There's no nuclear fallout anywhere I can find. So what's the

[babylonsister]

problem? Is this contrived? :evilgrin: :shrug:

[greyl]

1. Where have you been looking for nuclear fallout, and why?

There are a few threads in GD about the USGS confirmation of the N.Korean nuclear test, if that's what you're talking about.

[babylonsister]

2. I guess I don't believe it, greyl. I'm sort of tired about the hype. nt

[greyl]

4. Why were you looking for nuclear fallout?

What's your explanation for the USGS data?
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/recenteqsww/Quakes/ustqab.php

[MADem]

17. 550 tons of TNT, perhaps? NT

[longship]

9. Fallout? Whaaa?

There's no fallout in an underground test, which is why the entire world banned atmospheric tests decades ago.

[MADem]

3. It's North Korea's foot stamping in response to this headline:

UN Security Council votes on next secretary-general; South Korean is likely to win

UNITED NATIONS The U.N. Security Council votes Monday on a successor to Secretary-General Kofi Annan. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon is virtually certain to be the council's candidate — but that is just the first key hurdle.

Under the U.N. Charter, the 15-member Security Council makes a recommendation for the next secretary-general to the 192-member General Assembly, which must give final approval.

Ban, 62, topped four informal polls in the council, and in the last one he was the only candidate not to get a veto by one of the five permanent council members. After that result, the five other candidates dropped out of the race....On the eve of the vote, North Korea announced it had conducted a nuclear test.

The timing is certain to increase speculation that North Korea wanted to express its displeasure and opposition to Ban's expected selection as the Security Council's candidate to succeed Annan.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/10/09/news/UN_GEN_UN_Next_Secretary_General.php

[greyl]

13. Yes, chances are that had much to do with it.

I wonder if the test was irresponsibly rushed? (not that testing nuclear weapons is ever responsible)

[MADem]

15. Either irresponsibly rushed, or faked with 550 tons of TNT... NT

[TomInTib]

5. Rattling sabers. Don't get too worked up about it, 'sister.

Just goes to show the utter incompetence of our foreign relations (or lack thereof).

[greyl]

6. I'd say not believing it happened is pretty relaxed. ;) nt

[Psephos]

7. I remember when progressives thought nuclear arms were a bad thing

I still do. Very bad.

Even worse when an insane person is in charge of them.

Peace.

[TomInTib]

8. I just try to keep it in perspective.

I walk my dog down the hill into town, every day.

My personal risks involved in just doing that far outreach the risk to me of any N Korean weapon.

I don't give a damn about any of this crap.

[spoony]

10. I do too.

You aren't alone. People are saying, "well they can't attack the US so who cares" but it's not all about the US or even North Korea.

[greyl]

11. Sharp point. I doubt Helen Caldicott is turning a blind eye. nt

[babylonsister]

12. But did NK do anything tonight, or is it just hype? That's the

question. I remember the 'liquid bomb' that got the world in a tizzy and I was embroiled in that, for naught.

[greyl]

14. Ohhh.

Are you saying you don't believe NK has nuclear weapons?

[babylonsister]

18. No, I believe they have them, and I believe this

admin would use that knowledge for bad/nefarious reasons.
Just as that liquid bomb threat was for nothing, yet millions
of people got caught up/embroiled in it.
I'm sick of being lied to.

[MADem]

16. There are three or four possibilities

*****They cobbled together a little bomb.

*****They bought a bomb from AQ Kahn.

*****They faked the test with 500 tons of TNT.

*****They faked the test and tossed in some medical waste so they could say with a straight face that it was a nuke blast.

The South Koreans are already calling bullshit, and believe it's Kim's whine for attention in response to them getting the Secretary General gig at the UN.

[Ediacara]

19. I did a preliminary calculation of yield

based on the magnitude, whatever blew up appears to have had the equivalent yield of 2.0 kt (2,000 tonnes) of TNT. Either a pretty big conventional bomb, or a pretty small nuke.

ON EDIT: Here is the link to the preliminary calculation.

[MADem]

20. I was going with the South Korean assessment of the blast

The test was the equivalent to blowing up 550 tons of TNT, a state-run South Korean geological institute said.

"It amounts to detonating 550 tons of trinitrotoluene, or TNT, at once,'' said Park Chang-soo, a spokesman of the Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/09/1160246048496.html?from=top5

[Ediacara]

21. Depending on which magnitude you use, the yield varies from

0.18 kt to 1.99 kt of TNT.

M_w 3.5 = 178 tonnes
M_w 3.8 = 501 tonnes
M_w 4.2 = 1995 tonnes

The initial South Korean magnitude was a 3.5 (or 3.8 or 3.58), but the USGS seems to have calculated it as a 4.2.

[MADem]

23. Are we sure they are using the same scale?

I was in a few earthquakes in Japan years ago, and I seem to recall they used a different measurement scale that was off by a bit from the US measurement.

I recall in Europe they used a different measurement as well...

[Ediacara]

26. Everyone I know of uses a Moment Magnitude Scale

Which is a major revision of the Richtor Magnitude scale. These values are often called Richtor Magnitudes in the media, but no one uses a true Richtor Scale anymore¹. There is an equation that converts moment magnitude into approximate nuclear yields:

M_w = (2/3)(log₁₀(m_TNT/kg))

Which is where I am getting the values for approximate yield. There is of course a lot of wiggle room in this calculation, and the magitude is not yet entirely certain.

¹ This is due to the fact that true Richtor magnitudes are based on measurements from archaic seismographs and hit a zone of saturation where no large earthquakes can ever exceed a magnitude of approximately 8.5ish. The Moment Magnitude is like the Richtor scale in that it's logrithmic and up to about 6ish, the values match. Moment magnitudes are based on something called a Seismic moment which is a value based on the size of a rupture zone and is instrument independent, and you can differentiate truely huge earthquakes from meerly large earthquakes.

[MADem]

27. I think it's called Shindo scale in Japan.

But who knows if something got lost in translation or they were using some other measurement method. I found a pile of 'em!!

INQUA scale
European Macroseismic Scale (EMS)
Medvedev-Sponheuer-Karnik (MSK) scale
Modified Mercalli (MM) scale
Mercalli-Cancani-Sieberg (MCS) scale
Mercalli-Wood-Neuman (MWN) scale
Moment magnitude (Mw) scale
Omori scale
Richter scale
Rossi-Forel scale
Shindo scale

http://www.informat.io/?title=scale-1

[greyl]

22. However they have been warning that would go ahead with a test

for a few months now, correct?

At this point, I guess there's no absolute proof it was a nuclear test, and that leads to the question "what's the practical difference?"

[MADem]

24. Yea, but they also suggested they'd not do it if the US agreed to one

party talks. And John "Plato's Retreat" Bolton, our unconfirmed ambassador at the UN, was trying to shitcan the rotation of the SECGEN post (it's Asia's turn) and go to a free-for-all system. For awhile there India's nominee was out in front. Then, when the South Korean SECGEN nominee started gaining in favor, they started this crap up again.

The vote goes down tomorrow at the UN, the South Korean guy is supposed to be a shoo-in; which makes me believe this is all about Fearless Fosdick over there in NK wanting to 'one up' the well-fed, well-educated, cheerful, advanced country to his south.

[driver8]

25. But what does "Curveball" say? After all, he is Bush's main source of

intelligence. (I use that word loosely).