Jump to content
Spade_Cooley

Beirut Explosion

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, CoffinLodger said:

You might be surprised to know that I am not a nuclear expert, so if anyone here is could you tell me does a nuclear blast always lead to radioactive fallout or can it happen without it?:unsure:

Neither am I. However, I know enough about it to know that this isn't one and couldn't be one. So please stop speculating about it.

 

A nuclear explosion is hard enough to create even when that is your intention.

It cannot happen without highly enriched material (uranium typically) which of itself is extremely hard to create, you are trying to separate two isotopes of exactly the same element, so no chemical process will work.

Reactors cannot accidentally  cause a nuclear explosion (their fuel is only moderately enriched, nowhere near weapons grade), they can however like Chernobyl, suffer a normal explosion which spreads radioactive material all over the place causing massive devastation over years or decades.. This is also what a 'dirty bomb' can do. But you still need a radioactive material of some sort to spread everywhere, and where do you get it?

 

More specifically to your question: Fallout is dependent more on 'where' you explode your nuclear weapon than it's innate construction. If near or on the ground it will irradiate all the earth and buildings and so on and the resultant particles rise up in the cloud and get blown about by the weather and are then rained down as fallout. If however you explode your device at height (as they are designed to do) this creates less fallout and also tends to cause more immediate devastation through blast wave and fireball.

 

I stand to be corrected by anyone who has a better grasp.

 

None of this is remotely possible in the Beirut explosion. Stop suggesting it and you'll get fewer facepalms ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, En Passant said:

Neither am I. However, I know enough about it to know that this isn't one and couldn't be one. So please stop speculating about it.

 

A nuclear explosion is hard enough to create even when that is your intention.

It cannot happen without highly enriched material (uranium typically) which of itself is extremely hard to create, you are trying to separate two isotopes of exactly the same element, so no chemical process will work.

Reactors cannot accidentally  cause a nuclear explosion (their fuel is only moderately enriched, nowhere near weapons grade), they can however like Chernobyl, suffer a normal explosion which spreads radioactive material all over the place causing massive devastation over years or decades.. This is also what a 'dirty bomb' can do. But you still need a radioactive material of some sort to spread everywhere, and where do you get it?

 

More specifically to your question: Fallout is dependent more on 'where' you explode your nuclear weapon than it's innate construction. If near or on the ground it will irradiate all the earth and buildings and so on and the resultant particles rise up in the cloud and get blown about by the weather and are then rained down as fallout. If however you explode your device at height (as they are designed to do) this creates less fallout and also tends to cause more immediate devastation through blast wave and fireball.

 

I stand to be corrected by anyone who has a better grasp.

 

None of this is remotely possible in the Beirut explosion. Stop suggesting it and you'll get fewer facepalms ;)

I am now waiting, with bated breath, for you to explain to him where babies come from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lord Fellatio Nelson said:

I am now waiting, with bated breath, for you to explain to him where babies come from.

Fuck off?

 

 

 

:P

(ETA: in that, that's where babies come from, should my intention not be clear).

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, some port officials responsible for storing that volatile shit in the same place for six years are under house arrest tonight. 

 

Which means, surely: 

 

1 - They have houses that are still standing

 

2 - Their houses were a long way from the stuff they'd arranged to store in that warehouse.

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I read, those who had been keeping it at the warehouse where it was confiscated from original ship owner had been trying to get in touch with government officials about the nitrate etc for years but got no response back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ladyfiona said:

From what I read, those who had been keeping it at the warehouse where it was confiscated from original ship owner had been trying to get in touch with government officials about the nitrate etc for years but got no response back.

 

 

Oh aye, so now the same government has arranged their arrest. Actually - the BBC are reporting: "Beirutis have been unimpressed, seeing it as another attempt by the political elite to dodge the blame for disaster."

 

Silver linings - maybe they'll storm to paralympic glory in a few years

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just caught up on this thread and a couple of things to throw into the mix:

 

1. The latest story on the BBC website quotes specialists from Sheffield University estimating the blast to be approximately one tenth the power of the bomb that exploded in Hiroshima and "unquestionably one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history".

2. Currently catching up on 'Chernobyl' which I missed last year (excellent if you haven't seen it) and the immediate arresting of the port authorities is eerily similar to immediate efforts of the local party officials to blame low-level plant workers for the disaster rather than taking responsibility. Given Lebanon's fractious state currently, this is, to put it mildly, unlikely to be helpful for the government there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, En Passant said:

Neither am I. However, I know enough about it to know that this isn't one and couldn't be one. So please stop speculating about it.

 

A nuclear explosion is hard enough to create even when that is your intention.

It cannot happen without highly enriched material (uranium typically) which of itself is extremely hard to create, you are trying to separate two isotopes of exactly the same element, so no chemical process will work.

Reactors cannot accidentally  cause a nuclear explosion (their fuel is only moderately enriched, nowhere near weapons grade), they can however like Chernobyl, suffer a normal explosion which spreads radioactive material all over the place causing massive devastation over years or decades.. This is also what a 'dirty bomb' can do. But you still need a radioactive material of some sort to spread everywhere, and where do you get it?

 

More specifically to your question: Fallout is dependent more on 'where' you explode your nuclear weapon than it's innate construction. If near or on the ground it will irradiate all the earth and buildings and so on and the resultant particles rise up in the cloud and get blown about by the weather and are then rained down as fallout. If however you explode your device at height (as they are designed to do) this creates less fallout and also tends to cause more immediate devastation through blast wave and fireball.

 

I stand to be corrected by anyone who has a better grasp.

 

None of this is remotely possible in the Beirut explosion. Stop suggesting it and you'll get fewer facepalms ;)

A yes or no answer would have sufficed, but thanks for taking the time to educate me on the subject! It looks like it probably wasn't a nuclear explosion after all then. That is good news at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carlsberg don't do car bombs.... But if they did

 

 

Bierut.jpg

 

 

Might stop nicking Sicki jokes for a few days now :D

 

  • Like 1
  • Shocked 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Doc said:


I think this video does this best job at showing the scope of the damage.

 

 

 

 

Can we now consider that even massive explosions that size and heat dont destroy steal beams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The geopolitics behind the whole thing are pretty interesting. How does $1million's worth of ammonium nitrate get ordered by Mozambique, from Georgia, sailed by a Russian ship with a Ukrainian crew, and then when it gets held up in Lebanon Mozambique doesn't ask what's going on? My knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa isn't great, but I assume most companies in Mozambique don't have $1m lying about as couch money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Old Crem said:

 

 

 

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he - didn't notice any rapidly moving projectile in any of the freely available footage. Presumably some of the witnesses at sea would have reported a missile or bomb

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, maryportfuncity said:

 

 

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he - didn't notice any rapidly moving projectile in any of the freely available footage. Presumably some of the witnesses at sea would have reported a missile or bomb

I think it would be unlikely to be a rocket not noticed by anyone at all - a bomb is easier to hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, maryportfuncity said:

Well, he would say that, wouldn't he

This.

aka: The Rice Davies defence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before and after, 7500 ton cruise ship circled.

FB_IMG_1596829118208.jpg

FB_IMG_1596829129623.jpg

  • Shocked 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, One shot Paddy said:

Before and after, 7500 ton cruise ship circled.

FB_IMG_1596829118208.jpg

FB_IMG_1596829129623.jpg


That’s just the EastEnders titles zoomed in isn’t it?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Quim Reaper said:


That’s just the EastEnders titles zoomed in isn’t it?

Shit, I thought I'd got away with it....

 

Still, it's a quick way to make more room for boats in the harbour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Quim Reaper said:


That’s just the EastEnders titles zoomed in isn’t it?

 

 

I tell you what - when Eastenders finally comes back,  if they replaced the old titles with shots of blasted Beirut, that'd be a laugh - or summat

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was defo hit by something . Twitter is listing this at manipulated media. They either using that to censor the truth or the fact the image has a negative filter. Looks real to me.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, the_engineer said:

It was defo hit by something . Twitter is listing this at manipulated media. They either using that to censor the truth or the fact the image has a negative filter. Looks real to me.

 

 

 

 

I'd be more open to believing this if we had the undoctored footage alongside it too. Strikes me as unlikely that wouldn't have been picked up in any of the actual footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, RoverAndOut said:

 

I'd be more open to believing this if we had the undoctored footage alongside it too. Strikes me as unlikely that wouldn't have been picked up in any of the actual footage.

 

It's a thermo image thing - I doubt the old footage exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Joey Russ said:

 

 

 

 

So, what happens - they ring Reed's and get some duty managers flown in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

Your use of this forum is subject to our Terms of Use