Independent Coup 159


I don’t buy newspapers any more, but I strongly recommend that today everyone puts their hand in their pocket to support the Independent’s tremendous work exposing the immoral – no, evil – work of political lobbyists and the way our politicians are bought and paid for.

You can work your way through all the articles online beginning with this one, where I get a kind mention. This all follows on beautifully – and genuinely by coincidence – from my blog post of yesterday,


159 thoughts on “Independent Coup

1 4 5 6
  • Ken

    [Mod/Jon – sorry to blanket delete everyone on the troll topic, but we need to make it off-topic]

  • Ken

    [Mod/Jon – sorry to blanket delete everyone on the troll topic, but we need to make it off-topic]

  • Anon

    Fedup,

    I can google “moon-landing myth” but I don’t believe the moon-landings were a conspiracy either.

    http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/14_1%2073-74%20rodionov.pdf

    Ted invented some extreme nuclear (fission) devices for the U.S. stockpile, for instance, the minimum-sized one as
    well as the bomb with the highest explosive yield. He was the first to use the
    reactor-grade plutonium as a kind of a nuclear explosive. But a few years later,
    he did an about-face in his perception of nuclear weaponry, and after about a
    decade, he rejected nuclear power as well. Ted’s paper, Nuclear Power and Nu-
    clear Weapons published in Vol. 13, 1–2: 117–128 of this journal presents his
    recollections of this evolution.

    ===

    http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/13%201-2%20Taylor-Feiveson.pdf

    Contrary to widespread belief among nuclear engineers who have never
    worked on nuclear weapons, plutonium made in nuclear power plant fuel can
    be used to make all types of nuclear weapons.

    ====

    Jimmy Carter declassified a “reactor grade” bomb test that took place in 1962 as he, as a nuclear physicist, understood the proliferation problem. The UK tested reactor grade plutonium in bombs in the 1950s

  • Ken

    [Mod/Jon – sorry to blanket delete everyone on the troll topic, but we need to make it off-topic]

  • Passerby

    Anon
    “moon-landing myth” has nothing to do with the “rock oil” Petroleum, and “peack oil”. Incidentally seeing as there is an ‘eum at the end of the petrol, don’t you thin it ought to banned too? Perhaps this too can be used as reactor grade bomb fuel (and it is, daisy cutter, thermobaric weapons), or get the tanks moving or transport soldiers, and worst still transport the bomb making scientists going to and fro from their homes to work and such. Heck, Ban the Oil movement has been far too slow in forming.
    ,
    “Reactor grade” my foot, what a lot of cods-wallop, this is the mindset of the paranoid bastards whom would ban the knives from kitchens and stop steel production because knives are made out of steel. You easily accept for moves to go ahead and “cull” millions of human beings, in case one of these turned out to be a nuclear scientist, or murderer to be precise, sort of King Herod fashion solution.
    ,
    Your links are only satiating your paranoid outlook, perhaps it is time you took some prozack or some other anti psychotic drug of some kind. Peak Oil is an excuse to kill lots of people for the benefit of reducing the competition for the established bunch of fuckwits, whom cannot see past beyond their noses.
    ,
    Stop making excuses for killing bastards and their dastardly creed, snap out of it, we live in a universe, and so far we have not even started to find out what is on this planet? and how it is formed? But for sure we know how to kill millions of human beings and have excuses galore.

  • Jon

    @rathernot – there is very little censorship here. For example, I would delete overt homophobic or racist abuse, and have done so in the past. We have had strong anti-Jewish and anti-African racism here, and I am fully in favour of its deletion.
    .
    I am generally ok with *constructive* 9/11 debate, but I know Craig finds it often off-topic. I will therefore use my judgement and nip it in the bud before the blog-topic conversation is derailed.
    .
    Of late I have removed and edited posts that have discussed who caused offence first in a particular argument.
    .
    But aside from the above, the only other barrier to posting is our terrible anti-spam system, which is (a) ineffective against spam and (b) moderates things that aren’t spam. A good rule of thumb is: keep it shortish, and don’t add more than one link. Also, always save a comment to the clipboard before you post, so you have a copy in case it gets eaten by the gremlins.

  • Jon

    Talking of which… I have deleted quite a few comments regarding trolling and civil discussion above. I apologise to regular posters whose comments have been deleted – it’s a difficult balance to permit leeway to proven, civil posters whilst keeping it even-handed. I’ve allowed one item from @macky as I don’t like deleting longer and more considered posts, and I’ve allowed a rejoinder from @ken.
    .
    Now if we could try to calm down – even between regular posters who heretofore have a record of getting on very well indeed – that would be splendid. @Komodo, yes please on Halliburton! Good effort.

  • Anon

    Passerby,

    I can’t possibly prove (even to myse4lf) Peak Oil but I think it is highly likely we are at or close to it.

    However I can satisfy myself that excess plutonium-238 and 240 “contamination” is no insurmountable problem to detonating nuclear weapons. Spontaneous fission can be turned to the bomb designers advantage and excess heat is easily solved (one way is a bomb that assembles itself just prior to detonation). From public literature You would have to really screw up to get less than a few hundred tons of TNT equivalent with a “reactor grade” bomb and the 1-10 kton range is quite possible. The declassified US test was listed as “Less than 20 Kton”).

    I understand the physics. I don’t think you do.

    http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/437625-gCUCGr/webviewable/437625.pdf

    Proliferation Vulnerability
    Red Team Report
    SAND 97-8203

    Printed October 1996

    The Authors:

    Sandia National Laboratory:

    4.1.2 Utility of Reactor Grade Plutonium
    in Nuclear Explosive Devices

    The single summary statement about the utility of plutonium from the disposition program and its potential for use in nuclear explosive devices is: “All plutonium is good plutonium; some is better than other.”

    ===

    If you can explain to me why multiple nuclear bomb designers, Sandia and basic physics for that matter are wrong and you can’t detonate reactor grade plutonium then please do so.

    By the way the reactor 3 explosion at Fukushima was a moderated prompt critical excursion set off by a smaller hydrogen explosion impacting spent fuel assemblies according to nuclear reactor engineer Arnie Gunderson. Time will tell if he is correct.

1 4 5 6

Comments are closed.