Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (92750)	1/6/2005 7:54:58 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Respond to of 108807

Hmmm. Good question. My first instincts were "NO, the energy involved in earthquakes is much greater than nuclear weapons release " BUT According to Tad Murty, vice-president of the Tsunami Society, the total energy of the tsunami waves was about five megatons of TNT (20 petajoules). This is more than twice the total explosive energy used during all of World War II (including the two atomic bombs), but still a couple of orders of magnitude less than the energy released in the earthquake itself [17] en.wikipedia.org 5 megatons? No sweat. The standard US nuclear warhead is supposed to be one megaton. Five of those and there's your tsunami. But not that magnitude 9 earthquake. Also from that article Power of the earthquake The total energy released by the earthquake in the Indian Ocean has been estimated as 2.0 exajoules (2.0×1018 joules) [13] (http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqinthenews/2004/usslav/neic_slav_faq.html). Using the mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, this amount of energy is equivalent to a mass of about 22 kg (49 lb). Note that each unit of the magnitude scale represents a 31.6-fold increase in energy; every two units signifies 1,000 times more energy. A megaton is 410^15 joules. musr.physics.ubc.ca 210^18 joules is 500 megatons. Nuclear war size. BUT a bomb would not have to provide ALL the energy; it need only trigger its release. And here things get very speculative. So far doing that reliably without undesired side effects is an unknown. Seriously risky. California might be 500 feet underwater. Which I would not approve of.

To: Grainne who wrote (92750)	1/6/2005 8:34:38 PM
From: average joe	Respond to of 108807

Yes, but only an earthquake that was bound to happen anyway.

To: Grainne who wrote (92750)	1/6/2005 11:43:01 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Mr. Buschman wishes me to convey a message to you: "Since there have been no nuclear weapons test explosions by anyone since 1998 (India and Pakistan) and by the US since 1992 - and there are plenty of NGOs as well as the UN watching - her article is rather lacking in credibility. It claims, after all, that the US, Israel and India are all actively conducting such tests in "the fire belt" now and that the US plans to begin testing in Australia soon. Islamist propagandists exploiting a natural disaster and the ignorance of their target audience." And nukes leave things behind- -like radioactive isotopes that are produced only as a result of artificial nuclear reactions. If nukes were used, these isotopes would show up- -and be detected by nations other than the US. Remember Chernobyl? The US was NOT the first country to say something nuclear had happened. Try again.

To: Grainne who wrote (92750)	1/7/2005 12:39:20 AM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 108807

Sure it's possible for a nuke to trigger an earthquake (but not to masquerade as an earthquake even if big enough to cause that much energy release) - certainly it is not the most likely cause of the recent seismic/tsunami dyad. If it was triggered by a nuke, our intelligence people probably already know about it. There are anti-neutrino emissions that could be measured by the detectors around the world (anti-neutrinos are not shielded by the earth and we can pick up the ones from nuclear reactors). hep.stanford.edu Further, the kinetic energy release profile (seismic vibration frequency spectrum) for a nuclear weapon is going to be totally different that for a natural earthquake and highly localized. So, I'd have to say "probably no nuclear connection without someone already knowing". As a planned earthquake trigger, "Improbable and not likely". As an incidental earthquake trigger, "Possible, but still not likely". IMO. Note the Was that an explosion? - Seismic Discrimination topic in the following syllabus eas.slu.edu Gamma bursters were originally discovered by classified satellites and remained classified until the origin of the bursts had been identified. The ability to completely shield all emissions from the various orbiting satellites is doubtful. However, with the non-disclosive nature of our government these days, it could be years before the public knew one way or another. Why would anyone say? Oil and water well extractions have been correlated to seismic activity as well - but that would just be a trigger and not the "cause" per se.