector Temp Thermal
Reactors
Fission
reactors
by
primary
moderator
Water
Aqueous homogeneous reactor Boiling BWR ABWR Heavy CANDU PHWR SGHWR
Natural (NFR) Pressurized PWR VVER EPR Supercritical (SCWR)
Graphite
by coolant
Water
RBMK
Gas
Advanced gas-cooled (AGR) Magnox Pebble bed (PBMR)
UHTREX UNGG reactor Very high temperature (VHTR)
Molten Salt
FLiBe
Fuji MSR Liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)
Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE)
Hydrocarbon
Organically moderated and cooled reactor
BeO
Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE)
None
(Fast)
Breeder (FBR) Integral (IFR) Liquid-metal-cooled (LMFR) SSTAR Traveling Wave (TWR)
Generation IV by coolant Gas (GFR) Lead (LFR) Sodium (SFR)
Fusion
reactors
by
confinement
Magnetic
Field-reversed configuration Levitated dipole Reversed field pinch Spheromak Stellarator Tokamak
Inertial
Bubble fusion (acoustic) Fusor electrostatic Laser-driven Magnetized target Z-pinch
Other
Dense plasma focus Migma Muon-catalyzed Polywell Pyroelectric
List of nuclear reactors
Power
Nuclear power plant By country Economics Fusion Isotope thermoelectric (RTG) Propulsion rocket Safety
Medicine
Imaging
by
radiation
Gamma camera
Scintigraphy Positron emission (PET) Single photon emission (SPECT)
X-ray
Projectional radiography Computed tomography
Therapy
Boron neutron capture (BNCT) Brachytherapy Proton Radiation Tomotherapy
Weapon
Topics
Arms race Delivery Design Explosion effects History Proliferation Testing underground Warfare Yield TNTe
Lists
Popular culture States Tests Treaties Weapon-free zones Weapons
Waste
Products
Actinide: (Reprocessed uranium Reactor-grade plutonium Minor actinide) Activation Fission LLFP
Disposal
Fuel cycle HLW LLW Repository Reprocessing Spent fuel pool cask Transmutation
Debate
Nuclear power debate Nuclear weapons debate Anti-nuclear movement Uranium mining debate Nuclear power phase-out
Many claim that The Shroud of Turin is Jesus Christ but the Knights Templar claim that this is Jacques de Molay. I myself would like to think that this is Jesus Christ but with my research and understanding of history tend to lead me to believe that this is indeed Jacques de Molay and not Jesus Christ.
Geoffroi de Charny (the French Knight who died at the 1356 battle of Poitiers) and his wife Jeanne de Vergy are the first reliably recorded owners of the Turin Shroud. This Geoffroi participated in a failed crusade under Humbert II of Viennois in the late 1340s.[26] He is sometimes confused with Templar Geoffroi de Charney.[27]
Any discussion of the Shroud of Turin is bound to be controversial. Those who view this sacred and holy relic fall into two camps, those that believe it to be the undisputed earthly evidence of a Christ risen and those who believe it to be a medieval forgery.
It is not the intention of this web site to cast doubt on or support the authenticity of the shroud, but rather to show its possible relationship to the Knights Templar. We receive many letters from angry people who wish to enter into lengthy debates about carbon 14 reliability. We are aware of new evidence that puts the reliability of carbon 14 dating in question, so please refrain from telling us of the findings or directing us to URLs that make the claims.
There are two theories that relate to the Templars having been involved with the Shroud, one, which would support the authenticity of the Shroud and another, which would refute it.
In 1204 the Crusaders sacked the city of Constantinople. Among them were the Knights Templar, whom some scholars contend took the Burial shroud of Jesus from the city. To support this theory, author Ian Wilson who wrote the book “The Shroud of Turin: Burial Cloth Of Jesus?” makes the claim that the head that the Templars were accused of worshipping was none other than that of Jesus. His belief is that the Shroud when folded depicted the head of Christ and was referred to as the “Mandylion.” There is a painted panel at Templecombe in England that shows a bearded head like that, which is depicted on the Mandylion.
In their two books, “The Hiram Key” and “The Second Messiah,” authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas paint a contrasting picture to the Mandylion theory. The authors theorize that the image on the Shroud of Turin is in fact that of the last Grand Master of the order, Jacques de Molay, who was tortured some months before his execution in 1307. The image on the shroud certainly does fit the description of de Molay as depicted in medieval wood cuts, a long nose, hair shoulder length and parted in the center, a full beard that forked at its base, not to mention the six-foot frame. De Molay was said to be quite tall.
However, many have criticized the theory on the basis that the Templar rule of order forbade the Templars from growing their hair long. What critics of the theory overlook is that during DeMolay’s seven years in prison it is highly unlikely that he would have been afforded such luxuries as good grooming.
Knight and Lomas claim that the shroud figured in the Templars rituals of figurative resurrection and that DeMolay’s tortured body was wrapped in a shroud, which the Templars kept after his death. Lomas and Knight further believe that lactic acid and blood from DeMolay’s tortured body mixed with frankincense (used to whiten the cloth) etching his image into the shroud.
When the shroud was first put on display in 1357 (50 years after the disbanding of the order) by the family of Geoffrey de Charney who was also burned at the stake with de Molay, the first people viewing the shroud recognized the image to be that of Christ.
The authors theorize that Jacques de Molay may have been tortured in a manner similar to Christ as a mockery. Certainly then, the wounds suffered by de Molay where the same as those of Jesus Christ on the Cross.
Today it is commonly believed by many, through carbon dating, that the shroud dates to the late 13th century and not to the date of Christ’s supposed crucifixion. It is interesting that the church revealed these carbon dating results on October 13th, 1989, which is the same day the Templars were arrested by Church and State. According to the authors:
“Carbon dating has conclusively shown that the Shroud of Turin dates from between 1260 and 1380, precisely as we would expect if it were the image of Jacques de Molay. There is no other known theory that fits the scientifically established facts. Through experimentation, we know that the figure on the Shroud was on a soft bed of some kind, which strongly suggests that the victim was not dead and was expected to recover.”
The Second Messiah pg. 161 – Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas
Regardless of whether the findings of Ian Wilson or Knight and Lomas are correct, it is evident that this most holy and venerated relic has found its way into the Templar mythos.
Lynn Picknet and Clive Prince, authors of “Turin Shroud: In Whose Image?” present another theory of interest on the matter. Readers will recognize the authors from the book, “The Templar Revelation.” In the authors’ earlier book the duo claim that Leonardo Da Vinci who created an early photographic technique manufactured the image on the shroud of Turin.
Stephanie Pappas
Live Science
Thu, 05 Apr 2012 17:01 CDT
A hoax or a miracle? The Shroud of Turin has inspired this question for centuries. Now, an art historian says this piece of cloth, said to bear the imprint of the crucified body of Jesus Christ, may be something in between.
According to Thomas de Wesselow, formerly of Cambridge University, the controversial shroud is no medieval forgery, as a 1989 attempt at radiocarbon dating suggests. Nor is the strange outline of the body on the fabric a miracle, de Wesselow writes in his new book, The Sign: The Shroud of Turin and the Secret of the Resurrection (Dutton Adult, 2012). Instead, de Wesselow suggests, the shroud was created by natural chemical processes – and then interpreted by Jesus’ followers as a sign of his resurrection.
“People in the past did not view images as just the mundane things that we see them as today. They were potentially alive. They were seen as sources of power,” de Wesselow told LiveScience. The image of Jesus found on the shroud would have been seen as a “living double,” he said. “It seemed like they had a living double after his death and therefore it was seen as Jesus resurrected.”
Believing the shroud
As de Wesselow is quick to admit, this idea is only a hypothesis. No one has tested whether a decomposing body could leave an imprint on shroud-style cloth like the one seen on the shroud. A 2003 paper published in the journal Melanoidins in Food and Health, however, posited that chemicals from the body could react with carbohydrates on the cloth, resulting in a browning reaction similar to the one seen on baked bread. (De Wesselow said he knows of no plans to conduct an experiment to discover if this idea really works.)
Perhaps more problematic is the authenticity of the shroud itself. Radiocarbon dating conducted in 1988 estimated the shroud to medieval times, between approximately A.D. 1260 and 1390. This is also the same time period when records of the shroud begin to appear, suggesting a forgery.
Critics have charged that the researchers who dated the shroud accidentally chose asample of fabric added to the shroud during repairs in the medieval era, skewing the results. That controversy still rages, but de Wesselow is convinced of the shroud’s authenticity from an art history approach.
“It’s nothing like any other medieval work of art,” de Wesselow said. “There’s just nothing like it.”
Among the anachronisms, de Wesselow said, is the realistic nature of the body outline. No one was painting that realistically in the 14th century, he said. Similarly, the body image is in negative (light areas are dark and vice versa), a style not seen until the advent of photography centuries later, he said.
“From an art historian’s point of view, it’s completely inexplicable as a work of art of this period,” de Wesselow said.
Resurrection: spiritual or physical?
If de Wesselow’s belief in the shroud’s legitimacy is likely to rub skeptics the wrong way, his mundane explanation of how the image of Jesus came to be is likely to ruffle religious feathers. According to de Wesselow, there’s no need to invoke a miracle when simple chemistry could explain the imprint. It’s likely, he says, that Jesus’ female followers returned to his tomb to finish anointing his body for burial three days after his death. When they lifted the shroud to complete their work, they would have seen the outline of the body and interpreted it as a sign of Jesus’ spiritual revival.
From there, de Wesselow suspects, the shroud went on tour around the Holy Land, providing physical proof of the resurrection to Jesus’ followers. When the Bible talks about people meeting Jesus post-resurrection, de Wesselow said, what it really means is that they saw the shroud. He cites the early writings of Saint Paul, which focus on a spiritual resurrection, over the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, which were written later and invoke physical resurrection.
“The original conception of the resurrection was that Jesus was resurrected in a spiritual body, not in his physical body,” de Wesselow said.
These ideas are already receiving pushback, though de Wesselow says he’s yet to get responses from people who have read his entire book. Noted skeptic Joe Nickell toldMSNBC’s Alan Boyle that de Wesselow’s ideas were “breathtakingly astonishing,” and not in a good way; Nickell has argued on multiple occasions that the shroud’s spotty historical record and too-perfect image strongly suggest a counterfeit.
On the other end of the religious spectrum, former high-school teacher and Catholic religious speaker David Roemer believes in Jesus’ resurrection, but not the shroud’s authenticity. The image is too clear and the markings said to be blood aren’t smeared as they would be if the cloth had covered a corpse, Roemer told LiveScience.
“When you get an image this detailed, it means it was done by some kind of a human being,” Roemer said.
Unlike many “shroudies,” as believers are deprecatingly called, Roemer suspects the shroud was deliberately created by Gnostic sects in the first or second century. A common religious explanation for the markings is that a flash of energy or radiation accompanied Christ’s resurrection, “burning” his image onto the cloth.
If anything is certain about de Wesselow’s hypothesis, it’s that it is not likely to settle the shroud controversy. Scientific examinations of the delicate cloth are few and far between – and so are disinterested parties. Roemer, for example, recently arrived at a scheduled talk at a Catholic church in New York only to find the talk had been canceled when the priest learned of Roemer’s shroud skepticism. (The Catholic Church has no official position on the shroud’s authenticity.)
Meanwhile, de Wesselow said, people who aren’t driven by faith to accept the cloth as real generally don’t care about the shroud at all.
“The intellectual establishment, if you like, is not interested in shroud science,” he said. “It regards it as fringe and it’s not interested.”
The Hunt For Higgs/God the question? Anticipation is building in the run-up to presentations of the best-yet evidence for – or against – the existence of the Higgs boson/God!
With the recent addition of created elements 114 and 116 to the periodic table of elements , the question is : if science can create elements [ now over a dozen ] which previously never existed , can an element which already exists be merely duplicated ? The obvious common sense answer is yes
With the recent addition of created elements 114 and 116 to the periodic table of elements , the question is : if science can create elements [ now over a dozen ] which previously never existed , can an element which already exists be merely duplicated ? The obvious common sense answer is yes .
Element 114 , called ununquadiam , and element 116 called ununhexium are a result of atomic collision in a particle accelerator . After experiments in 2004 and 2006 approval was given by the international union of pure and applied chemistry . Official status was given by the international workers party on discovery of elements . The final decision on the names was made by an international commitee [ could that be why both elements begin with the prefix UN UN ? ]
So elements can be created . Can they be duplicated ? They can be…
Anti Deep State Party 