[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Fwd: nuclear "blast"
Sorry to say that semantics aside the stuff was super critical and that is
not just a reaction. It was a heavy meltdown of a very large area (wrt
nuclear reactors). Explosive is was.
>From: swf@ElSegundoCA.ATTGIS.COM (Stan Friesen)
To: firstname.lastname@example.org (Multiple recipients of list)
Date: 95-07-31 14:40:01 EDT
> VanKathy felt that a nuclear event (explosion) was unlikely in a natural
> environment. Well actually that has occured in at least one event a very
> long time ago (few billion) due to the fact that nuclear progenitors were
> much more prevalent in those times. Uranium 235 is not longer found
> naturally but at one time it was. There was na artical in Scientific
> American a long time ago (1970's?) that described just such an event. The
> resultant hyper critical event lasted several thousands of years.
There seems to be some confusion here between explosion and reaction.
What was described in Sci. Amer., and has been verified thoroughly,
was a natural self-sustaining nuclear reaction, but NOT an explosion.
[Note, even the time scale you mention, several thousand years, clearly
indicates a reactor not an explosion].
I, too, seriously doubt that a natural nuclear *explosion* could occur.
I rather suspect that what was found in the Sahara was another example
of a natural nuclear *reactor*.
The peace of God be with you.