Minimum Residual Radiation Fusion Bombs are FACT per Department of Energy

In this article dated 1/1/2001, the department of energy declassifies the fact that Mimimanl Residual Radiation fusion devices exist.

www.fas.org...

Section E
Minimum Residual Radiation (MRR) Weapons

1. The fact that we are interested in and are continuing studies on a weapon for minimizing the emerging flux of neutrons and internal induced activity. (67-1)

2. The fact of weapon laboratory interest in MRR devices. (76-3)

3. The fact of successful development of MRR devices. (76-3)

Since we know that the radiation from fusion devices is short lived, produces tritium and that the DoE admits to at least MINIMAL Residual Radiation weapons... how far are they from ZERO residual radiation weapons?

Would we expect to see high levels of radiation at ground zero had a pure fusion device been used?

For how long?

what type of equipment would be needed to detect the short lived gamma radiation?

Nuclear fusion leaves behind tritium... a fact recorded by the EPA at ground zero...

More on the lack of radiation at GZ and nuclear blast 'shaping":

A very interesting read for those who think nukes REQUIRE large amounts of long lasting radioactive fallout OR that they cannot be very small "the size of an egg"

arxiv.org...

The paper begins with a general introduction and update to Fourth Gen-
eration Nuclear Weapons (FGNW), and then addresses some particularly
important military aspects on which there has been only limited public
discussion so far. These aspects concern the unique military character-
istics of FGNWs which make them radically different from both nuclear
weapons based on previous-generation nuclear-explosives and from con-
ventional weapons based on chemical-explosives: yields in the 1 to 100
tons range, greatly enhanced coupling to targets, possibility to drive pow-
erful shaped charged jets and forged fragments, enhanced prompt radiation
effects, reduced collateral damage and residual radioactivity, etc

Thanks for sharing that - very interesting. I've only scanned it so far but it certainly shows how far nuclear weapon tech has progressed.

Originally posted by Pootie
Since we know that the radiation from fusion devices is short lived, produces tritium and that the DoE admits to at least MINIMAL Residual Radiation weapons... how far are they from ZERO residual radiation weapons?

I interpret MINIMAL Residual Radiation as basically just being less fissioned isotopes produced than anything developed previously. In other words there is still going to be a hell of a lot of harmful isotopes released by these weapons - just nowhere near the scale of previous generation nukes.

I can't imagine we'll be seeing ZERO residual radiation weapons any time soon. It would be ultra top secret if that technology exists anyway. I've not heard of any convincing mechanism that could allow for a pure fusion device.

Originally posted by nobodyv2 I've not heard of any convincing mechanism that could allow for a pure fusion device.

Well now you have. It’s called antimatter. When antimatter meets matter it releases more than the 10 million degrees Celsius/Kelvin (18 million degrees Fahrenheit) needed to initiate Deuterium(hydrogen-2)-Tritium (hydrogen-3) fusion (into one helium-4 atom and a neutron). For each gram loss of mass the energy equivalent of 700,000 gallons of gasoline are released. E=mc2 applies here, and that’s Albert Weinstein talking.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

We finally found the other few billion gallons of missing fuel (at least energy wise) needed to pulverize the WTC.

Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 2/5/2007 by Mirthful Me]

As far as I'm aware, the only time antimatter has even been seen on earth is in high energy particle accelerators..

Originally posted by Wizard_In_The_Woods
It’s called antimatter. When antimatter meets matter it releases more than the 10 million degrees Celsius/Kelvin (18 million degrees Fahrenheit) needed to initiate Deuterium(hydrogen-2)-Tritium (hydrogen-3) fusion (into one helium-4 atom and a neutron). For each gram loss of mass the energy equivalent of 700,000 gallons of gasoline are released. E=mc2 applies here, and that’s Albert Weinstein talking.

Thanks Wizard. The only thing is though, if you can generate antimatter in sufficient quanties then why bother with a fusion weapon? You already have your ultimate weapon right there.

I may be wrong but I seem to remember hearing that an antimatter bomb the same size as the one dropped on hiroshima would pretty much take out half the planet.

Originally posted by nobodyv2
Thanks Wizard. The only thing is though, if you can generate antimatter in sufficient quanties then why bother with a fusion weapon? You already have your ultimate weapon right there.

Right. It makes no sense. The technology required to build such a device would be far ahead of that for a pure fusion bomb. I support the concept that there is a different primer, of which there are currently several more plausible theories.

Originally posted by nobodyv2 Thanks Wizard. The only thing is though, if you can generate antimatter in sufficient quanties then why bother with a fusion weapon? You already have your ultimate weapon right there.

Your question is easily answered but tricky to explain.

Pure antimatter bombs aren’t (yet?) feasible because it’s impossible to accumulate large enough amounts of antimatter in one spot. Anything more than minute amounts of this stuff cannot be contained in the same space because objects of equal charge repel each other. In tiny quantities this problem can be controlled but ‘larger’ amounts will try to break out of their magnetic containment field and then come in contact with the storage container wall itself and then — poof! — will annihilate themselves with whatever metal atom they happen to touch.

Hope that’s understandable what I wrote. Many scientists raise the exact same point you just did ‘nobody2’. But uncompromising logic shows that they are almost certainly all wrong in their belief that antimatter cannot be used in weapons.

Greetings,
The Wizard In The Woods

I would just like to suggest the research and caliber of information concerning the exposure of 4GMNs is absolutely excellent. It is blatantly obvious that as the intensity of heat depreciates at the cube of the radius from the source of emission, for buses to have melted and caught fire 200 yards away from the world trade center, would have required HUGE walls of thermate in order to cause a bus to catch fire at that distance. Only a micronuke with a high emission of XRays or Gamma rays which readily heats any solid mass block (such as engine blocks) would explain the behavior of the burned up cars surrounding the WTC.

In the case of nuclear explosives the situation is more complicated because the different kinds of radiations can have a variety of effects, especially if they are very penetrating, as is the case for high energy neutrons and gamma rays. The most important of these effects are as follows:

• **** Heat the volume of a material. Penetrating high energy radiations neutrons, pions,15 or high energy gamma rays)will easily cross a low density intervening medium such as air and deposit their energy deep into any high density material. As a result, a substantial (i.e., centimeter to meter thick) layer of a bomb irradiated material can be brought to a temperature sufficiently high for it to melt, vaporize, or even explode. ****

Source : www.citebase.org...