A-bomb goes missing

The story from the navigator, who recently died and survived twenty two and a half hours on the ice.

http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/5676965.html

or move to general discussion?

Thx.

I’m as guilty as anybody, but I guess we’d better drag this thread back on topic.

Moggy

ok so i probably exagerated a little this makes interesting reading

http://www.edfenergy.com/products-services/networks/knowledge-centre/public-information.shtml

…a token to make the greenies think our power is supposedly clean when infact most off it is nuclear.

We have never imported more than around 5% of our energy from France, which even were it all nuclear, when added to the 20% our own Nuclear power stations generate still makes a maximum of 25%

Hardly ‘most of’ our energy :rolleyes:

Moggy

edf are the biggest supplier to london and most of the south from essex down. The wind farms we have produce a miniscule ammount and are just a token to make the greenies think our power is supposedly clean when infact most off it is nuclear.

Don’t get so upset… look here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Nuclear Power in France

(August 2008)

* France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
* France is the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
* France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.

In 2006 French electricity generation was 574.5 billion kWh gross and consumption about 482 billion kWh – 6700 kWh per person. Over the last decade France has exported 60-70 billion kWh net each year and EdF expects exports to continue at 65-70 TWh/yr.

France has 59 nuclear reactors operated by Electricité de France (EdF) with total capacity of over 63 GWe, supplying over 430 billion kWh per year of electricity, 78% of the total generated there.

From being a net electricity importer through most of the 1970s, France now has steadily growing net exports of electricity, and is the world’s largest net electricity exporter, with electricity being France’s fourth largest export. (Next door is Italy, without any operating nuclear power plants. It is Europe’s largest importer of electricity, most coming ultimately from France.) The UK has also become a major customer for French electricity.

Hi J Boyle,

Guess I should have phrased my response better. When I said short sighted, I meant that in the context of civilization lifespan. To think that we have the technology to safely deal with nuclear wastes which will last longer than all civilizations currently have is short sighted.

I agree, there is no free lunch. Wind, hydro-electric etc. They all produce wastes of some sort.

Still amazes me the number of aircraft accidents that have occurred with nuclear bombs.

Regards,

The Soviets lost less, if only because they didn’t fly around theirs for 24/7. Fly bombers hauling nuclear weapons continuously for over 30 years on end, and you’re bound to lose one every now and then.

It wasn’t 30 years…at least not airborne alert. (SAC’s ground alert ended in the early 90s…so that did last 30 years.)
Began in the late 50s (with the threat of ICBMs hitting bases) and ended late 60s (because of costs/airframe wear issues and safety concerns/bad press following the accidents).
I know for a fact that it was long over by the time I was in SAC in the early 80s.

Nukes don’t produce greenhouse gasses…
Coal does, so does oil…
Some don’t want new dams built that might impact fish migrations…
Wind turbines hurt birds…
The makings of solar cells aren’t exactly eco-neutral…

There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If you want to save Polar bears, go nuke…
If you’re worried about waste, don’t.

Somebody better be willing to make a tough decision…the enviro activists don’t seem to want to, each seems to have their own pet project…and the population keeps getting larger.
Or else the lights will go out.
Any volunteers for going w/o electricty?

Well said 100%. The Green idiots have it wrong, but unfortunately thay have the ear of an equally thick Guvmint.
Now, back on topic, of the Bombs lost, how many are actually unstable…in that there can be a radiation leak? They cannot be unstable in a bangy/swish/whooo firework way as the detonation process cannot work.
The threat of them being found and used in terror weapons is probably a more serious problem…..but they have been hidden from many military searches, so that’s probably safe too?

Reading the listing of aircraft the number of accidents is sobering- thankfully a nuclear powered aircraft has not been developed (that we know of…)

There was two i know of the American NB-36H and the russian TU-119 have a read here for why they failed (thankfully)

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

curlyboy

not about aviation i know but russian submarines

http://spb.org.ru/bellona/ehome/russia/nfl/nfl8.htm

found a more comprehensive list on wikipedia

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

the lincs at the bottom of the page provide even more information

If i remember rightly the b-36 progect was cancelled because the reactor was too heavy. but i do belive the project actualy flew. Has anybody got more info on this?

The Soviets lost less, if only because they didn’t fly around theirs for 24/7. Fly bombers hauling nuclear weapons continuously for over 30 years on end, and you’re bound to lose one every now and then.

And who knows how many the USSR lost…I doubt if they’ll be as quick to release records as the Americans.

Bet you the guys at the CIA know. And if they don’t, and I was a US taxpayer, I’d want to know why. Doesn’t mean they’re going to tell the public, though.

A-BOMBS

Hi folks;
We can use the plutoniam from old nukes for power.there is
plenty in stockpiles,swords to plowshares.While we’re at it
what about the reactors from ssn’s and such? All you need
is bricks to house it and water to cool it.50.000 homes
per unit.Did i recall that our gods printed a pic of the
G.E. twin turbine nuke areo engine?I recalled that it was
huge! was it for the YB 36?

In Canada there is a movement afoot to build more nuclear power plants because “they are more environmentally sensitive” than coal or gas. Seems a little short-sighted to me.

Nukes don’t produce greenhouse gasses…
Coal does, so does oil…
Some don’t want new dams built that might impact fish migrations…
Wind turbines hurt birds…
The makings of solar cells aren’t exactly eco-neutral…

There is no such thing as a free lunch.
If you want to save Polar bears, go nuke…
If you’re worried about waste, don’t.

Somebody better be willing to make a tough decision…the enviro activists don’t seem to want to, each seems to have their own pet project…and the population keeps getting larger.
Or else the lights will go out.
Any volunteers for going w/o electricty?

BOOM?

Hi folks;
I know of the bomb in the St.Lawrence river,but there is more
incidents in Canada than that site shows.I have xeroxs of a chapter
intitled
‘Crashes and nuclear weapons accidents in Canada’
There is as many incidents listed there than there is on that
site for the world.I never heard of the savannah h-bomb being
recovered.I’d be more worried about the german warship full
of posioned gas in the north sea:eek:

The listing of the nuclear accidents made interesting reading. In Canada there is a movement afoot to build more nuclear power plants because “they are more environmentally sensitive” than coal or gas. Seems a little short-sighted to me.

Reading the listing of aircraft the number of accidents is sobering- thankfully a nuclear powered aircraft has not been developed (that we know of…)

And who knows how many the USSR lost…I doubt if they’ll be as quick to release records as the Americans.

their have been a few more accidents with nukes

http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html