Slashdot Mirror
The Controversy of a Potential Hafnium Bomb
deglr6328 writes "Physics Today has a report detailing the surprisingly heated controversy surrounding the usually sober science of nuclear isomers (the Washington Post has run a less scientifically rigorous version). Since the 70's it has been known that the specific "m2" isomer of Hafnium-178 has an extraordinarily long half life of 31 years (nuclear isomers usually have half-lives on orders of pico or nanoseconds) and on decaying, emits high energy gamma rays at ~2.5 Mev. The prospect of energy storage and rapid release in Hf-178 for the puropse of creating large energy stores, bombs and even exotic gamma ray lasers did not escape the interest of Reagan era Star Wars researchers and was seriously studied for a time during SDI's heyday, but was eventually abandoned after being considered unfeasible. Then, in 1999, Carl Collins at the Univ. of Texas Center for Quantum Electronics reported inducing energy release from Hf-178 by bombarding a sample with X-rays (from a dental machine no less). Immediately, comments about the article were submitted, pointing out inconsistencies with basic nuclear theory and the controversy has only grown since then, with claims and counter-claims of flawed experimental design, incompetence and irrational theories in feuds reminiscent of the cold fusion debacle of the late 80's. It's seeming more unlikely as the arguments drag on, but if a Hafnium bomb could be built, it is thought that a golf ball sized chunk could produce the energy equivalent of 10 tons of conventional explosives."
> a golf ball sized chunk could produce the energy equivalent of 10 tons of conventional explosives
What if journalists and scientists agree to only discuss the *positive* uses of scientific invention? That way, some uneducated terrorists from The Great Wherever won't get new ideas using Google keyword searches like "explosives", "bombs", "nukes". You know the phrase, When in Rome; I think it could apply to science! If we just conceal the potentials for violence, we may avoid these practices somewhat. But much of the scientific community has a love affair with death, it seems. Why? The death-dealing potential of any scientific invention is proportionately equivalent to the fundraising influence of said project; yet science should be a noble pursuit, IMHO, not a monetary one. Sadly, the two (money and science) are inseparable with the high cost of equipment, facilities and so forth, compounded by the need for science by the powerful, as a method of retaining power and building power. One day, it's going to be a lot simpler.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
While I think that Voyager is quite below par for the entire Star Trek series, the skin tight spandex outfits that Kate Mulgrew wears draws me back.
But anyway, the crew had just found out about a so-called "Omega particle". The particle contained as much energy in one molecule of it as a neutron star had in its entirety.
Eventually they found a race of aliens who had been able to replicate the particle as well as contain it somewhat. Somewhat, because by the time Voyager got there the particle had escaped and blown up the laboratory.
Since this particle could be used for ultimate evil by anyone who had the predilection to use it in such a way, Starfleet HQ had deemed it illegal and set up regulations that required the immediate destruction of the particle if encountered.
The problem is that the energy from even a single molecule of the stuff could provide enough energy to sustain the life of a planet for hundreds of thousands of years.
So I look at this debate over the efficacy of the Hafnium bomb and wonder to myself why it is that humans have this innate need to develop weapons that possess this much power. Why do we see the drawbacks to new technology faster than the benefits? If the Hafnium technology could provide us with such a cheap power source that lasted generations, it makes sense to pursue a course of action that allowed us to take advantage of it.
Shame on the warmongers who would use it to kill other humans.
I have been pwned because my
The fact is that even without armies or wars weapons would still be made.
The reason is that a weapon makes a good intermediate scientific goal - deliver and release large amount of energy to a small remote location.
People who experienced the delight of making something go "Boom" (however small) on command will understand what I am talking about. (Explosives not required - compressed air will do just fine..)
Trust me, if a nuclear hand grenade was a) possible and b) practical, it would already exist.
qntm.org
Actually the Hafnium they are discussing is a nuclear isomer. Basically its gotten energy stored from neutrons that have hit it while being used in control rods in a nuclear reactor. The problem with the nuclear isomer is that it doesn't like to give up that energy thats been stored at any rate thats useful. The idea Collins is trying to say is that we can blast it with XRay's and look the amount of neutrons being released is increased slightly over the background radiation.
This Isomer of Hafnium has to be created; it does not exist in nature. This could never be a source of energy. Also, the amount of x-ray energy needed to trigger the reaction (if it is possible) is still over 5 times the energy you get out of the Hafnium reaction. The chain reaction necessary for use as an explosive is also unlikely; we're talking fast photons here instead of slow neutrons, photons that would be too fast to sustain a reaction. Overall it seems like Hafnium is a dud.
So there is NO WAY you will get a energy-yielding atomic reaction with hafnium and gamma/xrays.
While I have no opinion on whether the effect is real or not, your argument against it is bogus. They aren't claiing an "atomic reaction", they are claiming a state change of the nucleus. It's clear that that exists. The only question is whether it can be induced artificially. If it can, you have a great energy source and the potential to make a bomb. If not, you still have energy release, but it's too slow to be useful.
What is this crap about terrorists with a hafnium bomb? Unless you're referring to the nuclear terror used by states like the USA, Russia, China, France, Pakistan, North Korea and India to intimidate the competition and their own people, you don't understand terrorism. Low budget groups like Islamic Jihad, the IRA, or even Al Qaeda go for actual telegenic explosions, not expensive technology. They don't need to spend millions/billions on x-ray laser pumping facilities for exotic nuclear chemistry, and the secret real estate in which to hide them. They mix a truckload of fertilizer and fuel oil, then ram it into a state capitol building: cheap and easy, and really scary on TV.
The terror threat from hafnium comes from Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary Strangelove who has reinvigorated America's nuclear threat machine. And from the defense contractors whose money addiction demands continually greater doses at the expense of global safety, marketing weapons by warmongering. How much of this death technology, funded by our fellow Americans, finds its way into the wrong hands - hands that would press the button? These days, most of it. Get your head out of the sand and work on firing Rumsfeld and his apocalyptic gang of thieving blackmailers, instead of wasting time on some imaginary "Dr. Evil".
--
make install -not war
That's a good question, and one for which I don't have a (terribly) good answer.
I can say this.
The fear of Soviet Missiles in Cuba was not that they could strike at US cities. Soviet strikes on our cities were fairly unlikely as those would typicaly be targets of a second strike.
The Cuban Missiles, however, could wipe out many US bomber bases before bombers could get aloft. This, in turn, devalues the US deterant, which made a preemptive strike by the Soviets more likely.
A bomb in DC, if it did not have much of a chance of stoping a retalitory US strike, does not pose the same threat. In short, while a lot of people die, the Soviets still have a really good reason not to set it off.
The problem with this argument is that the Soviets clearly thought that such a weapon would prevent a US retalitory strike because it has little point otherwise. Reality is not what matters here, but perception. If the Russians thought it would prevent a retalitory strike than the US had to treat it as a destabilizing influence.
I wish I could give you a better answer.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.
sure, in 20 years hafnium will be available at the courner store.
You have to agree that it is hard to hide information forever. Once it gets around it does not go back into the bottle very easily. The computers that used to simulate atomic weapons were wimpier than many CPU's in toys these days. The ability to simulate a weapon design gets cheaper and cheaper.
Table-ized A.I.
Unfortunately, which Hafnium may become a good source of energy, it will become a weapon first because it's much easier to cause a runaway nuclear reaction (nuclear bomb, both fission and fusion) then it is to sustain a controlled reaction.
In US, you can easily buy enough major firearms to wipe out your neighbourhood but a few little fireworks are banned.
It must be convenient to use such broad generalizations to form such strong opinions. Certainly "they," you know, the "evil-doers" are the collective opposing entity of good. "They" must hate "us" because our tanks and bombs bring freedom to their regions.
Keep in mind the plurality of perspective, and that families in Iraq and Afghanistan doubtfully shrug off the death of a family member by saying, "Oh well, too bad your father was collateral damage to the freedom bringers." Instead they might view a war on terrorism as being hypocritical, in that war is indeed terrible, so a war on terrorism is like using rape to combat sexual harassment.
A life is a life is a life from my point of view, and the unjustified theft of life is immoral, period.
Don't keep shooting the messengers with this totalitarian "either you're with us or you're against us" war cry. Read a few books about the history (up to current times) of islamic countries, preferably those without obvious political bias, and a pattern emerges. Over the last few hundred years and in particular in the 1900s most islamic countries were occupied and humiliated by the western superpowers of the period. Since oil became the strategic commodity, Middle-East (where all the holiest sites of islam are located) has been under extreme manipulation by the US and UK in particular.
Try imagining god-fearing Americans experiencing such occupation, control and manipulation of the United States, its culture and resources, by some islamic superpower and you might find a few Americans starting to hate their new overlords. Some might even take up arms as a last resort.
Countries cherishing peaceful coexistance and without imperial urges tend not to be hated by anyone. Democracy does not mean one country imposing its values upon other nations with very different culture and history.
Btw, nowhere have I advocated hate or violence, on the contrary. I simply understand the reasons for such anger and frustration which very sadly manifests itself in violent struggle. I also find it interesting and strangely appropriate that you would rename "Death" in the title into "Complete Freakin' Ignorance".
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
""they" apparently referring here to muslims in general""
Well, you can try to put those words in my mouth but you'll end up looking like an ass doing so. And where the heck did this "Don't keep shooting the messengers with this totalitarian "either you're with us or you're against us" war cry" crap come from? Every incident cited was a terrorist act, notably incited by an "Al-Qaeda like" group. At no time did I even imply lumping the rest of the Arabic world with these savages as you so blindly assume. If it really makes you feel better to assign a racial profile, you can lump members of the IRA to the same catagory; good wholesome white european stock. Don't miss the sarcasm now.
And guess what? Once they start targeting the civilan populace with their military actions, why they hate no longer matters because obviously the only meaningful thing you can do for them is die. If that's the case, I have no problems.
You can attempt to load all the middle easts problems on the evil western super powers as well, but it doesn't fly. Hey, i'll be happy to admit the US has made it's share of forgeign policy mistakes in the region, but they, nor the others hardly share all the blame. As you mentioned, oil is perhapse the worlds number one most valuable commodity, But for such a massive revenue generating resource, the Middle East (with very few exceptions) is surprisingly poor. It's people are supressed. In poverty. You make it sound like everybody is just robbing them blind when they are actually making billion. You make it sound like they are helpless when they wield considerable sway on the world economy. Speaking of which, you're right, LET'S brush up on history and current events and remember the 70s oil crisis. Or how gas is pushing $2 a gallon today because of OPEC's manuvering. And that's just off the very top of my head.
Honestly, if the Middle East is a terrorist cest pool, I have to say it's rulers share an equal, if not greater share in creating that situation. Being oppressed by the Evil Western Empire is an excuse that ceased being viable after the 1960s, especially with the wealth and opportunity they have had access to all this time.
"Why" just doesn't rest soley in the hands of foreigners here.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
That's the fireball for you.
The entire idea that "gamma is easily absorbed by air" is nonsense. If gamma is easily absorbed by air, then why did I have to wear a lead apron whenever I was around a gamma source? Because gamma travels through air quite readily, and ionizes holy hell out of your body tissues as it travels through you.
For an excellent reference on the physics of nuclear weapons, check the Federation of American Scientists' website, particularly the essay The Holocaust Bomb: A Question of Time .
The barber-surgeon's guild was disbanded in the mid-18th century but barbers retained the right to perform surgeries in remote locations well into the 19th in Europe and the Americas. I don't know about the rest of the world. Google "+barber +surgeon"
"Our interests are to see if we can't scale it up to something more exciting," he said.