I've heard that atoms from Caesar's last breath is in every breath you breathe, so.... ???

@@darkwinter7395 There are several very large assumptions made in that claim. We don't have a good model of how quickly or thoroughly air circulates globally. 2068 years may not be long enough for the distribution assumed.

@@Merennulli Thus the "???" part. 😉

​@@darkwinter7395 to be fair those molecules have more than likely reacted with some other material. Lots of materials oxidize in the presence of air and that reaction between air and material changes the molecules structure around. I guess the atoms themselves are probably still knocking about, but probably not as air.

I think you should watch a better video about that aircraft by "Found and explained" as he was the one to publish those renders to begin with in a series about talking about forgotten aircraft designs

You can find Einstein and Oppenheimer in our food too!

We had two world wars before nukes were a thing, and that was the latest in human history.

In fact one could make the extrapolation that global peace has never been more prevalent in any period in human history as it has been since the invention of nuclear weapons. Not in any way claiming that the world is peaceful now but it used to be much less so.

Thanks dear creator and family.

Same for me ! Though, my obsessions range across most all scientific disciplines. You're probably one of the few people I could hold a interesting conversation with about nucleosynthesis !

The video is from Found and Explained

Nuclear aircraft have the one big disadvantage of being aircraft. So when they crash.. not if when they crash you have a nuclear disaster to clean up. Steps can be implemented to mitigate the problem, restrict flight paths, only certain airports they can use etc. But the more you do that the less practical it is.

So no one can ever depict something that hasn’t happened? These Tik toks are bad, but your rule of thumb seems bad.

@@genehenson8851 (generally) if you need an ai to depict a specific scenario it means it's not as frequent as you think it is, therefore not a real problem

​@@miojolopes98frequency does not equate to severity.

@@inutamer365 if something is serious you won't need an ai to depict it because it'll have actual proof already

@miojolopes98 I can prove something - such as the squeeze theorem without fabricating an image. If I choose to include an image it can provide a visual aid to help people understand importance even if it's a what if scenario or otherwise. I believe ai pics can be used in a similar way. TheoJoe I think his name is has a KZfaq channel for tech news and advice and he uses ai photos to illustrate all his points because they are royalty and copyright free

I know the answer is the same as with a major grid outage because that's the effect it would have on a plant. But I'd also love to hear him go into detail on it. Practical Engineering talked about a black start last year, though, if Mr. Folse doesn't talk about it and you want to know the response. As for why the grid is the only concern, the risk with geomagnetic storms is induced current, which requires very long wires. We're mostly protected from geomagnetic storms by the magnetosphere, but the risk of a Carrington style event on the ground is that it distorts the magnetosphere into loops that can produce very long wavelength EM pulses.

@@Merennulli Kinda figured the biggest issue would be shutting down the backup power to keep the core coolant flowing. If it has a basic electric (as opposed to electronic) redundant backup it would be a matter of throwing the tripped breaker once rebound pulses finish.

@@travissmith2848 Geomagnetic storms can affect electronics in orbit, but the magnetosphere protects us on the ground from that. The risk on the ground is that it can distort the field lines of the Earth's magnetosphere and induce current in long wires. The wavelengths produced are long, and the strength isn't very concentrated, so you only get damage along things like transmission lines. The on-site backup generators would be fine and as he's mentioned previously, they also have off-site generators meant to be brought in to avoid issues like what happened in Japan.

@@Merennulli I was thinking one of those major storms that in the past have knocked out several substations and the like. Killing the external power grid. And even still, my assumption was that such a once or twice a century (to happen anywhere on the planet) having its nexus aimed right at the plant would be more of an inconvenience. Simple electric things like switches and motors are not too impacted by EMP, so basic diesel generators get flipped on manually and mechanical failsafes engage even if all computers and communications and external power distribution are down. Past accidents are not as bad as popular imagination would indicate and we have learned so much that, as I understand it anyway, that nuke power plants practically _can't_ fail from anything less than compound natural disasters or the whole crew being complicit in sabotage.

@@travissmith2848 An event powerful enough to induce currents that damage transformers is the main risk, since we can't replace them quickly. But the diesel generators on site aren't on the grid, so they would act just like they did in the Texas outage a while back.

Information is free to absorb. I'm a licensed electrician, but have extensive knowledge about physics and radiological topics. Never stop learning, you may not get to put the knowledge in to practice, but knowledge is still power.

If you include all the social upheaval and secondary conflicts in the wake of global nuclear war and resulting theoretical end of curent civil structures then you might get close to those sorts of numbers. You'd be really stretching your definitions "fatalities due to nuclear war" though.

@jarrodbright5231 I guess it really depends on how the war plays out. I'd imagine those far from the actual fighting - South America, Southern Africa etc - would not have the same level of breakdown in society. I'm also not convinced that society would break down as quickly as people think. 99% of the world's population just wants to live in peace and doesn't really care about politics and war.

​@@ghaznavid Any country not directly affected by nuclear war would suffer from a loss of global supply chains, markets and political alliances. It's safe to assume there would be social upheaval of some sort after such a world-changing event even in such countries. For instance where I live in Australia would be very unlikely to be directly affected by nuclear war. I would however be heavily affected by loss of access to medication I rely on for my regular quality of life to the point it would significantly shorten my lifespan unless local industry commenced production very quickly.

They make an assumption that every nuclear explosion causes an urban firestorm, as happened in Hiroshima, and then scale the Hiroshima "emissions" would scale proportionately to 6000 megatons. Though in fact sticking a one megaton H bomb over Hiroshima would likely NOT give a hundred times more firestorm, the combustible core of the city remains the same no matter what you blow it up with.

He has multiple!

what

What so many don't understand about nuclear winter is that it isn't just the explosions themselves that cause it, it's the fires. The Chicxulub even that wiped out the dinosaurs, what made it a global catastrophe was global fires caused by it, those fire are are what put so much ash in the air to cool the planet for years. If a nuclear war caused big enough forest fire than it could cause a nuclear winter but if it it happens during a wet or rainy season then that would fear less likely. Like with most things in life, it is not that simple.

The southern hemisphere would recieve less dose and fallout simply because there are less valuable targets to hit below the equator, and the northern and southern hemisphere air currents don't mix much.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n8CdpMuCndPdd40.html

They didn't. However, it could be done quite easily - just don't have any shielding on it. Yes, this does have the side effect of being quite toxic to anyone in proximity to said aircraft, but hey - you can't make an omelette without breaking some eggs, so....

@@darkwinter7395 I was thinking the whole water turbine thing could turned up be way too heavy, but maybe there are other means to harness power from the reaction?

@@GeoffryGifari It doesn't have to use water - air works also. Basically, replace the combustors in a jet engine with fuel rods with a high surface area for transferring the heat to the incoming air.

@@darkwinter7395 I see. good to know!

Likely because pure U would be in metallic form and not very mobile. Uranium dioxide would likely be a gas and therefore, far more mobile (able to get inside of you).

Nothing can survive a direct nuke, the fireball gets too hot and especially in the middle for anything to not vaporize inside of the fireball.

​@@logangillespie7675 Excuse me? You only need a couple dozen or so of meters of dirt above you to survive a 1 megaton nuke. Yes, everything on the surface will vaporize, but the actual penetration is quite shallow. Assuming of course that the bomb is either exploded in the air or on the surface. If you bury the thing, it will make a big honking hole.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/n8CdpMuCndPdd40.html

Something something, no man, no problem.

About nuclear threats? Yes, but actual nuclear war? No.... this is like asking the world to beat you up. If one of these Idiots presses the button, it pretty much won't benefit anyone on the planet AND the idiots themselves.