Morlok ha scritto:
Cioe' tutte le esplosioni nucleari effettuate dal 1945 ad oggi, avrebbero provocato tutti i terremoti, ma scusa e quelli prima l'era atomica che cosa li avrebbe provocati!
A memoria, ricordo messina 1908 e San Francisco 1906.

Sognatore ha scritto:



Ovvio che quelli prima dell'era atomica sono di origine naturale.
Ma certamente i test nucleari hanno stimolato certi eventi, aumentandone frequenza ed intensità. E poi la contaminazione radioattività crea scompensi anche a livello geomagnetico...provocando anomalie nel moto di rotazione e spostamento dell'asse...tutti fattori naturali si...ma i test nucleari li hanno implementati.

Cioe' tutte le esplosioni nucleari effettuate dal 1945 ad oggi, avrebbero provocato tutti i terremoti.

ma scusa e quelli prima l'era atomica che cosa li avrebbe provocati!

Ufologo 555 ha scritto:

Perciò ci dobbiamo prendere tutto quello che ... arriva!

Adoniesis, nel tuo post hai scritto che la causa dei terromoti sono stati esperimenti atomici.
Vorrei far notare che un'esplosione atomica, anche la piu' potente mai effettuata, per il nostro pianeta e' del tutto indifferente, in quanto l'energia liberata da un solo vulcano esplosivo, mont S. Elen, Pinatubo, Il Monte Serrat, il Krakatoa tanto per citare qualche esempio sono state centinaia di volte piu' potenti, altro che megatoni, in questo caso si parla di Gigatoni.

Che poi la razza umana sia una specie evoluta, e' tutto da dimostrare.

ADONIESIS ha scritto:

Quindi fammi capire!!! Secondo te l eruzione di un Vesuvio può essere piu forte di una Bomba che rade al suolo una citta???

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_Zar

Morlok ha scritto:
Vorrei far notare che un'esplosione atomica, anche la piu' potente mai effettuata, per il nostro pianeta e' del tutto indifferente....

Quindi fammi capire!!! Secondo te l eruzione di un Vesuvio può essere piu forte di una Bomba che rade al suolo una citta???

ADONIESIS ha scritto:


FALSO. L esplosione del vulcano Krakatoa fu di 200 megatoni e non Gigatoni come dici tu. Dove l hai presa questa falsa informazione???
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa



Sicuramente all Era di Atlantide era molto piu evoluta di oggi.

Quindi fammi capire!!! Secondo te l eruzione di un Vesuvio può essere piu forte di una Bomba che rade al suolo una citta???

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_Zar

Sognatore ha scritto:



Le alterazioni provocate dalle anomale concentrazioni di radioattività artificiale liberate nelle esplosioni non sono affatto indifferenti se considerate nella loro totalità...hanno alterato tutti gli equilibri planetaria minando la stabilità atomica cellulare, molecolare, geomagnetica ecc.

Stai scherzando spero?

Non hai la minima idea di quanto sia forte l'esplosione di vulcani esplosivi (per l'appunto).

L'esplosione del Krakatoa, da te stesso citato, è stata 3 o 4 volte più forte della Bomba Zar (che a sua volta dovrebbe essere 5000 più forte di quella di Hiroshima).

Sognatore ha scritto:

Le alterazioni provocate dalle anomale concentrazioni di radioattività artificiale liberate nelle esplosioni non sono affatto indifferenti se considerate nella loro totalità...hanno alterato tutti gli equilibri planetaria minando la stabilità atomica cellulare, molecolare, geomagnetica ecc.

http://alsos.wlu.edu/information.aspx?id=1967

Environmental Effects of Atmospheric Testing

The total amount of plutonium-239 dispersed as a result of the 45 announced French atmospheric tests, including the four in Algeria, would be about 6750 curies, assuming 150 curies per test. Table 2, in Chapter 3, gives an estimate for the fission yield of the announced French atmospheric tests of about 10.9 megatons. On this basis, the amount of cesium-127 and strontium90 dispersed would have been 1.7 million curies and 1.1 million curies respectively. About onehalf of the cesium and strontium still remains in the atmosphere, on the ground, and in water bodies. French testing in the Pacific was the source of almost all the atmospheric fission product contamination, due to the much larger number of tests and the far greater yields of the French tests there than in Algeria.

Environmental Effects of Underground Testing at Moruroa

The possible environmental effects of underground testing include short-term and longterm effects. At the time of the explosion, fracturing of the atoll surface triggers landslides, tsunamis (tidal waves), and earthquakes. There is also evidence that radionuclides have vented to the environment. Possible long-term effects include leakage of fission products to the biosphere and transfer of dissolved plutonium from the lagoon to the ocean and the food chain.

* Physical Damage to the Reef
The upper layer of the atoll is made up of reef carbonates, mainly limestone. This limestone cover is approximately 300 meters in the south of the atoll, increasing to 430 - 550 meters in the north. The upper part of this limestone layer is undolomitized and comprises porous coral debris, approximately 125 meters thick. The lower part is dolomitized and therefore quite compact.
This limestone layer is separated from the underlying volcanic material by a transitional zone of variable thickness, composed mainly of weathered clays. It can vary in thickness from 40 to 45 meters below the atoll to a mere 50 centimeters or even nothing beneath most of the lagoon.
The clay zone is impervious. The underlying volcanics are initially aerial volcanics, which then change to more homogeneous submarine volcanics at greater depths.
Each scientific mission to Moruroa has described severe impairment of the integrity of at least the carbonate part of the atoll. The damage includes fissures in the limestone and surface subsidences of large areas of the atoll. Fissures are propagated by the testing, a result of the cumulative compacting of the limestone. Fissuring serves to increase lateral and vertical water transport in the carbonate body of the atoll,(24) possibly resulting in more rapid leakage of the fission products. The French authorities claim that no new damage is occurring because the tests are no longer conducted under the reef crown but under the lagoon.(25) This claim is contradicted by underwater observations of the Cousteau mission, which discovered recently fallen noncolonized limestone blocks, suggesting that tests were carried out in the months immediately preceding their arrival and that on-going tests are still damaging the reef. (26)

* Triggering of Landslides, Tsunamis and Earthquakes
At least one major test-related landslide and consequent Tsunami in Moruroa, on July 25, 1979. Apparently, the 120kiloton weapon, which was supposed to be lowered into a shaft of 800 meters, got stuck at a depth of 400 meters and could not be dislodged. The French authorities decided to explode the device anyway. This explosion resulted in a major underwater landslide of at least one million cubic meters of coral and rock and created a cavity, probably 140 meters in diameter. The underwater landslide produced a major tidal wave comparable to a tsunami, which spread through the Tuamotu Archipelago and injured people on the southern part of Moruroa Atoll. (27)
French authorities initially denied that any mishap had occurred and declared that the tidal wave was of natural origin, but in a publication in 1985 they did acknowledge "the accident of 25 July 1979".(28)

* Venting of Gaseous and Volatile Fission Products
Unusual concentrations of short-lived iodine131 in marine organisms and krypton 85 and tritium in air or water indicate that venting has occurred.
The scientists of the Australia, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea Mission in 1983 were authorized to carry out a single experiment in situ at Moruroa. Their measurements demonstrated a high level of tritium in the interstitial air of the surface terrain. The measured tritium levels were 500 Becquerels per liter while the expected concentration due to atmospheric fallout should have been in the range of 0.2 Becquerels per liter. The report of this mission offers two explanations for these extremely high unexpected tritium levels: either venting of gaseous tritium directly from underground cavities or a faster ground water flow rate than admitted. (29)
The venting explanation appears to be more likely, based on findings of Cousteau mission in 1987. Just days after a test, iodine 131 (half life of 8.05 days) was found in all sediment samples. The same mission measured radioactivity of plankton, which is an even better indicator of venting. In plankton, they found an iodine131 concentration of 22,000 picocuries per kilogram, by far the strongest radioactivity found during their mission. The Cousteau report stated that iodine-131 most likely reached the surface via the test bore. The report overlooked the fact that the spot with the maximum iodine131 concentration in sediment was the farthest away from the test site. Nevertheless, because of the short halflife of this radioisotope, its presence could only be attributed to a recent emission. Although authorities at the testing center claimed that this was due to an accidental leak of exceptional character during post-test drilling for purposes of monitoring, the Cousteau Mission was not able to verify that directly.(30) In any case, even such a posttest valve decoupling accident constitutes a venting phenomenon. The fact that the French did not report this venting accident until forced to do so by having to explain the presence of iodine131 indicates that venting may have been more common than the French nuclear authorities have so far acknowledged.
In summary, two scientific missions, on which major restrictions were imposed, were still able, independently of each other, to find typical indicators of short-term venting.

* Medium and Long-term Leakage of Fission Products to the Biosphere
According to a model formulated by Hochstein and O'Sullivan (1985), an underground nuclear explosion in rock saturated with seawater can set up an artificial geothermal system. The heat stored in the explosion chamber is on the order of 10E12 calories per kiloton of yield. In addition, heat generation due to radioactive decay goes on after the explosion of fission bombs, at a rate of about 595 calories per second per kiloton of yield. After the explosion, seawater enters the chamber and is heated by about 25o - 50o C by both stored and newly generated heat. The heated seawater dissolves the glassy materials, liberating the nuclear waste.
At the same time, the heated seawater sets up an artificial geothermal system, which transfers the dissolved nuclear waste slowly upwards through the extended chimney. While the concentration of the radionuclides decreases by diffusion and absorption, the heated cell transferring the radionuclides moves upwards with a speed of about 10 meters per year, according to the computer simulation of Hochstein and O'Sullivan. Under the assumptions of this model, radionuclides from a depth of around 500 meters would reach the cracks of the lagoon in less than 50 years instead of the 500 to 1,000 years assumed by the French authorities.(31)
A first hint that the model of Hochstein and O'Sullivan might be correct was the discovery of cesium-134 by the Cousteau Mission in 1987.(32) In December 1990, too, Greenpeace found cesium-134 in plankton collected outside the 12-mile exclusion zone around Moruroa.(33) While the measured concentrations of cesium-137 are consistent with the consequences of local and global atmospheric tests, the concentrations of cesium134 are less explicable. Global atmospheric fallout does not contain cesium134, which is produced by the addition of one neutron to the nucleus of stable cesium-133.
A recent study reviewing the Cousteau Mission's water samples comes to the conclusion that the measured concentrations of cesium-134 are attributable to the underground tests and that only leakage can explain the presence of this radionuclide in Moruroan waters. This study also attempted to identify the source of the leakage by matching the coordinates of French underground tests with the coordinates of the places where samples were taken. Leakage is occurring even faster than initially predicted by the model of Hochstein and O'Sullivan (which assumed equal permeability in all directions), probably only six years after a test.(34) Venting, which happens occasionally, may open pathways for more rapid leakage than predicted by the model.
The 120 underground tests conducted at Moruroa have in effect turned it into a longterm waste dump. The total amount of plutonium-239 from these tests and the three at Fangataufa is about 18,450 curies, assuming 150 curies per test. Based on a rough estimate of 2.5 megatons total yield of underground tests, the amount of cesium127 and strontium90 dispersed would have been 400,000 curies and 250,000 curies respectively. About three-fourths of the cesium and strontium still remain underground and some may have found its way into the lagoons and ocean. As a repository for nuclear wastes from underground testing, Moruroa is less than ideal. Natural barriers play the most important role in the confinement of nuclear waste.(35) Consequently, a planned storage site should meet very strict criteria including exclusion of water, lack of natural fractures or fissures, and a high absorption of radionuclides. According to these criteria, Moruroa is a very poor choice: the geological structure of Moruroa is water-saturated; there are natural fractures as well as a veritable network of fissures due to the explosions. These fissures affect the volcanic layer. Moreover, the absorption coefficient for the basalt of Moruroa as estimated by the French authorities is very low.
In conclusion, Moruroa Atoll is a very poor site for storing nuclear waste of any type. If certain confinement criteria are considered necessary for the storage of waste from nuclear power stations, the same would be necessary for the storage of waste as a consequence of nuclear explosions. The discovery of cesium-134 indicates only the beginning of longterm leakage from the underground "storage" sites.
Transfer of dissolved plutonium from the lagoon to the ocean as a consequence of poor waste management.
Radioactive materials deposited on Moruroa have found their way into the lagoon. The land area of Moruroa has been used to store radioactive waste (including metal scrap, wood, plastic bags and clothing) in a huge heap on the north coast of the atoll, which covers 30,000 square meters. In addition, on July 21, 1966 a bomb broke apart on the surface of Moruroa, dispersing plutonium239. This plutonium 239 was confined to the area by fixing it in place with a layer of bitumen. Moruroa was also used as a safety trial area.(36) (A safety trial area is a test to check whether an atomic bomb will explode on impact with a hard surface -as in the event of a plane crash. In the case of a "safe" bomb, or a "successful" safety trial, the impact does not cause a nuclear detonation but breaks apart the bomb, scattering plutonium-239 about the site.) Cyclones hit Moruroa mainly in 1981, washing radioactive waste from the coral rim into the lagoon, including the plutonium-impregnated bitumen.
Due to these waste management practices, the sediment of the lagoon contains an estimated 20 kilograms of plutonium. At the time the Australian, New Zealand and Papua New Guinea Mission visited Moruroa, plutonium239 concentrations in the air were about 4 times greater than in continental France. The Mission estimated that about 20 gigabecquerels of plutonium from the sediment of the lagoon are transported annually to ocean waters.(37)
This is consistent with findings of the Cousteau Mission that concentrations of plutonium in the lagoon entrance are about 10 times greater than in the lagoon itself. They also stated that the observed concentrations in the sediment and in the water are much too high to be attributed to global atmospheric fallout and are therefore of local origin and due to remobilization from sedimentary deposits.
There is evidence that plutonium-239 is accumulating in the food chain. While the concentration of plutonium-239 and plutonium 240 are around .01 picocuries/liter in the water of the lagoon, the respective concentrations for dry sediment are 1,1OO picocuries/kilogram and for dry plankton 9,700 picocuries/kilogram. (Enrichment can be found for cesium 137, also, where the respective concentrations are 0.14 picocuries/liter, 3.5 picocuries/kilogram and 70 picocuries/kilogram.)(38)

* Ciguatera Fish Poisoning Due To Changes in Reef Ecology
Ciguatera fish poisoning, discussed in Chapter 5, is a major public health problem in the South pacific, with nutritional, social, and economic implications. The annual average incidence for the South Pacific area is around 200 cases per 100,000 population per year, but incidences as high as 20,700 per 100,000 population per year are reported for the Gambier Islands.
A review of the epidemiology of ciguatera in French Polynesia from 1960 to 1984 clearly demonstrates a general flare-up in ciguatera, with more than 24,000 cases among a population that grew from 84,500 in 1962 to 174,000 by mid1985. The incidence rose dramatically through the 1960s, peaking from 1972 to 1975 at 1,200 per 100,000, a tenfold increase over the 1960 figure.(39) Some of this increase may be due to improved case reporting, but this has never been presented as a major reason for the increase. In the areas most affected, the eastern Tuamotu, Gambier, and Marquesas Archipelagos, the incidence in the 1980s remains at high levels.
The most important cause of ciguatera outbreaks is the disturbance of the sensitive ecology of the coral reef. Natural events, such as storms, earthquakes and tidal waves, can disturb reef ecology, as can human activities. Nuclear test explosions and the construction of supporting infrastructures have been linked with ciguatera outbreaks.(40) For example, the Tuamotu Archipelago was more or less free of ciguatera before the early 1960's. Epidemiological studies show that in parallel with the installation and running of the test facilities, repeated outbreaks occurred. This is the case for the Hao Atoll (staging base for the testing since 1965, first ciguatera outbreak in 1966), the Gambier Islands (construction of military facilities in 1967, first outbreak in 1968) and Moruroa Atoll (highest density of Gambierdiscus toxicus after the Gambier Islands in 1981 ).(41)
A study by the US Atomic Energy Commission showed no correlation between radioactivity and ciguatoxicity in fish.(42) It is most likely that ancillary military activities linked to the nuclear testing facilities, like runway construction, waste dumping, ship decontamination, are causing ciguatoxicity by disturbance of reef ecology.

Lawliet ha scritto:

Sono stati dichiarati circa 2000 test di bombe nucleari per una media di 2 o 3 megatoni (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_we ... by_country e http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4882).
[size=3][b]

Ogni giorno sulla Terra invece esplodono 2 vulcani per una potenza media di 30 megatoni di TNT

Detto questo si può concludere questa messa in scena, ADONIESIS?