does the TNT should or can made almost the same radiaton damage as a Nuclear Bomb?
462402
Huge amounts of TNT will not produce radiation like a nuclear explosion. Different type of reactions. TNT just burns very fast and produces a massive amount of gas. The expanding gas is what blows stuff apart. A new huge amount of air suddenly in a small space. That's also how bullets work. A nuclear explosion releases Gamma radiation in addition to super intense heat. A TNT explosion might produce some X-radiation but not to any appreciable amount. The Kilo-ton and Mega-ton ratings are used to describe the approximate damage of the nuclear explosion. It would be tough to gather up 500,000 tons of TNT.
1152360
If we used every nuclear weapon on earth simultaneously, it would make a spectacular fireworks show in the sky, and create a whole bunch more craters, but the moon would stillbe in our sky, just obscured by dust.\n\nWe may brag about how destructive our nukes are, but they're pikers when considering the cosmic scale of things.
662679
We all know that if they have the nuclear tech the bomb will be used to destroy many people....if they are really concerned  about energy (especially electrical) solar energy will be great for that part of the world...I am sure the U.S.A will help in this project.
312445
there is not much of a difference just that atomic bombs were the first to be built they both operate the same way. nuclear energy is taking the action of a nuclear bomb and controlling it to make power. what happens is the nuclear action that a reactor has produces heat which is absorbed by water that then turns to steam and the steam is used to turn a turbine that produces electricity.
1000020
As with any thermonuclear explosion, you obtain a huge amount of radiated energy in a very small location in a very small amount of time.  This radiated energy would be absorbed by the surrounding ocean water very quickly.  This would cause a HUGE amount of water around the detonation site to flash-boil and expand rapidly.  This would create a propagating hydrostatic shock wave that would be felt all throughout the Pacific, mostly in the form of tidal waves.  These tidal waves will likely be fairly small, however depending upon the composition of the ocean floor, it may also let loose alot of rock and cause some underwater avalanches (another common source of tidal waves, esp. the bigger ones).\n\nDepending upon the depth of the detonation, very few of the radiated photons may actually reach the surface, and thus almost all of the energy will be consumed by water.  Besides no "blinding flash", this would also mean that the visible "water explosion" made up of mostly vapor would be larger than the equivalent land- or airburst vapor cloud.  If close enough to the surface, the flash-boiled water would quickly rise and break the surface with a large gaseous explosion, and the vapor would climb into the air and spread once it achieves altitude, so yes the "mushroom cloud" will still form.  If it were very deep, though, the gasses would eventually spread and, to some extent, dissipate, resulting in just a lot of surface turbulence and foamed gasses.\n\nDo some research on "Operation Crossroads", which were two U.S. nuclear detonation tests in 1946.  ABLE was an airburst at 158m, and BAKER was 27m underwater (yes, super-shallow, but it gives you a fair starting point).  There have been other underwater nuclear test detonations by various countries, but their speifics escape my memory at the moment.  :p
747685
You have to learn how to do simple arithmetic, and understand simple physics like the conservation of momentum and the conservation of energy.\n\nThen you will see that the effect of the biggest possible nuclear explosion on the Earth's orbit is like the effect of an insect landing on the Empire State Building.  The Earth has been pushed by radiation from solar flares with enormously more energy, hit by asteroids with enormously more momentum, than any puny little man-made nuclear explosion, and its orbit was still not affected measurably.
622147
Wow dude you'll probably blow yourself up if you succeed.\nYou would probably be able to make it by continuing the nitration of TNT with a very powerful nitrating agent - say, nitronium tetrafluroborate.  But I don't think you will make it.
514462
Unless you are letting it be run by a bunch of drunk ruskies, who think it is a good idea to pull out all the control rods and see how hot they can make the reactor... \n\nOther wise (truth be told) the ammount of radiation that is emited by a nuclear power plant is about the same as the ammount emited by a oil or coal power plant.
232724
"Tactical neutron bombs are primarily intended to kill soldiers who are protected by armor. Armored vehicles are very resistant to blast and heat produced by nuclear weapons, but steel armor can reduce neutron radiation only by a modest amount so the lethal range from neutrons greatly exceeds that of other weapon effects. The lethal range for tactical neutron bombs can exceed the lethal range for blast and heat even for unprotected troops. Armor can absorb neutrons and neutron energy, thus reducing the neutron radiation to which the tank crew is exposed, but this offset to some extent by the fact that armor can also react harmfully with neutrons. Alloy steels for example can develop induced radioactivity that remains dangerous for some time. When fast neutrons are slowed down, the energy lost can show up as x-rays. Some types of armor, like that of the M-1 tank, employ depleted uranium which can undergo fast fission, generating additional neutrons and becoming radioactive. Special neutron absorbing armor techniques have also been developed, such as armors containing boronated plastics and the use of vehicle fuel as a shield."\n\n\n\n"Also called ENHANCED RADIATION WARHEAD, specialized type of small thermonuclear weapon that produces minimal blast and heat but which releases large amounts of lethal radiation. The neutron bomb delivers blast and heat effects that are confined to an area of only a few hundred yards in radius. But within a somewhat larger area it throws off a massive wave of neutron and gamma radiation, which can penetrate armour or several feet of earth. This radiation is extremely destructive to living tissue. Because of its short-range destructiveness and the absence of long-range effect, the neutron bomb would be highly effective against tank and infantry formations on the battlefield but would not endanger cities or other population centres only a few miles away. It can be carried in a Lance missile or delivered by an 8-inch (200-millimetre) howitzer, or possibly by attack aircraft.\n\nIn strategic terms, the neutron bomb has a theoretical deterrent effect: discouraging an armoured ground assault by arousing the fear of neutron bomb counterattack. The bomb would disable enemy tank crews in minutes, and those exposed would die within days. U.S. production of the bomb was postponed in 1978 and resumed in 1981."
1001885
It would do nothing.  In 1994, a comet (Shoemaker-Levy) crashed into Jupiter.  I don't have the exact numbers on the equivalent to a nuclear bomb, but it was much more powerful than any bomb.  Jupiter kind of sat there and shrugged it off without much effect.\n\nEdit:  Found a site that says *one* fragment of the comet was the same as 225,000 megatons.  The biggest fragment was the same as 6 million megatons.\n\nhttp://www.isc.tamu.edu/~astro/sl9/cometfaq2.html
1008853
Depends how you define seismic activity.  \n\nYes, the intensity as measured by seismometers would be strongest at the epicenter.  This does not mean the damage would be greatest directly over the epicenter, on in the nearest town.
1105990
a neutron bomb,\n\nit explodes about 10,000 feet in the air is will kill all living flesh with in a hundredf miles of ground zero there is no escape. It takes like 20 of solid concrete wall or 6-10 feet of solid lead on all side to stop the rays.  The rays cook flesh as if it was put in a microwave oven.  It is not radioactive like the atomic bomb within hours after the blast the area is inhabitable again.  Just clean up the cooked bodies.  Its very wicked weapon and yes we have it.
370272
Yes. Radiant energy strikes the matter surface it repel electrons from the matter and it release heat energy.
332248
Look, a 1000 megaton detonation (whether it was due to a nuclear device or due to a meteor impact) would blow the line-of-site atmosphere into space.  We'd all suffer direly if that happened.\n\nA 10,000 megaton (or 10 gigaton) device would locally shatter the crust, and produce a surface wave that would do major damage to the crust all across the world.  Think of a bell: whack it hard enough anywhere and the whole thing rings, and if the whack is hard enough, the temporary standing waves would possibly shatter or crack the bell.  If you don't believe me, look at the Liberty Bell--that crack is (supposedly) due to it being rung hard enough.  Imagine that with the crust of the earth!  Pretty, it ain't.\n\nFrankly, nuclear weaponry is a silly approach to such an effort.  Throw rocks from orbit--you can get nuclear grade energies easily, and you can do it without any radiation.
548164
Your question is a very good one and everyone here is trying to help. Let me wade in with what I hope is a clear answer or two.\n\nCommercial reactors do not have the configuration to do what a nuclear bomb does: go promptly critical and thus have a large-scale supercritical nuclear explosion. Even Chernobyl (may the 40 or so people who died from it rest in peace) was mostly a steam explosion with a burning of the graphite core. The RBMK reactors like Chernobyl have mostly been shut down now - folks in the former Soviet Union may chime in now as to their status. \n\nModern commercial nuclear reactors (unlike the RBMK design) have large concrete domes called containments over them. The containment structures are designed to hold large amounts of pressure to guard against an accidental release of radiation. Even if the reactor core (part with the nuclear fuel) should become uncovered and thus lose its cooling, the containment will hold most of the radioactive material inside. That is precisely what happened at Three Mile Island. Most of the fuel and fission products were in the containment basement and plated out on the walls.\n\nThe most credible accidents are practiced for often at every power plant. Drills exercise the staff from the control room to the folks who go out into the field to survey for radiation. Those drills are graded not just by the plant, not just by the NRC, but by the county and state. \n\nNuclear reactors do not become nuclear bombs. If you were to take used fuel from nuclear reactors and chemically reprocess it - separating out the plutonium that is made in small amounts in the fuel - you could eventually make a bomb. We do not do reprocessing of commercial nuclear fuel in the US. There is a worry that some countries may do that. Of course, that is precisely what the military does do.\n\nMy job? I am a Health Physicist. I teach radiation protection, nuclear physics, and radiation chemistry. In the event of an accident, I read remote monitors and figure out what the pathway the radionuclides are taking out, how much, and what dose might be delivered to the population downwind. My predictions are used to advise the county about evacuation of persons living in a 20 mile radius of the power plant. I have a Bachelors of Science in biology from Baylor University, Masters in Applied Nuclear Science from Georgia Tech, and my PhD work was in leukemia research at Baylor Col. of Medicine. I was part of the Three Mile Island Recovery Team.
823456
I wouldn't believe everything you read on wiki, especially things dealing with controversial topics like nuclear energy or stem cells.\n\nNow to answer your question, I suppose that depleted uranium could be used as a reflector in a bomb, but its effects will be marginal at best, lead probabally would be a better pick. Also if Uranium was a better reflector, you would be better off using natural Uranium than depleted Uranium. Its relativity easy to get both natural Uranium and lead so worrying about depleted Uranium rounds is kind of silly.
1007746
Any radiatioactive isotopes from the blast would have dispersed to near ambient levels in a very short distance.  Certainly in less then 500 miles.