[ RadSafe ] Neutron Bomb used on Fallujah

Tue Nov 29 11:21:48 CST 2011

So this was a neutron bomb that didn't produce a large explosion, or
fallout, or activation products?  That kind of puts both the "neutron"
and "bomb" parts of the phrase in doubt.  

Here is the thing:  

If there was a nuclear explosion, as in the energy for the explosion
came from a nuclear reaction, there will be fission fragments in a
changing ratio that will fairly quickly establish when the detonation
occurred.  If the explosion was not nuclear, then there is no need for
uranium, let alone enriched uranium, in the bomb.  

If there was a high enough neutron flux to harm people (again, the point
of an enhanced radiation weapon), then there would be a lot of material
would have become activated.  As an example, steels that had cobalt as
part of the alloy would have Co60 in them in distributions that should
pretty conclusively show the metal was activated after fabrication.  

If there was a nuclear explosion there would have been an
electro-magnetic pulse that would have destroyed unshielded electronics
for some distance beyond the lethal effects from the weapon, and would
have corrupted electronically stored data for even further.  You might
be able to swear the thousands of Americans involved in the battle to
silence about some secret weapon.  You might even get them to not talk
about piles of bodies without a mark on them.  But if every iPod, cell
phone, GPS, and digital camera on the battlefield failed at the same
moment, there is no way that could be kept quiet.  

No, Chris Busby, the most likely answer is that you are wrong.  The
conspiracy theory and urban legend details you toss out don't make you
less wrong.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Busby, Chris
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:53 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing
List; The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics)
MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Bomb used on Fallujah

The neutron bomb is not a conventional one. It uses cold fusion through
deuterium dissolved in uranium which when supersaturated by compression
causes fusion. The method was developed following the Fleischmann
discovery using Palladium electrodes, but uranium is better. It is a
small device, as small as a baseball. The Russians called it Red Mercury
and described its characteristics. 
But this was only a suggestion. I do not know. All I know is that there
is slightly enriched uranium in Fallujah and also in the Lebanon bomb
crater from Khiam.
Thank you
Chris

________________________________

From: radsafe-bounces at agni.phys.iit.edu on behalf of Brennan, Mike (DOH)
Sent: Mon 28/11/2011 22:19
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Bomb used on Fallujah

Thank you for your kind words. 

Another argument against the claim that a neutron weapon was used in
Fallujah is that I suspect all versions of enhanced radiation weapons
(neutron bombs) use plutonium, rather than highly enriched uranium.  At
very least the one description that I found in a quick look mentioned
using plutonium, and it fits with other things I know about such
weapons.  If that is the case, a neutron bomb as the source of U235 is
even more difficult to accept. 

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of
alstonchris at netscape.net
Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 4:12 PM
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Neutron Bomb used on Fallujah

Mike

Thanks for your usual calm, well informed, and carefully considered
discussion of the matter.  I might only add that the article is really
baffling in that it refers to the U in question as being simultaneously
"weapons-grade" and "slightly enriched".  These are mutually exclusive
characterizations.

Cheers
cja

 > It is sad that people who promote this kind of thing don't bother to>
google what they are talking about.  A "neutron bomb" isn't some magic>
people-killing-building-leaving device; it is a low yield nuclear>
weapon, optimized for neutron production.  If one had been set off in>
Fallujah, everyone who was interested would have known about it, and
the> evidence would be incontrovertible.>> The first clues would have
been pretty distinctive: the mushroom cloud,> really, REALLY loud
explosion and flash (even compared to the other> explosions and flashes)
and an electro-magnetic pulse that would have> fried most electronics
for miles around.  Given that almost every> American in the area was
carrying some personal electronics such as cell> phones, computers, GPS
units, etc., if there had been an EMP, it would> have been noticed.
Someone would have talked.  In addition to the US, I> would guess there
are at least four countries with satellites that could> detect and
identify t
 he EMP from a nuke, and probably as many> corporations (and it may be
as high as 10 countries).  There would also> be a fairly distinctive
blast damage pattern at ground zero.>> Second, given the fairly short
range of a neutron dose high enough to be> fatal in the short term (and
if you are in the middle of a battle you> don't use thing with latency
periods in years or decades, as you want to> kill your targets now, to
make them stop shooting at you), the weapon> would have to be detonated
fairly close to the ground.  This means LOTS> of fallout.  Easily
detectable levels of short lived isotopes would have> been seen probably
a couple thousand miles downwind.  No matter which> way the wind was
blowing, there are countries that would be willing to> blow the whistle
on the event.>> Third, one of the things about neutron bombs is high
neutron flux in the> target area (that is the whole point, after all).
High neutron flux> means lots of activation of material in that area,
wit
 h characteristic> isotopes.  A lot of them are short lived, but there
would be enough to> increase the gamma background, and detectable with a
hand held gamma> spec device for quite some time after.>> No, the best
explanation for finding U235 in samples is that it is> naturally
occurring.> 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu <http://health.phys.iit.edu/> 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu