megalomania
June 21st, 2003, 01:07 PM
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
Registered: OCT 2000
posted 06-18-2001 04:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I’m reading Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. The book is very good for me not only because it shows the dangers that the chemicals could do to the nature but because there are excelent examples of chemical weapons that you could buy at the grocery shop, there are great examples of people and animals killed by these chemicals. My question is do you know the chemical formulas of these chemical insecticides and pesticides: endrine, dieldrine, chlordane, paratione, melatione. It will be good to post the whole chemical structure. I searched in yahoo and only found toxic doses(LD-50, LD-100) and a chemical name that I don’t understand at all.
This should be at chemical weapons but I think the topic for pesticides, herbicides, acaricides and so on is really big!
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 06-18-2001 09:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Simply Red, Pesticides and nerve gases are chemically related.This is particular to the organophosphates(like malathion and parathion).They are nerve poison.The others like endrin and dieldrin are organochlorine and act like a stomach poison.Parathion is among the most toxic of the pesticides and its use is carefully regulated.
These pesticides have been used as murder weapon and suicide agent in third world countries.If you want to learn about simple chemical formulas of these pesticides visit this:
http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/
[This message has been edited by cutefix (edited June 18, 2001).]
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
Registered: OCT 2000
posted 07-04-2001 05:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this is not pesticide but it is interesting and actually such substances are the new generation of pesticides. It is a text I found in the net about the ricine and other poisonous plants. Thanks to NBK2000(his pdf) i recieved my first knowledge on that subject.
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/toxicagents/ricin/ricin.html
and
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/
Simply
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-05-2001 03:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read about ricin several years ago being used by Bulgarian operatives, to assassinate traitors of their country during the Cold War.The make a tiny bead of the encapsulated poison,ejected by the tip of the umbrella as these agents pretend to accidentally hit their intended victim .Oh, the poison was almost undetectable,and it take the Scotland Yard a lot of time to discover the poison from the victim’s bloodstream.A lot of the victims have died from this poison before it was discovered.
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
Registered: OCT 2000
posted 07-05-2001 05:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most famous victim of ricine is a writer who worked in BBC and talked against the government of Bulgaria. (don't remember his name)
Do you know the formula and the toxic dose of the 'nivaline' that is extracted from the 'snowdrop'?
(....my hands shook while typing this.... )
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 03:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this may not be a natural pollutant by any means, but I alway's wpndered what would happen If I made a large missle and filled it with atomized Plutonium or Uranium, and detonated it over some shithole like Iraq, wouldn't it be possible to get many more casualties with a device like this than with an actual nuclear bomb? I mean 1 tiny speck of PU is toxic enough to kill many people when inhaled.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 06:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA already tried that
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 07:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not on pupose!
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-05-2001 09:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is one of the perils of ditributed radioactive products,from a dirty nuclear bomb or even an accidental explosion of the conventional explosive detonators in the nuclear missiles,which will disperse nuclear matter over a wide area.I think that is one of the reason why the government scientists have the developed the IHE(insensitive high explosive) like TATB (Triaminotrinitrobenzene) to improve safety of accidental detonation of the explosive boosters of the nuclear warheads from enemy projectile that will hit on the warhead(by intention or accident).Plutonium is known to be the most toxic substance,so the dispersion of a weapons grade plutonium in dust forms is disastrous as anuclear explosion.
Even the use of depleted uranium from the attack aircraft cannons have lasting effect on the inhabitants in Iraq and Yoguslavia. There was a high incidence of cancer.Imagine if those depleted uranium were plutonium itself,what a mess it would be!
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 09:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that would be more an effective weapon than a nuclear weapon itself, just think, if you wage war your land will be covered in radioactive dust and everyone will be promised a slow and painful death, and most of all it could take outdamn near a contenent, such as a very large country if it was intentionally released into the jetstream just think, one bomb could eliminate russa slowly.
[This message has been edited by PYRO500 (edited July 05, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by PYRO500 (edited July 05, 2001).]
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
From: Satans asshole!
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 10:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plutonium dispersal is not very effective use of the material. An atom bomb vaporizes its yield in matter. Thus a 50KT bomb vaporizes 50 thousand tons of matter and converts it into radioactive fallout. Compare to the 5 or six pounds of radioactive material you'd get from the plutonium.
Plus, plutonium stays radioactive for thousands of years, whereas fallout decays within a few weeks to harmless levels.
Thus, you can nuke a target, kill everything with fallout, and take over the land safely with a conventional nuke. With a radiogenic weapon you'd have sterile zones that couldn't be inhabitated within the span of time as long as human history.
Now, if you just had a few grams of plutonium, dispersal within a building would be much more feasible sibce the occupants would be fucked, and the building would have to be torn down. All from something you could carry in a fountain pen.
------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
Go here to download the NBK2000 website PDF.
Go here to download the NBK2000 videos.
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-06-2001 05:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the effective use of weapons grade plutonium is to make it into a bomb,so that we can fulfill the rule of the effective use of matter and energy;especially if we can turn it into a primary for a thermonuclear device.However for small quantities of nuclear material it is better to disperse it as radioactive dust.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
From: None of your bloody business!
Registered: DEC 2000
posted 07-06-2001 03:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you could use it as a poison against one person. A 50ug speck of Pu in a hypodermic will kill a man (slowly), but I doubt it'd be detectable since it's not very radioactive. It's not the radiation that makes Pu spills dangerous, it's its extreme toxicity.
A 50kT bomb is equivalent to 50kT of TNT, but is it also true that it will vapourise this much matter?
Saying that fallout will decay to harmless levels in a few weeks isn't true. Say a bomb has 4kg of Pu, which decays so that quarter of its mass is turned into Co-60 (we will ignore other products). This will be about 11100 Gigabecqurels of radiation. That's a lot. Spread out in a radius of say 10 miles, that will make a radiation level of roughly 1.25 kBq per square foot, just from that portion of the fallout, and it'll take 57 years (IIRC) to decay to half of that level. There will also be Strontiums, Caesiums etc. A smoke detector contains 37kBq, but that's shielded and you're not living in it and breathing it in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. So I would say that fallout radiation will still be a problem, unless I've missed something vital. Remember that ONE particle of ionising radiation could theoretically give you cancer, and at that level of radiation each square foot of your body would be hit by 108000000 particles each day. I don't like your chances of surviving in that!
Of course, it's totally possible that all those calculations are fucked up.
That's just my two pence on the subject.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-06-2001 04:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you are talking about harmful radiation to humans, I hear it is best to use gray's, and as nbk said fallout would last only a few weeks, this pertains to a blast on the ground or underground where the radioactive material isn't far from the ground and it comes down relitively quickly, byt with most nukes they are at a high altitude and are airbursted and rain the particles slowly, I read about cobalt 60 only being used in neutron bombs (as far as I know the us dosen't have any) in that the cobalt casing of the bomb is turned radioactive and has a relitvely short half life (so I hear) but what many people dont understand is that a half life is how long it takes for half the particles to become inert, for example something that had a halflife of 5 years would be reduced in half, leaving 1/2 then again in 5 years leaving 1/4 then again leaving 1/8 then again leaving 1/16 then again to 1/32 and so on, that is already 25 years and if you had 1000 pounds to start with you would have something like 31.2 pounds left, of corse with something like plutonium it would probabbly take longer than this planet's life for it to completely decompose they say plutonium's half life is more than 20000 years so for 1000 pounds... 500, ,250 ,125, 62.5, 31.25, 15.6 so it is already 140000 years before it gets to 15.6 pounds (witch is still spread around) and that is MUCH longer than recorded human history.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
From: None of your bloody business!
Registered: DEC 2000
posted 07-06-2001 05:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt-60 isn't used in the bombs, it is one possible fission product, although now I think about it I think caesium-137 (T-1/2 = 38 yrs?) and strontium-47 (T-1/2 = can't remember, probably about the same) are more common. I think those RAMs are correct, it's been a while since I read anything about this subject.
It would have stopped falling out after a few weeks, but it would still be on the ground, nice and radioactive, for many years. But there are radionucleides produced with very short half-lives (minutes etc), which would be practically gone in a few weeks. Since these have short T-1/2's, they are intensly radioactive for a short amount of time.
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-07-2001 12:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was good that these terrible weapons were not used in combat with the exception of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incident(which were primitive but still deadly as well).The greatest fear of any government after the cold war is not this big weapons propelled by missiles or dropped by aircraft;rather it is this man portable nukes having nuclear yield of subkiloton to a few kiloton capability.It is more a danger to urban location if a determined terrorist can have the capability to build and detonate such weapon in cities.I hear that there are criminal syndicates who have the means,are trying to procure weapons grade nuclear materials,and hire those jobless East Bloc scientist to make a weapon for them.That will be a nightmare if it ever happen!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
From: Satans asshole!
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-07-2001 10:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some fact's about nukes and fallout.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/1984/
http://members.tripod.com/spylopedia/ind-nukes.htm
As for the crime syndicates, more power to them. If the columbians had a tactical nuke, maybe the government would give up the absurd "War on Drugs" because they (the Politicians) don't want to get nuked for leaning too hard on the cartels.
------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
Go here to download the NBK2000 website PDF.
Go here to download the NBK2000 videos.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
From: None of your bloody business!
Registered: DEC 2000
posted 07-07-2001 11:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first of those two does say that the likely radiation levels are only acceptable in wartime conditions. In other words, it's not safe.
If the only fission products were things like Iodine-131, with short half lives, then it would soon be safe, but there will always be isotopes that decay fast enough to be dangerous, but slow enough to be long-lasting.
And alpha particles with suitable energies can make other substances radioactive. Some elements need low energies, some high, to transmute, but if it falls within a certain range then it can be done. I suppose it is possible that no naturally produced alpha particles can do it though, only accelerated ones in labs etc.
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
Registered: OCT 2000
posted 06-18-2001 04:24 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I’m reading Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring”. The book is very good for me not only because it shows the dangers that the chemicals could do to the nature but because there are excelent examples of chemical weapons that you could buy at the grocery shop, there are great examples of people and animals killed by these chemicals. My question is do you know the chemical formulas of these chemical insecticides and pesticides: endrine, dieldrine, chlordane, paratione, melatione. It will be good to post the whole chemical structure. I searched in yahoo and only found toxic doses(LD-50, LD-100) and a chemical name that I don’t understand at all.
This should be at chemical weapons but I think the topic for pesticides, herbicides, acaricides and so on is really big!
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 06-18-2001 09:52 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Simply Red, Pesticides and nerve gases are chemically related.This is particular to the organophosphates(like malathion and parathion).They are nerve poison.The others like endrin and dieldrin are organochlorine and act like a stomach poison.Parathion is among the most toxic of the pesticides and its use is carefully regulated.
These pesticides have been used as murder weapon and suicide agent in third world countries.If you want to learn about simple chemical formulas of these pesticides visit this:
http://www.hclrss.demon.co.uk/
[This message has been edited by cutefix (edited June 18, 2001).]
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
Registered: OCT 2000
posted 07-04-2001 05:59 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know this is not pesticide but it is interesting and actually such substances are the new generation of pesticides. It is a text I found in the net about the ricine and other poisonous plants. Thanks to NBK2000(his pdf) i recieved my first knowledge on that subject.
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/toxicagents/ricin/ricin.html
and
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/
Simply
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-05-2001 03:44 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read about ricin several years ago being used by Bulgarian operatives, to assassinate traitors of their country during the Cold War.The make a tiny bead of the encapsulated poison,ejected by the tip of the umbrella as these agents pretend to accidentally hit their intended victim .Oh, the poison was almost undetectable,and it take the Scotland Yard a lot of time to discover the poison from the victim’s bloodstream.A lot of the victims have died from this poison before it was discovered.
simply RED
Frequent Poster
Posts: 242
From: HELL
Registered: OCT 2000
posted 07-05-2001 05:36 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most famous victim of ricine is a writer who worked in BBC and talked against the government of Bulgaria. (don't remember his name)
Do you know the formula and the toxic dose of the 'nivaline' that is extracted from the 'snowdrop'?
(....my hands shook while typing this.... )
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 03:36 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, this may not be a natural pollutant by any means, but I alway's wpndered what would happen If I made a large missle and filled it with atomized Plutonium or Uranium, and detonated it over some shithole like Iraq, wouldn't it be possible to get many more casualties with a device like this than with an actual nuclear bomb? I mean 1 tiny speck of PU is toxic enough to kill many people when inhaled.
Anthony
Moderator
Posts: 2383
From: England
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 06:25 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA already tried that
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 07:40 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not on pupose!
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-05-2001 09:04 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that is one of the perils of ditributed radioactive products,from a dirty nuclear bomb or even an accidental explosion of the conventional explosive detonators in the nuclear missiles,which will disperse nuclear matter over a wide area.I think that is one of the reason why the government scientists have the developed the IHE(insensitive high explosive) like TATB (Triaminotrinitrobenzene) to improve safety of accidental detonation of the explosive boosters of the nuclear warheads from enemy projectile that will hit on the warhead(by intention or accident).Plutonium is known to be the most toxic substance,so the dispersion of a weapons grade plutonium in dust forms is disastrous as anuclear explosion.
Even the use of depleted uranium from the attack aircraft cannons have lasting effect on the inhabitants in Iraq and Yoguslavia. There was a high incidence of cancer.Imagine if those depleted uranium were plutonium itself,what a mess it would be!
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 09:21 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that would be more an effective weapon than a nuclear weapon itself, just think, if you wage war your land will be covered in radioactive dust and everyone will be promised a slow and painful death, and most of all it could take outdamn near a contenent, such as a very large country if it was intentionally released into the jetstream just think, one bomb could eliminate russa slowly.
[This message has been edited by PYRO500 (edited July 05, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by PYRO500 (edited July 05, 2001).]
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
From: Satans asshole!
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-05-2001 10:56 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plutonium dispersal is not very effective use of the material. An atom bomb vaporizes its yield in matter. Thus a 50KT bomb vaporizes 50 thousand tons of matter and converts it into radioactive fallout. Compare to the 5 or six pounds of radioactive material you'd get from the plutonium.
Plus, plutonium stays radioactive for thousands of years, whereas fallout decays within a few weeks to harmless levels.
Thus, you can nuke a target, kill everything with fallout, and take over the land safely with a conventional nuke. With a radiogenic weapon you'd have sterile zones that couldn't be inhabitated within the span of time as long as human history.
Now, if you just had a few grams of plutonium, dispersal within a building would be much more feasible sibce the occupants would be fucked, and the building would have to be torn down. All from something you could carry in a fountain pen.
------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
Go here to download the NBK2000 website PDF.
Go here to download the NBK2000 videos.
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-06-2001 05:45 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the effective use of weapons grade plutonium is to make it into a bomb,so that we can fulfill the rule of the effective use of matter and energy;especially if we can turn it into a primary for a thermonuclear device.However for small quantities of nuclear material it is better to disperse it as radioactive dust.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
From: None of your bloody business!
Registered: DEC 2000
posted 07-06-2001 03:35 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you could use it as a poison against one person. A 50ug speck of Pu in a hypodermic will kill a man (slowly), but I doubt it'd be detectable since it's not very radioactive. It's not the radiation that makes Pu spills dangerous, it's its extreme toxicity.
A 50kT bomb is equivalent to 50kT of TNT, but is it also true that it will vapourise this much matter?
Saying that fallout will decay to harmless levels in a few weeks isn't true. Say a bomb has 4kg of Pu, which decays so that quarter of its mass is turned into Co-60 (we will ignore other products). This will be about 11100 Gigabecqurels of radiation. That's a lot. Spread out in a radius of say 10 miles, that will make a radiation level of roughly 1.25 kBq per square foot, just from that portion of the fallout, and it'll take 57 years (IIRC) to decay to half of that level. There will also be Strontiums, Caesiums etc. A smoke detector contains 37kBq, but that's shielded and you're not living in it and breathing it in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. So I would say that fallout radiation will still be a problem, unless I've missed something vital. Remember that ONE particle of ionising radiation could theoretically give you cancer, and at that level of radiation each square foot of your body would be hit by 108000000 particles each day. I don't like your chances of surviving in that!
Of course, it's totally possible that all those calculations are fucked up.
That's just my two pence on the subject.
PYRO500
Moderator
Posts: 1513
From: somewhere in florida
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-06-2001 04:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
if you are talking about harmful radiation to humans, I hear it is best to use gray's, and as nbk said fallout would last only a few weeks, this pertains to a blast on the ground or underground where the radioactive material isn't far from the ground and it comes down relitively quickly, byt with most nukes they are at a high altitude and are airbursted and rain the particles slowly, I read about cobalt 60 only being used in neutron bombs (as far as I know the us dosen't have any) in that the cobalt casing of the bomb is turned radioactive and has a relitvely short half life (so I hear) but what many people dont understand is that a half life is how long it takes for half the particles to become inert, for example something that had a halflife of 5 years would be reduced in half, leaving 1/2 then again in 5 years leaving 1/4 then again leaving 1/8 then again leaving 1/16 then again to 1/32 and so on, that is already 25 years and if you had 1000 pounds to start with you would have something like 31.2 pounds left, of corse with something like plutonium it would probabbly take longer than this planet's life for it to completely decompose they say plutonium's half life is more than 20000 years so for 1000 pounds... 500, ,250 ,125, 62.5, 31.25, 15.6 so it is already 140000 years before it gets to 15.6 pounds (witch is still spread around) and that is MUCH longer than recorded human history.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
From: None of your bloody business!
Registered: DEC 2000
posted 07-06-2001 05:18 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cobalt-60 isn't used in the bombs, it is one possible fission product, although now I think about it I think caesium-137 (T-1/2 = 38 yrs?) and strontium-47 (T-1/2 = can't remember, probably about the same) are more common. I think those RAMs are correct, it's been a while since I read anything about this subject.
It would have stopped falling out after a few weeks, but it would still be on the ground, nice and radioactive, for many years. But there are radionucleides produced with very short half-lives (minutes etc), which would be practically gone in a few weeks. Since these have short T-1/2's, they are intensly radioactive for a short amount of time.
cutefix
Frequent Poster
Posts: 330
From: california
Registered: MAY 2001
posted 07-07-2001 12:35 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It was good that these terrible weapons were not used in combat with the exception of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki incident(which were primitive but still deadly as well).The greatest fear of any government after the cold war is not this big weapons propelled by missiles or dropped by aircraft;rather it is this man portable nukes having nuclear yield of subkiloton to a few kiloton capability.It is more a danger to urban location if a determined terrorist can have the capability to build and detonate such weapon in cities.I hear that there are criminal syndicates who have the means,are trying to procure weapons grade nuclear materials,and hire those jobless East Bloc scientist to make a weapon for them.That will be a nightmare if it ever happen!
nbk2000
Moderator
Posts: 1235
From: Satans asshole!
Registered: SEP 2000
posted 07-07-2001 10:31 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's some fact's about nukes and fallout.
http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/1984/
http://members.tripod.com/spylopedia/ind-nukes.htm
As for the crime syndicates, more power to them. If the columbians had a tactical nuke, maybe the government would give up the absurd "War on Drugs" because they (the Politicians) don't want to get nuked for leaning too hard on the cartels.
------------------
"The knowledge that they fear is a weapon to be used against them"
Go here to download the NBK2000 website PDF.
Go here to download the NBK2000 videos.
Mr Cool
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1013
From: None of your bloody business!
Registered: DEC 2000
posted 07-07-2001 11:33 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first of those two does say that the likely radiation levels are only acceptable in wartime conditions. In other words, it's not safe.
If the only fission products were things like Iodine-131, with short half lives, then it would soon be safe, but there will always be isotopes that decay fast enough to be dangerous, but slow enough to be long-lasting.
And alpha particles with suitable energies can make other substances radioactive. Some elements need low energies, some high, to transmute, but if it falls within a certain range then it can be done. I suppose it is possible that no naturally produced alpha particles can do it though, only accelerated ones in labs etc.