Monday, March 5, 2012

Traces of tritiated water (HTO)?

Hide All / Expand All


Señor El Once : agent trenchcoat exposing more than it should

2012-03-05

Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,

Your agent trenchcoat is exposing more than it should.

Because you are championing super duper nano-thermite as the end-all-cure-all to the anomalous after-effects at WTC, you tell us what its burn-rate is. Take your time and use all of Spring Break if you have to.

You are correct that my presumption of the nano-thermite burn-rate being between 3,000 fps and 29,000 fps may be in error, and deliberately so. Its true burn-rate won't hurt the kernel of my argument in the least, I can assure you. Which way does that error go? Don't be shocked-and-awed by super duper nano-thermite having a burn-rate greater than 29,000 fps.

Do you know what a burn-rate faster than my low-ball 3,000 fps will mean? I didn't think so, so I will explain it for your atrophied science nuggets.

To simplify the math:
- I considered only one hot-spot. There were more.
- I truncated the burn duration to 4 weeks. It was longer in cases.
- I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w 3,000 fps burn-rate listed for common incendiaries. Nano-thermite is faster, and your homework might prove that it is even faster than the 3,000 fps to 29,000 fps range given in my googled source.

These simplifications provide a low estimate for the baseline on the ridiculousness of quantities of such materials needed to explain the duration of an under-rubble hot-spot. Packing such s-l-o-w burn-rate materials into an imaginary garden hose netted one some 884k miles long, which is u-n-b-e-l-i-e-v-a-b-l-e before translating its volume into material weight.

What happens to the length of the imaginary garden-hose when the material burn-rate is anything greater than the s-l-o-w burn-rate I deliberately chose? The required imaginary garden-hose gets longer. (Kind of like your nose, Mr. HybridRogue1, when you continue to make science-challenged arguments and split inconsequential hairs.)

The following hair-split from you is like a blast of artic air blowing through your open trench coat and shrinking your atrophied science nuggets even more.

A "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario." and a "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate" are in fact two separate things Señor. You base your 'duration factor' on the specific circumstance of a packed hose; essentially describing a fuse. That is certainly not the "s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario"


The scenario in question involved high temperatures, little oxygen, and a l-o-n-g burn duration. The WTC office content would have required oxygen to burn, and could not have reached the p-r-o-l-o-n-g-e-d high temperatures. Thus, we're discussing options on additional demolition materials that could account for observed features. You say incendiaries and nano-thermite, right?

I say, no. I've given your incendiaries and nano-thermite tons of leeway in terms of s-l-o-w burn-rates and stretching the materials out in an imaginary garden hose just like a fuse, so that it would not burn all at once: *POOF!!!* If a linear fuse is out, what other configuration would you have us install your beloved incendiaries that would have it burn even slower?


++++++++

On the other theme: Dr. Ward's writing can be somewhat muddled, so here is my edited version of Dr. Ward.

From Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center which I believe is the document Dr. Jones gets his radiation measurements from:

Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained (0.164±0.074) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure.


=> 1 [TU] = 3.21 [pCi/L], or 1 [pCi/L] = 0.312 [TU]

Thus we have:
=> 0.164 ± 0.074 [nCi/L] = 164 ± 74 [pCi/L] = 51 ± 23 [TU]
=> 3.53 ± 0.17 [nCi/L] = 3,530.0 ± 170 [pCi/L] = 1099.7 ± 53 [TU]
=> 2.83 ± 0.15 [nCi/L] = 2,830 ± 150 [pCi/L] = 883.0 ± 47 [TU]


In 2001 normal background levels of Tritium are supposedly around 20 TUs. Prior to nuclear testing in the 60's, normal background tritium water levels were 5 to 10 TUs.
- http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q2282.html

=> 20 [TU] = (20) * (3.21) [pCi/L] = 64.62 [pCi/L] normal high background/standard level

Tritium level confirmed in the DOE report of traces of tritium was 3,530 ± 170 [pCi/L]. Using the mean of 3,530 [pCi/L], divide the reference lab value by the background level:

=> (3530 [pCi/L]) / (64.62 [pCi/L]) = 54.63

Means that the measureed value was almost 55 times higher than the normal high tritium background level.


Dr. Ward says (paraphrased):

Thomas M. Semkowa, Ronald S. Hafnerc, Pravin P. Parekha, Gordon J. Wozniakd, Douglas K. Hainesa, Liaquat Husaina, Robert L. Rabune. Philip G. Williams and Steven Jones have all called over 1,000 TUs of Tritium, "Traces". Even at the height of nuclear bomb testing 98% - after thousands of Megatons of nuclear testing - of the rainwater tests were 2,000 TUs or less.
https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/241096.pdf


Specifically, right below the quotation on measurements from "Study of Traces of Tritium at the World Trade Center" that Dr. Ward proved to be 55 times trace levels, Dr. Jones writes in his paper "Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes Were Used on the WTC Towers":

Tritium from a thermonuclear (fusion) bomb would be way above these trace levels of a few NANOcuries per liter.


Maybe Dr. Jones was being a bit lazy when he wrote the characterization "these trace levels" to indicate what was measured at the WTC, particularly in comparison to the HTO levels that a fusion bomb would produce.

However, Dr. Ward is correct in his hair splitting that what was measured was 55 times greater that the standard 2001 definition of trace level.

I have issues with some of Dr. Ward's other analysis and conclusions, and he has demonstrated that never-yielding, closed-minded trait of an agent.

Moreover, I suspect Dr. Ward's factor of 55 might be proven wrong, too,... as being an under-estimate of the re-definition, just like my 3,000 fps burn-rate analysis resulted in an under-estimate of the imaginary garden hose length. It boils down to whether or not we can trust the govt reports on measured radiation levels. Despite lamenting the viability of govt reports in other venues, Dr. Jones swallows this govt report on radiation hook, line, and sinker. For this sin, he could probably be forgiven, but not for the leaping to no-nukes conclusions nor for allowing 9/11 yeomen erroneously extrapolating nano-thermite to the duration of under-rubble fires.


No comments: