[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Fwd: nuclear "blast"
I sent a private message to derek, but in brief I'll add a couple lines here.
The difference between explosions and what we might be talking about is
semantic. If anything builds up a pressure at a high rate then there is an
explosion. What probably didn't happen is that there was a very large nuclear
explosion. The stuff did become super critical and meltdown did occur over
and over but I don't think there was enough containment to allow the stuff to
stay together long enough to really get things going. But explode it did over
and over. hope this helps
Subj: Re: nuclear "blast"
Date: 95-07-31 22:36:08 EDT
In a message dated 95-07-31 20:43:32 EDT, PWSPARKS@aol.com writes:
>Sorry to say that semantics aside the stuff was super critical and
>not just a reaction. It was a heavy meltdown of a very large area (wrt
>nuclear reactors). Explosive is was.
I readily bow to your expertise. I do not recall any info on any such
natural events -- I recall basicly the same info Stan Friesen posted -- and
it is still hard for me to imagine anything more. Would you please post more
Thank You, Sir,