Nuclear ICBMs being refitted to meet EPA regulations
|
|
Kex Godel
Master Slacker
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 869
|
04-20-2004 02:23
http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/2004418.aspFrom: someone In order to comply with EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) regulations, and at a cost of about $5.2 million per ICBM, the rocket motors on 500 Minuteman III missiles will be replaced with new ones. These rockets will emit less toxic chemicals when used. But the new, environmentally correct rockets will be heavier than the old ones, and will thus have a shorter range than the original motors. The actual range of the Minuteman III has been classified, but is thought to be nearly 10,000 kilometers, based on where the missiles are stationed and where the original Russian targets were. Thus, if the Minuteman III ICBMs have to be used in some future nuclear war, their rocket motors will not pollute the atmosphere. EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads. Sometimes reality is more entertaining than fiction. 
|
|
Moleculor Satyr
Fireflies!
Join date: 5 Jan 2004
Posts: 2,650
|
04-20-2004 18:54
From: someone EPA regulations do not apply in foreign countries, so no changes are being made to reduce the harmful environmental effects of the nuclear warheads. I'm sorry, but that's GOT to be a joke. 
_____________________
</sarcasm>
|
|
Ryen Jade
This is a takeover!
Join date: 21 Jun 2003
Posts: 1,329
|
04-20-2004 19:16
HAHAHAHAHA! Real life is depressing...... We are making nuclear missles.....give off less pollution in flight...... I look at it this way, the last thing we will worry about nukeing someone is pollution |
|
Nolan Nash
Frischer Frosch
Join date: 15 May 2003
Posts: 7,141
|
04-21-2004 08:52
I just wished they would make bullet casings that cleaned themselves up. It's a pain in the butt to clean 'em up after shooting ppl all day. But, it has to be done, for the environment. Oh, and so they can be reloaded with new bullets. We want to kill as many ppl as possible with the least amount of material waste...
_____________________
“Time's fun when you're having flies.” ~Kermit
|
|
Corwin Weber
Registered User
Join date: 2 Oct 2003
Posts: 390
|
04-21-2004 18:51
From: someone Originally posted by Moleculor Satyr I'm sorry, but that's GOT to be a joke. Actually I suspect that's a reference to possible leakage of radioactive material from warheads rather than radiation from an atomic blast, which with modern warheads is minimal at worst. (Modern nukes are pretty clean.... after the initial blast there's very little radiation, and most of it only impacts a small area around the actual blast radius.) However.... a missle sitting in a silo containing plutonium, (a substance that is not only highly radioactive, but amazingly toxic as well...) makes the possibility of the warhead's casing getting a crack in it something to consider. |
|
Adam Zaius
Deus
Join date: 9 Jan 2004
Posts: 1,483
|
04-22-2004 06:32
Plutonium if ingested is actually orders of magnitude less toxic than caffeine.. http://www.fortfreedom.org/p22.htm |
|
Kex Godel
Master Slacker
Join date: 14 Nov 2003
Posts: 869
|
04-22-2004 07:09
Interesting info, but whoever thought using full text justification with a fixed-width font should be hit up side the head with a large tropical fish repeatedly. *rubs eyes*
|
|
Corwin Weber
Registered User
Join date: 2 Oct 2003
Posts: 390
|
04-22-2004 11:28
From a bit more established source... http://www.llnl.gov/csts/publications/sutcliffe/ The claims that plutonium is less toxic than other substances is disingenious at best.... any substance that will kill you after ingesting less than a half a gram or by inhaling 20mg is pretty damn toxic. Yes.... chemicals like ricin and botulinium are more toxic, however they aren't radioactive as well.
|
|
Garoad Kuroda
Prophet of Muppetry
Join date: 5 Sep 2003
Posts: 2,989
|
04-22-2004 20:04
Even in small doses, I imagine you'd get cancer down the road.
_____________________
BTW
WTF is C3PO supposed to be USEFUL for anyway, besides whining? Stupid piece of scrap metal would be more useful recycled as a toaster. But even that would suck, because who would want to listen to a whining wussy toaster? Is he gold plated? If that's the case he should just be melted down into gold ingots. Help the economy some, and stop being so damn useless you stupid bucket of bolts! R2 is 1,000 times more useful than your tin man ass, and he's shaped like a salt and pepper shaker FFS!
|
|
Corwin Weber
Registered User
Join date: 2 Oct 2003
Posts: 390
|
04-23-2004 14:39
From: someone Originally posted by Garoad Kuroda Even in small doses, I imagine you'd get cancer down the road. You would. I agree that the infamous description of plutonium as 'the most toxic substance known to man' is a considerable overstatement.... but it's still pretty vicious stuff. Ingesting even small amounts is potentially fatal. (The fact that there have been no recorded cases of deaths from plutonium poisoning says much more about the handling protocols used with plutonium than they do about its toxicity.) |