Trump

[PDQ Mobile]

Trump( et al )says The nuclear facility "obliterated".

But Israel has attacked it again today.
Waste of ammo??
Or??

And there has been no mention of the escape of radioactive dust/ material that I have seen.
How so?

It's all so very sad.

[djnotts]

He doesn't even seem to know who he's "talking" to!

BBC News:

"EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I’M WATCHING! YOU’RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON’T DO IT!" he writes in a post on his Truth Social platform.

Trump does not make clear who he is calling on to do this."

And "regime change" just thinking out loud!

[reohn2]

Ecclesiastes Ch 10, v 5 to 7

[rjb]

And there has been no mention of the escape of radioactive dust/ material that I have seen.
How so?

You wont detect any significant radiation unless the enriched uranium predicted to be 60% has formed a critical mass. its pretty benign even at 60% enrichment unless it has a moderator present or is squeezed into a critical mass by the bunker busting bombs. Bomb grade enrichment is i believe 95% enrichment. As mined naturally occurring uranium has 0.7% U235, the stuff bombs are made from. By converting as mined uranium into a gas and spinning it in cascaded centrifuges can slowly increase the concentration of the lighter isotope of U235 to the point whereby it can be used in a bomb.

Note the term significant as radioactive elements occur naturally in nature.

[PDQ Mobile]

And there has been no mention of the escape of radioactive dust/ material that I have seen.
How so?

You wont detect any significant radiation unless the enriched uranium predicted to be 60% has formed a critical mass. its pretty benign even at 60% enrichment unless it has a moderator present or is squeezed into a critical mass by the bunker busting bombs. Bomb grade enrichment is i believe 95% enrichment. As mined naturally occurring uranium has 0.7% U235, the stuff bombs are made from. By converting as mined uranium into a gas and spinning it in cascaded centrifuges can slowly increase the concentration of the lighter isotope of U235 to the point whereby it can be used in a bomb.

Note the term significant as radioactive elements occur naturally in nature.

So a bomb dropped on, say, Sellafield wouldn't pose any "significant " risk?
(To a wider area)

Not sure about that.

[roubaixtuesday]

And there has been no mention of the escape of radioactive dust/ material that I have seen.
How so?

You wont detect any significant radiation unless the enriched uranium predicted to be 60% has formed a critical mass. its pretty benign even at 60% enrichment unless it has a moderator present or is squeezed into a critical mass by the bunker busting bombs. Bomb grade enrichment is i believe 95% enrichment. As mined naturally occurring uranium has 0.7% U235, the stuff bombs are made from. By converting as mined uranium into a gas and spinning it in cascaded centrifuges can slowly increase the concentration of the lighter isotope of U235 to the point whereby it can be used in a bomb.

Note the term significant as radioactive elements occur naturally in nature.

So a bomb dropped on, say, Sellafield wouldn't pose any "significant " risk?
(To a wider area)

Not sure about that.

Sellafield is full of fission products like plutonium which is far, far more toxic than uranium, and caesium which is far more radioactive.

[PDQ Mobile]

You wont detect any significant radiation unless the enriched uranium predicted to be 60% has formed a critical mass. its pretty benign even at 60% enrichment unless it has a moderator present or is squeezed into a critical mass by the bunker busting bombs. Bomb grade enrichment is i believe 95% enrichment. As mined naturally occurring uranium has 0.7% U235, the stuff bombs are made from. By converting as mined uranium into a gas and spinning it in cascaded centrifuges can slowly increase the concentration of the lighter isotope of U235 to the point whereby it can be used in a bomb.

Note the term significant as radioactive elements occur naturally in nature.

So a bomb dropped on, say, Sellafield wouldn't pose any "significant " risk?
(To a wider area)

Not sure about that.

Sellafield is full of fission products like plutonium which is far, far more toxic than uranium, and caesium which is far more radioactive.

And none of these are/were present in the bombed facility?

[roubaixtuesday]

So a bomb dropped on, say, Sellafield wouldn't pose any "significant " risk?
(To a wider area)

Not sure about that.

Sellafield is full of fission products like plutonium which is far, far more toxic than uranium, and caesium which is far more radioactive.

And none of these are/were present in the bombed facility?

As I understand it, the Iranians have only operated research reactors with small quantities of nuclear material.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear ... es_in_Iran

I'm no expert on matters Iranian nuclear, but that's my best understanding; if they are/are aiming for a bomb it's currently of the uranium variety, made from purified natural uranium, rather than the plutonium variety, made from plutonium which is generated in a nuclear reactor.

Plutonium bombs are much smaller and lighter than uranium bombs, and pretty much the entire world arsenal of weapons are Pu. I think the North Koreans' bombs are Pu.

[PDQ Mobile]

Sellafield is full of fission products like plutonium which is far, far more toxic than uranium, and caesium which is far more radioactive.

And none of these are/were present in the bombed facility?

As I understand it, the Iranians have only operated research reactors with small quantities of nuclear material.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear ... es_in_Iran

I'm no expert on matters Iranian nuclear, but that's my best understanding; if they are/are aiming for a bomb it's currently of the uranium variety, made from purified natural uranium, rather than the plutonium variety, made from plutonium which is generated in a nuclear reactor.

Plutonium bombs are much smaller and lighter than uranium bombs, and pretty much the entire world arsenal of weapons are Pu. I think the North Koreans' bombs are Pu.

Your link(s)make interesting reading for anyone with time ( and courage!).

My quick take is that Iran has a lot of nuclear facilities.
In my view a bomb attack on anything like that is foolhardy in the extreme.
There could, and almost certainly would, be all sorts of horrible toxic stuff inside.
.........
A little further reading brings one to the Wiki article on the "proliferation treaty".

Very few counties are not signatories to this ( in various forms/ levels).

A glaring exception is Israel.
So to be clear, a non-signatory has attacked a signatory.
Hmmm.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_ ... ar_Weapons

.........
I see the cease fire held well!!
Adults like kindergarten children.

[roubaixtuesday]

There could, and almost certainly would, be all sorts of horrible toxic stuff inside

Perhaps, but on a very small scale compared to Sellafield, which was your starting point.

Of the various very bad scenarios which could unfold from this war, toxic or radioactive contamination from bombed Iranian facilities would be a very long way down my personal list.

Inventivising Iran to complete a bomb programme, followed by a nuclear exchange would be top.

Iran turning into another Iraq would be second.

[PDQ Mobile]

There could, and almost certainly would, be all sorts of horrible toxic stuff inside

Perhaps, but on a very small scale compared to Sellafield, which was your starting point.

Of the various very bad scenarios which could unfold from this war, toxic or radioactive contamination from bombed Iranian facilities would be a very long way down my personal list.

Inventivising Iran to complete a bomb programme, followed by a nuclear exchange would be top.

Iran turning into another Iraq would be second.

I guess (know?) it might move up your "personal list" if you resided in Iran.

Sellafield was what just sprang to mind.
You can substitute our own enrichment facility if you like.
I have no idea where THAT lies.

Your links suggest that Iran does not possess such a weapon. Or did I misread?

This ditto.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... lities-cia

[roubaixtuesday]

There could, and almost certainly would, be all sorts of horrible toxic stuff inside

Perhaps, but on a very small scale compared to Sellafield, which was your starting point.

Of the various very bad scenarios which could unfold from this war, toxic or radioactive contamination from bombed Iranian facilities would be a very long way down my personal list.

Inventivising Iran to complete a bomb programme, followed by a nuclear exchange would be top.

Iran turning into another Iraq would be second.

I guess (know?) it might move up your "personal list" if you resided in Iran.

Sellafield was what just sprang to mind.
You can substitute our own enrichment facility if you like.
I have no idea where THAT lies.

Your links suggest that Iran does not possess such a weapon. Or did I misread?

This ditto.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... lities-cia

Sorry, I don't understand some of that.

I wouldn't feel any differently in Iran. I'd be far more concerned about Israeli or US airstrikes immediately and the potential for anarchy if the regime falls subsequently.

Sellafield is not an enrichment facility. It's a reprocessing and storage facility for spent nuclear fuel, as well as being the former site for Pu and tritium for our bomb programme, and the first civil power plants. Spent nuclear fuel is orders of magnitude more toxic and radioactive than enriched uranium. There's no comparison.

UK enrichment is at Capenhurst, Cheshire.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urenco_Group

Iran does not, as far as anyone is aware, currently possess a nuclear weapon.

.

[PDQ Mobile]

^^
I guess if you re-read it, it will become clear.
Seems clear enough to me.

Do you work in the industry?
You paint Irananium ( sorry typo!) as innocuous.
Which it isn't.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

[roubaixtuesday]

Do you work in the industry?

No, but I've studied nuclear engineering as part of an undergrad course, and am a fellow of an engineering institution.

You paint Irananium ( sorry typo!) as innocuous.

Not my intention, merely that it is far less harmful to people than fission products are.

Very few things are innocuous under all circumstances. I would struggle to think of a single element that could be described as such.

[PDQ Mobile]

Do you work in the industry?

No, but I've studied nuclear engineering as part of an undergrad course, and am a fellow of an engineering institution.

You paint Irananium ( sorry typo!) as innocuous.

Not my intention, merely that it is far less harmful to people than fission products are.

Very few things are innocuous under all circumstances. I would struggle to think of a single element that could be described as such.

Fair enough.

I see it differently.
My iranium link states "At 10 mg/m3, uranium is immediately dangerous to life and health."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium

And that no fissile products are present at such places stretches credibility- IMV.
......
Even Trump is swearing at them both now!!!