oh oh. This is not the "proof" we wanted :) http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mystery-radiation-detected-europe/story?id=14932064#.Tr1zdcNFunA
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Daniel Rocha wrote: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Minor_Scale<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_Scale> >> > > An interesting example. > > This was a conventional explosion that simulated a 4.8 kt nuclear > explosion. A person observing this from a distance might have difficulty > determining whether it is nuclear or chemical. Of course if you used > radiation detection you would know. If you saw the bomb here before they > detonated it, you would see that it is made up of 4800 tons of explosive, > meaning it is chemical. > > Seen from a distance, this would be an ambiguous test. I did not say that > there is no such thing as ambiguous or unclear result. I said that some > tests in some cases can produce irrefutable proof that a phenomenon exists. > A much larger explosion from a small object is proof that the explosion is > nuclear, not chemical. > > - Jed > >
