So, does the “Atomic Energy Commission” have authority over my fireplace because wood has atoms?
I don’t know, but I think we should change their name to Festering Gob Snoggets. Just because “we’ve always done it that way” is no excuse to keep calling them the Atomic Energy Commission.
Mind if we call you Bruce to keep it clear?
On the other hand,
is simply wrong. The word has never been used in that capacity in the English language–and language is what is under discussion–and it does not matter how you try to pound your idiolectic definition into the discussion, the phrase “atomic bomb” has not been used to indicate the chemical reaction of a “conventional” weapon.
Apparently not since they became the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
What, they changed it from Festering Gob Snoggets already?
It isn’t reasonable in the sense that it does not add anything to the discussion. The opinion of a software engineer in Istanbul has no more meaning than the opinion of a poster on this board. He has no particular authority that would lend credibility to the use of the terminology we are discussing. Linking to it does not advance the debate.
Well, there are nuclei in the wood atoms.
Hmm. . .it just dawned on me that you can’t call them “nuclear” bombs either because a bomb with fertilizer and diesel fuel has nuclei in it.
Ran into a conflict with the Federal Gnu Stables.
Yeah, I hate when that happens.
As Derleth has pointed out, most of the interactions are bond changes happening the valence shell, so I think we should call them ‘Electron Bombs’ or ‘Valence Bombs’.
Dude, the neighbors just set off a valence bomb!
Shit, I thought they’d stop after the 4th…
Taxes are up, so the only reason we can’t balance the budget is all of the gnu spending.
If it’s something like TNT or another fixed compound, shouldn’t they be “molecule bombs”, since it’s not individual atoms reacting…
I sense a corollary to Gaudere’s Law.
Any post made to point out inaccurate and sloppy use of the language will contain inaccurate and sloppy use of the language.
In reference to the use of Atomic -v Nuclear, I have to wonder if the former wasn’t kept in use simply because the latter is so often mispronounced.
I’ve never heard anyone say, Atomuic but if I’m not thinking about it I sometimes say, Nucyular.
It is common knowledge, and has been talked about for decades — the fact that “atomic bomb” or “atom bomb” is a misnomer for a weapon that functions at the subatomic level. Jess H. Brewer, Physics & Astronomy professor at the University of British Columbia, says:
The name, " ATOMIC BOMB,‘’ is a frightful misnomer; the atoms have nothing whatsoever to do with the process involved in such horrible weapons of destruction, except insofar as their nuclei are the active ingredients. The correct name for the "atomic’’ bomb is the NUCLEAR FISSION bomb.
He goes on to show why. (Click his footnote 24.5.)
There’s no question it is a misnomer, but as this paper (in a peer-reviewed journal — pay to read) says:
Thus, the term “atomic” is a misnomer, but it is a misnomer here to stay.
I have a theory that atomic bombs wiped out all the brontosauruses. Want to know what methodology I utilized to come up with that?
Not really, no. 
I thought not.
Read my lips…
It is an abuse of the language to say that a fission or fusion bomb is not an atomic bomb, since the nucleus is part of the atom. If Derleth wanted to be exact, he would have said that all bombs are atomic, but only some are nuclear.
That’s leaving aside the whole “Language is a two-way street” thing. Quite frankly, “nuclear” is not nearly as accurate a desctiption as “grbfdydyl.” That is a word I just made up to describe a certain class of weapons. It only applies to thsoe weapons. I insist that everyone start using, or face correction. Science, you know is not a popularity contest, and it isn’t decided by High Nabobs, you know.
Won’t somebody think of the brontosauruses?
I wonder if Einstein actually said this. I’ve seen it attributed to him at several sites.
tdn, I want to hear all about your methodology.