Quote:
Originally Posted by Seth8530
interesting that yall should bring this up, i too read the article and then I decided to ask one my nuclear engineering professors about it.
Here is a quote from Dr.Heilbronn
"The article isn't clear as to what scenarios they had in mind. To say it would have been the worst radiological incident since Chernobyl isn't very specific. If they had a 1 curie spill of 18F somewhere in the country, that could also be the worst since Chernobyl, even though it isn't much of a concern. They're probably trying to imply it could have been almost like Chernobyl but not quite as bad, in which case I don't think so. There was no danger of the weapons detonating, at least as far as I know. I'm assuming the main problem would have been the fire reaching the reactors and/or missile and somehow burn some of the material, releasing it in the air. I talked with some of our profs who were in the nuclear navy, and they said the big concern about a fire near the missiles was igniting the rockets. If that happened, it would burn a hole in the sub in a matter of a minute. If the weapons were fusion, not fission, then there isn't a radiological concern other than the tritium, which isn't much of a concern in the first place. And considering the sub was docked, the chances of an uncontrollable fire like the one in Chernobyl were slim - they would just submerge the sub."
So, see if that clears anything up or not.
|
Correct me if I'm wrong but I have understood that all current first line nuclear weapons are two-stage thermonuclear weapons. They have primary stage, which is fission reaction, and secondary stage, which is fusion reaction. Therefore there still is nuclear fallout if bomb explodes or its content is released in other ways. At my understanding pure fusion weapons, which would have only tritium as trouble, have not yet been built.
