u may not like what i'm about to say... so i'm saying i'm sorry first.
1. no, an NPP is not ticking time bomb.. (for those who say that this is wrong and put chernobyl as a reference i'll kick your head and told you to study more..)
2. no, the waste is not a problem anymore. there are now reactor that are specially made to "burndown" the radioactive on the waste. it's still more expensive than a normal npp, but that's what the rich country is for.. as for why there is still many nuclear waste in the world, that because this new reactor type is new... duuh
3. solar panels is nowhere near being a substitute for npp.. it take huge amount of space.. unless you're thinking that cutting down a forest as big of a city to light up a quarter of the city next to it is "a green technology". the same goes to dam (although this case is not fitted for describing those who damed a glaciers' path.... they just had it easy)
4. even thought wind turbine can be build on the sea, it's still an inefficient source (and "green" is)... unless those german (or were they from holland..) men finally finished with their high altitude kite-turbine project. (the higher you go the strong the wind... if you want to use the wind efficiently, harvest the high altitude wind)
5. for those of you who have been brainwashed by hollywood... yes they have in fact done the experiment of letting an old npp reactor run "wild" where the energy output went exponentially up. and nobody do anything (really). what happen is it reach an asymptotic state and went down to zero (no explosion). it's a basic rule that is known by any of npp operators: if something wrong happen to the reactor and the computer didn't found any answer to it, then you are forbidden to do anything toward the reactor, or as my teacher put it: you are even forbidden to come up with an idea (a rule that hollywood never understand)
6. if u're concern about country like indonesia, a ring of fire/earthquake hotspot/tsunami playground/third world and so on, having a land based npp. even though i'm not... then give us your unused aircraft carriers. we would be glad to made it into a floating npp and make sure to put them where it'll not get hit by a tsunami.
ps: GOD made uranium and friends for a reason.. and apparently it can generate high amount of energy that can be harvested.. use it well.
Last edited by mu2020 at 10:04 pm, Mar 11 2011
Manga Poll
Manga is the Japanese equivalent of comics
with a unique style and following. Join the revolution! Read some manga today!
Join #baka-updates @irc.irchighway.net
RSS Feed
Forums
Nuclear Power?
Poll
It's a great thing as it is.
We should work on it and improve it. It's the future!
I'm against it!!!
I don't like it, but have no idea what else to do instead.
I don't know what to think of it.
I don't care...
We shouldn't depend on it, we should rather... (do this or that, please explain...)
You must login to vote.
From User
Message Body
the mu...
Member
9:55 pm, Mar 11 2011
Posts: 1050
Member
11:07 pm, Mar 11 2011
Posts: 1668
Warn: Banned
Quote from JakeOrion
None taken. And I'm not arguing against green technologies. I want to keep the planet beautiful too. But you must remember, cost is everything. Chances are your power is coming from either a coal or oil power plant, because they are far cheaper than the alternatives. Green tech is getting there, but it is still:
1) expensive
2) requires massive amounts of space
3) the biggest one, no political will to accomplish the said tasks.
Honestly, out of all of them, solar tech would be our best investment. If a system can collect energy in space via satellite and beam that energy back to earth, there you go. But the technology is not there yet. It will get there, but in our life times? Doubt it. So why not focus on the energy sources we have available to us now and improve their efficiency?
1) expensive
2) requires massive amounts of space
3) the biggest one, no political will to accomplish the said tasks.
Honestly, out of all of them, solar tech would be our best investment. If a system can collect energy in space via satellite and beam that energy back to earth, there you go. But the technology is not there yet. It will get there, but in our life times? Doubt it. So why not focus on the energy sources we have available to us now and improve their efficiency?
There's one hope, China. Lol, it's true, they are aggressively progressing at the speed of light. I went to china on a summer trip a few years back and in a small city, 60 percent of the people installed solar powered and solar heating. It's insane, they have this tank that absorbs the sun heat during the day so they don't need to use energy when they take shower during the day. And then there's that 3 Gorge damn they have some years back. That's apparently the biggest dam in the world. I'm telling you man, Americans are busy worrying about legalistic marijuana, gay marriage[which I support], Scientology, celebrity rumor[charlie sheen bullshit], kkk, neo nazis, illegal immigrants......all these are just finger pointing each other and blaming each other for the nation's stale progress. The Chinese are coming!!! Better learn god damn mandarin!!
Quote
GOD made uranium and friends for a reason.. and apparently it can generate high amount of energy that can be harvested.. use it well.
lol, i have trouble reading most of your post. But I say I say, if God made Uranium, but why? What's the point? His original plan was to keep us stupid in the garden of His. What's adam and eve going to do, eat uranium? Make jewelery out of it? Use Uranium as a pregnancy prevention method?[lol, irradiate those poor sperms.] I don't see why God need to make uranium, which wasn't discovered until the late 1700.....
Hey here's a plan to stop nuclear reactor from going off, we go on the offensive first. If we find one starting to steam up, just nuke it with everything we got, yeah! Violence solve all things, especially big missiles.
Fight fire with Fire, and Fight nuclear with nuclear. Take that radiation bastards!Last edited by BoxBox at 11:13 pm, Mar 11 2011
________________
Gay book discussion thread
Quote from you_no_see_me_
this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic
Quote from Toto
I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.
the mu...
Member
11:51 pm, Mar 11 2011
Posts: 1050
@box2: that last part i write is for those who think nuke is evil therefor should not be tempered with..
aand i'm sorry to say that i don't understand your jokes.. if those are jokes.. -__-
aand i'm sorry to say that i don't understand your jokes.. if those are jokes.. -__-
Site Admin
11:51 pm, Mar 11 2011
Posts: 2275
We should look into fusion power.
Most scientist that understand the subject think it's possible in 20 years.
In the mean time, massive increase in solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
Hell, there is a group trying to create a solar road. So, that's what we need.
Fission power's waste is simply not worth it.
________________
"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."
Most scientist that understand the subject think it's possible in 20 years.
In the mean time, massive increase in solar, wind, geothermal, etc.
Hell, there is a group trying to create a solar road. So, that's what we need.
Fission power's waste is simply not worth it.
________________
"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."
the mu...
Member
12:01 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 1050
correction:
Most scientist that understand the subject think it's possible in 200 years.
Most scientist that understand the subject think it's possible in 200 years.
Member
12:30 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 34
12:30 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 34
Nuclear is essentially the future until we find something better. But mind you, it is equally a limited resource, so eventually it will have the same issues as Oil. Modern technology has come a long way, as proven by Japan's recent issues. Yeah one reactor is having issues, which is significant, but that's one out of what 7? Those all acted according to plan and worked well. The biggest issues, plan for more things like this and perfect the technology so you use less raw materials for the amount of energy and we should be fine. I will say however, that its wrong to cut corners with these sorts of things, you you need to have an appropriate budget and funding for this sort of power source. I generally think Japan has done very well to show this.
Member
1:15 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 67
My thoughts...considering the crisis in Japan now with a three nuclear plants in possible meltdown mode...
If you build it, make sure you don't cut corners, update it for new safety standards, and cover your ass to make sure everything works in the worst situation.
There is an article about how if this earthquake had been in California right now we would be in a nuclear fallout worse than anything seen in the world with millions dead because there are 4 nuclear power plants on fault lines that are no where near built as strong as the ones in Japan.
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/60-60/52 44-japans-quake-could-have-irradiated-the-entire-us
Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.
The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults.
All four reactors are located relatively low to the coast. They are vulnerable to tsunamis like those now expected to hit as many as fifty countries.
San Onofre sits between San Diego and Los Angeles. A radioactive cloud spewing from one or both reactors there would do incalculable damage to either or both urban areas before carrying over the rest of southern and central California.
Diablo Canyon is at Avila Beach, on the coast just west of San Luis Obispo, between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A radioactive eruption there would pour into central California and, depending on the winds, up to the Bay Area or southeast into Santa Barbara and then to Los Angeles. The cloud would at very least permanently destroy much of the region on which most Americans rely for their winter supply of fresh vegetables.
By the federal Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the owners of the destroyed reactors---including Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison---would be covered by private insurance only up to $11 billion, a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars worth of damage that would be done. The rest would become the responsibility of the federal taxpayer and the fallout victims. Virtually all homeowner insurance policies in the United States exempt the insurers from liability from a reactor disaster.
The most definitive recent study of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster puts the death toll at 985,000. The accident irradiated a remote rural area. The nearest city, Kiev, is 80 kilometers away.
But San Luis Obispo is some ten miles directly downwind from Diablo Canyon. The region around San Onofre has become heavily suburbanized.
Heavy radioactive fallout spread from Chernobyl blanketed all of Europe within a matter of days. It covered an area far larger than the United States.
Fallout did hit the jet stream and then the coast of California, thousands of miles away, within ten days. It then carried all the way across the northern tier of the United States.
Chernobyl Unit Four was of comparable size to the two reactors at Diablo Canyon, and somewhat larger than the two at San Onofre.
But it was very new when it exploded. California's four coastal reactors have been operating since the 1970s and 1980s. Their accumulated internal radioactive burdens could exceed what was spewed at Chernobyl.
Japanese officials say all affected reactors automatically shut, with no radiation releases. But they are not reliable. In 2007 a smaller earthquake rocked the seven-reactor Kashiwazaki site and forced its lengthy shut-down.
Preliminary reports indicate at least one fire at a Japanese reactor hit by this quake and tsunami.
In 1986 the Perry nuclear plant, east of Cleveland, was rocked by a 5.5 Richter-scale shock, many orders of magnitude weaker than this one. That quake broke pipes and other key equipment within the plant. It took out nearby roads and bridges.
Thankfully, Perry had not yet opened. An official Ohio commission later warned that evacuation during such a quake would be impossible.
Numerous other American reactors sit on or near earthquake faults.
The Obama Administration is now asking Congress for $36 billion in new loan guarantees to build more commercial reactors.
Considering all of that...why can't we just focus on safe power supplies like hydrodamns, wind turbines, and solar power?
If you build it, make sure you don't cut corners, update it for new safety standards, and cover your ass to make sure everything works in the worst situation.
There is an article about how if this earthquake had been in California right now we would be in a nuclear fallout worse than anything seen in the world with millions dead because there are 4 nuclear power plants on fault lines that are no where near built as strong as the ones in Japan.
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-opinion-section/60-60/52 44-japans-quake-could-have-irradiated-the-entire-us
Had the massive 8.9 Richter-scale earthquake that has just savaged Japan hit off the California coast, it could have ripped apart at least four coastal reactors and sent a lethal cloud of radiation across the entire United States.
The two huge reactors each at San Onofre and Diablo Canyon are not designed to withstand such powerful shocks. All four are extremely close to major faults.
All four reactors are located relatively low to the coast. They are vulnerable to tsunamis like those now expected to hit as many as fifty countries.
San Onofre sits between San Diego and Los Angeles. A radioactive cloud spewing from one or both reactors there would do incalculable damage to either or both urban areas before carrying over the rest of southern and central California.
Diablo Canyon is at Avila Beach, on the coast just west of San Luis Obispo, between Los Angeles and San Francisco. A radioactive eruption there would pour into central California and, depending on the winds, up to the Bay Area or southeast into Santa Barbara and then to Los Angeles. The cloud would at very least permanently destroy much of the region on which most Americans rely for their winter supply of fresh vegetables.
By the federal Price-Anderson Act of 1957, the owners of the destroyed reactors---including Pacific Gas & Electric and Southern California Edison---would be covered by private insurance only up to $11 billion, a tiny fraction of the trillions of dollars worth of damage that would be done. The rest would become the responsibility of the federal taxpayer and the fallout victims. Virtually all homeowner insurance policies in the United States exempt the insurers from liability from a reactor disaster.
The most definitive recent study of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster puts the death toll at 985,000. The accident irradiated a remote rural area. The nearest city, Kiev, is 80 kilometers away.
But San Luis Obispo is some ten miles directly downwind from Diablo Canyon. The region around San Onofre has become heavily suburbanized.
Heavy radioactive fallout spread from Chernobyl blanketed all of Europe within a matter of days. It covered an area far larger than the United States.
Fallout did hit the jet stream and then the coast of California, thousands of miles away, within ten days. It then carried all the way across the northern tier of the United States.
Chernobyl Unit Four was of comparable size to the two reactors at Diablo Canyon, and somewhat larger than the two at San Onofre.
But it was very new when it exploded. California's four coastal reactors have been operating since the 1970s and 1980s. Their accumulated internal radioactive burdens could exceed what was spewed at Chernobyl.
Japanese officials say all affected reactors automatically shut, with no radiation releases. But they are not reliable. In 2007 a smaller earthquake rocked the seven-reactor Kashiwazaki site and forced its lengthy shut-down.
Preliminary reports indicate at least one fire at a Japanese reactor hit by this quake and tsunami.
In 1986 the Perry nuclear plant, east of Cleveland, was rocked by a 5.5 Richter-scale shock, many orders of magnitude weaker than this one. That quake broke pipes and other key equipment within the plant. It took out nearby roads and bridges.
Thankfully, Perry had not yet opened. An official Ohio commission later warned that evacuation during such a quake would be impossible.
Numerous other American reactors sit on or near earthquake faults.
The Obama Administration is now asking Congress for $36 billion in new loan guarantees to build more commercial reactors.
Considering all of that...why can't we just focus on safe power supplies like hydrodamns, wind turbines, and solar power?
Member
2:06 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 32
2:06 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 32
Quote from JakeOrion
Quote
It's like people don't realize that a collapse of the energy supply or a nuclear meltdown could do far more harm than any stupid terrorist could ever do.
actually modern day reactors have low concentration radioactive materials that would render using it as a weapon of mass destruction inefficient and poor. In fact, it might not even explode beyond the confine at all. Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing? THAT alone is more of a danger to the world than all the reactors combined.
Nuclear power is safe, but not in all parts of the world. Earth Quakes set aside, keeping safety measures up in all countries in the world is going to be a massive challenge. Although I do admit I'm exaggerating the overall risk in comparison to the direct problems we have, but the actual working number of those 1000 is considered much much lower and someone intelligent enough to be able to use it knows of it's consequences to the world. MAD
Quote from BoxBox
What happens when the wind stops?
Wind never stops at a certain altitude...
Site Admin
2:53 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 2275
Quote from mu2020
correction:
Most scientist that understand the subject think it's possible in 200 years.
Most scientist that understand the subject think it's possible in 200 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAT7pjDxWcw
The word was possible... not likely.
________________
"Officially, this machine doesn't exist, you didn't get it from me,
and I don't know you. Make sure it doesn't leave the building."
Member
3:05 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 263
3:05 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 263
can we not mention that Russian reactor? it was built poorly and failed, and failed massively, no reactor should EVER do that if built right.
because of people who fear nuclear power, we havent had a new one built in... let me look that up... i cant figure it out, i hear the 70's but read that one finished being built in 1996
nuclear power is the best option we have, until we can do what the sun does.
all green power is in its infancy at best, every time i see those windmills it sickens me that people really believe that its a viable source of energy, and that my power bill went from 9 cents a kwatt to 11 most likely because of them.
nuclear power plan expent pellets, at least new ones, IF they spill out of their container you can actually just pick them up and put them back with no ill effects, as long as you dont keep them by you for weeks on end.
solar energy has its place... like the in habitable desert, hydro electric, has its place too, where a dam needs to be built, wind has its place too, a farm, were vast amounts of space is already being used, put a wind mill around the farming area. but don't knock out a damn forest and put up those god damn things like they did where i live. green energy is a supplement to real energy. and coal should only last till more nuclear plants can be built.
because of people who fear nuclear power, we havent had a new one built in... let me look that up... i cant figure it out, i hear the 70's but read that one finished being built in 1996
nuclear power is the best option we have, until we can do what the sun does.
all green power is in its infancy at best, every time i see those windmills it sickens me that people really believe that its a viable source of energy, and that my power bill went from 9 cents a kwatt to 11 most likely because of them.
nuclear power plan expent pellets, at least new ones, IF they spill out of their container you can actually just pick them up and put them back with no ill effects, as long as you dont keep them by you for weeks on end.
solar energy has its place... like the in habitable desert, hydro electric, has its place too, where a dam needs to be built, wind has its place too, a farm, were vast amounts of space is already being used, put a wind mill around the farming area. but don't knock out a damn forest and put up those god damn things like they did where i live. green energy is a supplement to real energy. and coal should only last till more nuclear plants can be built.
Member
3:08 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 545
3:08 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 545
Nuclear power is great so long as it doesn't fuck up. Watching meltdowns in progress isn't exactly confidence-inspiring though.
Ginga Bishounen
Member
4:00 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 380
Nuclear power is fine I think, you just need a bigger number of failsafe systems in place and failsafe systems for them, as you see in Japan the nuclear plant messes up because of failed pump, they had no back up system or anything. Having more failsafe systems prevents this.
________________
________________
Quote from Akamatsu Ken
True magic Results From Courage Of The Heart
Boys And Girls Be Ambitious
One Step Can Change The World
Boys And Girls Be Ambitious
One Step Can Change The World
Member
4:19 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 18
First of all I want to say sorry in advance because some of the things I'm going to say is going to sound offensive.
1.
Anyone who thinks wind and solar power could cover humanities energy need are very naive. Here is why. First of all windmills are not efficient at all modern mills today can only muster 20 - 25 % efficiency, sometimes they go down to 1 - 5 % I have even heard of some windmills who use more energy then they create (In winter mills in some areas use energy in order stay operational, because they need external heating devises in order not to freeze over and brake)
2.
Windmills are made out of materials too you know xD From what I know in each windmill there is more than 100 kg worth's of rare earths (rare earths are also used in batteries and other high-tech things) and these are not environment friendly to mine if not handled properly (things released are led, mercury and other heavy metals) , and guess where 95 % of the stuff comes from, China and over there they aren't known for being all that high on the environment. Not to mention the mills themselves are made of epoxy and that's got to go somewhere when the mills are scraped
3.
Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? Because the power generated from these so called renewable energies are very expensive and they have to be subsidized( the tax payers have to pay yet again) to even have a slight chance against Npp, coal and gas.
4.
The average life of a windmill is around 15 - 20 years and that's not a lot compared to nuclear, coal and gas plants. That's quite a lot of waste.
5.
life around the windmill may suffer a lot as well. Birds being killed and the noise generate that may scare animals away well that can't be good.
6.
Scale. In 2008 there were 5101 windmills in the little country of Denmark they produced 3163 MW of power, that is around 20 % of the country's energy. Now this is a small country with only 5 mil people. Think how many the US alone would need just to get to 20 % I would also like to remind you all that windmills still need Nuclear, coal and gas as backup for when the wind doesn't blow or blows to hard xD
Now I am going to stop bashing for now because I could go on and on forever.
So far I'm concerned the future lies in Nuclear and Fusion energy. In France there are attempting to build the first ever Fusion power plant that creates more energy then it consumes, it should be done in 2013 -2014 from what I know. The point I'm trying to make its that Nuclear and Fusion have way more potential then windmills and solar will ever have and I think we would be fools not to explore them even though they might have some dangers to them.
1.
Anyone who thinks wind and solar power could cover humanities energy need are very naive. Here is why. First of all windmills are not efficient at all modern mills today can only muster 20 - 25 % efficiency, sometimes they go down to 1 - 5 % I have even heard of some windmills who use more energy then they create (In winter mills in some areas use energy in order stay operational, because they need external heating devises in order not to freeze over and brake)
2.
Windmills are made out of materials too you know xD From what I know in each windmill there is more than 100 kg worth's of rare earths (rare earths are also used in batteries and other high-tech things) and these are not environment friendly to mine if not handled properly (things released are led, mercury and other heavy metals) , and guess where 95 % of the stuff comes from, China and over there they aren't known for being all that high on the environment. Not to mention the mills themselves are made of epoxy and that's got to go somewhere when the mills are scraped
3.
Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is? Because the power generated from these so called renewable energies are very expensive and they have to be subsidized( the tax payers have to pay yet again) to even have a slight chance against Npp, coal and gas.
4.
The average life of a windmill is around 15 - 20 years and that's not a lot compared to nuclear, coal and gas plants. That's quite a lot of waste.
5.
life around the windmill may suffer a lot as well. Birds being killed and the noise generate that may scare animals away well that can't be good.
6.
Scale. In 2008 there were 5101 windmills in the little country of Denmark they produced 3163 MW of power, that is around 20 % of the country's energy. Now this is a small country with only 5 mil people. Think how many the US alone would need just to get to 20 % I would also like to remind you all that windmills still need Nuclear, coal and gas as backup for when the wind doesn't blow or blows to hard xD
Now I am going to stop bashing for now because I could go on and on forever.
So far I'm concerned the future lies in Nuclear and Fusion energy. In France there are attempting to build the first ever Fusion power plant that creates more energy then it consumes, it should be done in 2013 -2014 from what I know. The point I'm trying to make its that Nuclear and Fusion have way more potential then windmills and solar will ever have and I think we would be fools not to explore them even though they might have some dangers to them.
the fork of truth
Member
5:23 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 254
Quote from mu2020
u may not like what i'm about to say... so i'm saying i'm sorry first.
1. no, an NPP is not ticking time bomb.. (for those who say that this is wrong and put chernobyl as a reference i'll kick your head and told you to study more..)
2. no, the waste is not a problem anymore. there are now reactor that are specially made to "burndown" the radioactive on the waste. it's still more expensive than a normal npp, but that's what the rich country is for.. as for why there is still many nuclear waste in the world, that because this new reactor type is new... duuh
1. no, an NPP is not ticking time bomb.. (for those who say that this is wrong and put chernobyl as a reference i'll kick your head and told you to study more..)
2. no, the waste is not a problem anymore. there are now reactor that are specially made to "burndown" the radioactive on the waste. it's still more expensive than a normal npp, but that's what the rich country is for.. as for why there is still many nuclear waste in the world, that because this new reactor type is new... duuh
1. Well, I didn't mean that every NPP will eventually have an error, I just thought that humans don't know everything and can't control everything, so there's no way you can ever say NPP are 100% safe. But that's probably the case with everything on this planet^^
2. That's interesting. My main point for not liking it is generally the waste. I just don't feel good about letting it lie somewhere, even if it's safe, as it's a long time. Also just storing something and letting the amount grow larger and larger won't help. In my country (Germany) the method used to get rid of the waste is in most instances final storage, as far as I'm concerned.
I haven't heard of that new NPP type. Do you have a source where I could study further, maybe? I couldn't find any...
@Jembei
You have a point there i think, about renewable energies. And that's exactly why i don't know what to do instead of NP. Well I put my hopes in the future of Fusion since I heard that the "waste" of this has a relatively small radioactive half-life and it provides plenty of energy.
________________
There's nothing to see here. Proceed with what you were doing or throw rainbows at random pedestrians.
Member
5:54 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 4
5:54 am, Mar 12 2011
Posts: 4
Quote from BoxBox
Quote from kummel
Quote
Besides, you know that when the soviet union collapsed, 1000 nuclear warheads went missing?
Stop this bullshit right now!
it be nice to use your first post to intro and not make rude remarks
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/9/17/15515 0.shtml
i don't know why i thought it was 1000.....still with 200 nukes floating out there and people are worried about North Korea and reactors....
http://fakty.ua/83921-nikakoj-propazhi-yadernyh-boegolovok-v-ukr aine-ne-bylo
inb4: cannot into russian:
The entire article of "Pravda.ru" was a big lie. I wonder, why did newsmax quoted not the officials, but some idiot from communist party of the Ukraine that have never even seen the warheads.
As for the second statement you can read the story here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke
Again some idiot making proofless statement that other idiots immediatly beieve.
Heres another strory that was all over the internet of how USA lost one of their warheads:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread302187/pg1
Quote
it was built poorly and failed
Failure was caused by humans. Reactor itself had flaws in construction (graphite rods couldn't start to work immediatly in that scheme), but that alone could never lead to disaster if personnel didn't started to experiment on reactor without working safety system.
Last edited by kummel at 6:08 am, Mar 12 2011
