Talk:Moderated nuclear explosion

Physics Redirect‑class

	Physics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Energy NA‑class

	Energy portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Explosives NA‑class

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Explosives, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Explosives on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ExplosivesWikipedia:WikiProject ExplosivesTemplate:WikiProject ExplosivesExplosives
NA	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Military history NA‑class

This redirect is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

NA

This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Additional information:
/
	This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

Moderated nuclear explosion

Let me suggest something to make the text clearer. 1) The definition is misleading. It is better first to write something like "A moderated nuclear explosion results from a nuclear chain reaction mediated by moderated neutrons. With moderated neutrons fissile cross-sections are much higher than with fast neutrons, hence less fissile material is required in a moderated device to reach criticality", because this rather than its relation to criticality accidents is the defining property of the effect. 2) A citation is certainly needed for Chernobyl. 3) The Manhattan project produced the idea of a chain reaction of fast neutrons in metallic uranium or plutonium, but not exactly pure. These are often alloys with some other metals to improve physical characteristics of plutonium. 4) "The explosive power of a moderated explosion is limited, typically it may be equal to a chemical explosive of similar mass" -- this is probably misleading. As far as I have understand George, 1 kg of water-solved uranium produce little energy, but still hundred times more than 1 kg TNT. Colchicum 14:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "suggested nuclear weapon design" rather than "nuclear weapon design". Colchicum 14:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring article to main space

I am restoring this deleted article to main article space. The motivation is that there is now widespread speculation that some of the explosions that destroyed the Fukushima I nuclear reactors were in fact moderated nuclear explosions. The most recent expert statement comes from professor Christopher Busby, the Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risks. When interviewed on Russia Today he states that he believes that at least one of the explosions in Fukushima was a (moderated) nuclear explosions.

"Busby: 'Can't seal Fukushima like Chernobyl - it all goes into sea'". Russia Today. 25.04.2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
“I don’t think the end of Fukushima accident is in sight”

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you identify the precise points in the Russia Today broadcasts where Busby uses the term "moderated nuclear explosion", or where he otherwise makes it clear what sort of explosion he thought it was and how fission processes such as this article describes figured into it? Even if you hear something I missed, please note that a couple of brief mentions in the media do not meet WP:GNG. Yakushima (talk)

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1995-7

There is an interesting dabate in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from 1995 to 1997. I will link it here for future reference.

Alexander R. Sich responds: – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists September 1996
Chernobyl's nuclear secret - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March 1997

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear power plants

Speaking as the one who proposed an article of some such name (in the AfD discussion for moderated nuclear explosion that I initiated) I think it should be clear to anyone (under AGF, at least) that I'm open to the idea that this topic meets WP:GNG. I am not 100% persuaded, but I can see a case.

However, I am categorically not open to working with anybody who, on the one hand, would high-handedly revive the long-since-deleted moderated nuclear explosion, claiming WP:IAR as justification (see AfD), but who has not yet offered a rationale as to why Wikipedia is ultimately improved by this otherwise-disruptive action. (This editor has also not explained why Christopher Busby's Russia Today appearances suddenly made notable what the editor admits is a neologism, in violation of WP:NEO.) There's just no basis for cooperative editing with someone who could pull "I'm ignoring that rule" on us at any time, while feeling no apparent onus to explain to us why.

I am also not open to working with an editor who, even after I've pointed out egregious errors in sources he regarded as authoritative, maintains that I shouldn't be working on the article unless I'm an expert in the subject.

So: until I see Petri Krohn make a WP:IAR case, at least, if someone creates claims of nuclear explosions at nuclear power plants, I will go to the appropriate noticeboard and request that Petri be blocked (at least temporarily) from editing it

Edits I've made have yielded an accusation from Petri Krohn (in an edit summary) of "disrupting Wikipedia to make a point". But the longer we go without seeing a WP:IAR justification from Petri, the greater the suspicion that, in this instance, the charge of disruption applies far more accurately to the one making it.