There was a nuclear explosion at Chernobyl

[bananas]

Many people are unaware of this.
Wikipedia has a brief description:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

A second, more powerful explosion occurred about two or three seconds after the first; evidence indicates that the second explosion resulted from a nuclear excursion.
...
However, the ratio of xenon radioisotopes released during the event provides compelling evidence that the second explosion was a nuclear power transient. This nuclear transient released ~0.01 kiloton of TNT equivalent (40 GJ) of energy; the analysis indicates that the nuclear excursion was limited to a small portion of the core.<26>

26. ^ a b Pakhomov, Sergey A; Yuri V. Dubasov (16 December 2009). "Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident". Pure and Applied Geophysics (Springerlink.com) 167: 575. doi:10.1007/s00024-009-0029-9 .

The scientific paper can be viewed in html or downloaded as pdf for free at http://www.springerlink.com/content/d71710g0012116x4/

Some excerpts:

Estimation of Explosion Energy Yield at Chernobyl NPP Accident

<snip>

Abstract

The value of the 133Xe/133mXe isometric activity ratio for the stationary regime of reactor work is about 35, and that for an instant fission (explosion) is about 11, which allowed estimation of the nuclear component of the instant (explosion) energy release during the NPP accident. Atmospheric xenon samples were taken at the trajectory of accident product transfers (in the Cherepovetz area); these samples were measured by a gamma spectrometer, and the 133Xe/133mXe ratio was determined as an average value of 22.4. For estimations a mathematic model was elaborated considering both the value of instant released energy and the schedule of reactor power change before the accident, as well as different fractionation conditions on the isobaric chain. Comparison of estimated results with the experimental data showed the value of the instant specific energy release in the Chernobyl NPP accident to be 2·105–2·106 J/Wt or 6·1014–6·1015 J (100–1,000 kt). This result is matched up to a total reactor power of 3,200 MWt. However this estimate is not comparable with the actual explosion scale estimated as 10t TNT. This suggests a local character of the instant nuclear energy release and makes it possible to estimate the mass of fuel involved in this explosion process to be from 0.01 to 0.1% of total quantity.

Keywords Xenon-133 – isomeric ratio – Chernobyl – estimation – energy – explosion

To date there is no general idea regarding the physical nature of the Chernobyl NPP accident. According to the main version, it was an explosion of chemical character, that is, the explosion of hydrogen formed in the reactor at high temperature as a result of water reaction with zirconium and other elements.

The alternative version is based on the assumption of a large instant energy release of nuclear energy. Convincing evidence in favor of this version was for the first time obtained by Radium Institute employees on the basis of an analysis of atmospheric xenon radionuclide samples collected in the area of Cherepovetz and of the analysis of the value of 133Xe/133mXe isomers activity ratios. For long-term reactor work at constant power this ratio obtains a value close to 35. In the extreme case of instant fission of nuclear fuel (an explosion) this ratio value recalculated for zero time becomes close to 11. The relatively long half-life of these radionuclides (2.19 days for 133mXe and 5.24 days for 133Xe) makes it possible to carry out their monitoring at a significant distance from the source; that is the case in the town of Cherepovetz located 1,000 km from Chernobyl (Pakhomov et al., 1991), 2,000 km downwind.

<snip>

Summarizing given estimations it should be acknowledged that the hypothesis of a nuclear mechanism of enormous instant energy yield in the Chernobyl accident seems quite convincing, as is supported by experimental data; these data are in good agreement with the calculated results.

<snip>

[ensho]

1. kick

nt

[nebenaube]

2. At best... we may all be sterile by next spring. n/t

[bahrbearian]

4. Gaia at work?

[Pab Sungenis]

3. Not quite.

An atomic excursion is not an atomic explosion as we tend to think of them. It's a massive release of energy and radiation but not the fireball and shockwave that are associated with atomic explosions.

[bananas]

6. Maybe not as you think of it, but people who are informed know it's an atomic explosion

For example, the US made small tactical nuclear weapons which released similar amounts of energy in an atomic explosion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

The M-388 round used a version of the W54 warhead, a very small sub-kiloton fission device. The Mk-54 weighed about 51 lb (23 kg), with a selectable yield equivalent to 10 or 20 tons of TNT (very close to the minimum practical size and yield for a fission warhead).

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. The amount of energy released does not define something as an explosion

It's whether there's a shockwave.

[bananas]

8. A few years ago, some here were falsely claiming that nuclear bunker-busters were not really nukes

When Bush wanted to nuke Iran, some here were in favor of it, trying to claim that nuclear bunker busters weren't really nukes. It was disgusting.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3060468

Warren Stupidity (1000+ posts) Sat Jan-06-07 07:50 PM
Original message

Not really nukes? I call BULLSHIT

We have seen a set of posts here claiming that tactical nuke 'bunker busters' are not 'real nukes' and are not even in the same class of weapon as the bomb we dropped on hiroshima.

This is of course a vile argument attempting to justify first strike use of nuclear weapons by claiming that these particular nuclear weapons are not really nuclear weapons. It is also wrong on the facts regarding the claim that the bunker buster weapon is not in the same class as the hiroshima weapon.

Now for some actual facts. First the Hiroshima weapon:

<snip>

[Marblehead]

5. MOAB

Dirty bomb

[FredStembottom]

7. Would this excursion event be more along the lines.....

....of what happens with a Neutron bomb?

[pokerfan]

9. more along the lines of a radiological (aka "dirty") bomb

A neutron bomb is a fusion (thermonuclear) weapon (as opposed to fission) that is designed to enhance its lethal neutron radiation.