Passa ai contenuti principali

Mini nuclear bombs: a new weapon of today

Small nuclear bombs grow, Cold fusion and new mini-nuclear weapons
by Emilio Del Giudice
Military power speaks of 'depleted uranium', the scientific community is silent, and while the first Gulf War, nuclear weapons are used as small artillery shells.
Meeting on the book The secret investigation of the three bullets Maurizio Torrealta and Emilio Del Giudice (Environment Issues, necklace Verdener, 2010) Bookseller Odradek Milan, October 1, 2010

One of the characteristics of modern society, which seems founded on the abundance and availability of information, is the ability to keep secrets. It keeps them thanks to the enormous amount of information that is spilled on the heads of people who, having no more reference points, taking, compared to information they receive, a passive. Convinced they know everything just because they have received a sea of ​​news citizens, paradoxically, they know nothing. And there is no better way to hide the truth that does not refer to blatant lies but partial truths.
Some journalists asked, during a press conference of the Israeli government spokesman, if it was true that in 2006, on the face of Lebanon, Israel had used nuclear weapons of a new type. The answer was the spokesman: "We declare that the Israeli army has never made use of weapons banned by international conventions." That is very true, the weapon of which we speak is not prohibited by international conventions, for the simple reason that it is a new type of weapon, and therefore is not provided in international conventions; officially nobody knows of the existence of this type of weapon and therefore it is not a weapon prohibited. The citizen who receives this information remains convinced that there is nothing mysterious, instead of mysterious there is everything.
 First, it should be specified that the powers involved in the use of mini nuclear weapons belong to a broad spectrum; although it is difficult to say exactly what they are, it is likely that Russia has used the in Chechnya and the United States and Britain in the various wars in the Middle East and the Balkans.
The chain is this possible: the first to have thought were the Germans during World War II. It is true that they were very far from achieving the type weapons used in Hiroshima, but probably because they had not taken that road: the German scientists were studying ways to create a different type of bomb, very similar to those used in conflicts from the first Gulf War on, and they were about to achieve it. Since the laboratories where this happened were located in eastern Germany, it is very likely that the Russians have got their hands on such weapons and have further developed; it is likely that later, after Spy games, the English they have learned of the existence, the Americans have in turn learned by the British and the Israelis by the Americans. In recent times, it is likely that even the French have developed.

Let's start with what we already know, namely that since the last twenty years, from the battlefields of the Balkans, the Middle East, probably also of Chechnya, came news 'strange': strange diseases that affect people, both military civil. We've all heard of the 'Gulf War Syndrome': over time, many people who have been in those battlefields develop strange diseases.
For example, among the Italian soldiers who have served in the Balkans, both in Bosnia and in Kosovo, seems to have developed a number of leukemias much higher than what would be expected statistically, so much so that the Italian Parliament has appointed a Commission - which has not concluded anything, but the simple fact of having appointed means that a problem exists.
Obviously military organizations did their best to sidetrack the attention and stated that, probably, due to these diseases are the bullets made of uranium used in the conflict. The reason for the choice of this material, say the military is in the fact that uranium is the heaviest metal that exists in nature, and as to pierce armor or a concrete wall must be a strong impact, a bullet made of a very heavy metal causes a hole much larger than a standard lead bullet. In addition, state, since, thanks to the nuclear industry there is a large amount of wastes of uranium that you do not know where to throw and which cost nothing, uranium is the raw material perfect and low cost to manufacture bullets.
The counterpart, unfortunately, always say the military, is that uranium has properties of radioactivity, and so the fact that on the battlefield remain the debris caused by the rupture of these bullets cause diseases in people involved.

This argument is not credible. If so, given that uranium is used for a long time, all the miners of uranium mining should sick en masse, while this disease is not among them. Or all those who have to do with the nuclear industry should be approximately the same, yet the same subjects on the one hand they say that nuclear power is safe, and the other that the mere fact of handling uranium bullets causes fatal diseases.
Moreover, that uranium can present some form of radioactivity is very well known, so how it occurred to the military to use a bullet uranium? It is true that uranium is heavier than lead, but it is only 20%. The gain is worth the risk? The blow which gives the projectile to the target is a function of its kinetic energy, the formula of which is: half of the product of mass and velocity squared. To increase the force of the impact the military has decided to increase by 20% the mass, but they could get much more easily the same result by increasing by 10% the speed of the bullet, and all in all it was enough to make it use an explosive charge slightly higher . It is not difficult, indeed. In recent times, the artillery has made great progress, so, for example, while in World War II grenades fired from the guns came from the mouth of a kilometer per second, now come to five kilometers per second. In proportion, what can never be that 20% of the increase ...

In spite of various official statements, inquiries are continuing. In the Lebanon war of 2006 there was a case that made headlines: in a village called Khiam, where there was a stronghold of Hezbollah, the Israeli air force bombed, and it so happens that there were photographers who snapped some photos. The image shooting something that seemed, in small - small but not so much, it was a column of 5,000 meters, although compared to a nuclear explosion can be defined as small - a mushroom cloud.
As it happens in that village was born a Lebanese nuclear physicist, who took samples from the crater of the explosion - which was then filled with water - and sent them in different laboratories around the world. Two of these - not one, two, independent of each other, one of which was the Harwell laboratory in England, the most renowned in the world to do this kind of research - found in a sample the presence of enriched uranium.

Here we must digress a little science: what is the enriched uranium?
The uranium is made from various isotopes; the core element consists of a number of protons and of a certain number of neutrons, in the case of uranium protons are 92 - fixed, because they give the electric charge which gives the chemical properties - while the neutrons can be in number Variable: 146, and in this case the sum is more neutrons protons 238, and this core is not fissile, ie can not be broken, or 143, and in this case the sum is 235 and this is the fissile core. For the atomic bomb, therefore, serves the variety 235, the fissile, while the variety 238 is only useful in that it can be used to produce plutonium: through a process now well known bombards the nucleus with neutrons, which acquires a neutron and after a Internal mixing becomes plutonium 239, in turn fissile. So uranium 238 is not useful in and of itself but as a raw material to make plutonium.

Uranium that exists in nature, 99.3% is made of the isotope 238, and only 0.7% is made of the isotope 235. Since it is necessary to make a nuclear bomb uranium 235, you must try to obtain a larger amount with a special procedure: you take natural uranium, in gaseous form, made precisely for 99.3% of the isotope 238 and 0.7% of the isotope 235; it is put in a centrifuge, the effect of the centrifugal force the heaviest part goes outside, the lighter part remains at the center. In this way, the part that remains at the center is called 'enriched', and uranium-235, while the part that remains outside is called 'depleted' uranium and 238. Of course, to have the amount needed to make an atomic bomb we must enrich uranium up to 90% of the isotope 235, and the result is that this process is very expensive - it is what they are trying to do, they say, the Iranians with their centrifuges: obtain enriched uranium.

It is clear at this point that, since the enrichment requires all these complicated processes and expensive, a State would never dream of using enriched uranium in a normal bomb just to give more strength to the impact: thus the presence of enriched uranium in the crater Khiam or testifies to the fact that a nuclear weapon has been used already containing enriched uranium, or that the uranium was enriched at the time of the blast. In both cases there is something in the nuclear game.
Faced with the results of the two laboratories authorities are obviously ran for cover, and the laboratory owned by the United Nations, for example, denied the results. On the other hand this laboratory has become famous because it has also denied that there was anything in Kosovo ... on the other hand these are not independent laboratories because they depend on political bodies.

After clarifying the issue of uranium, to address the topic of the new weapons used must briefly explain how it is made an atomic bomb of the type used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Once obtained a mixture made of uranium 235, the nuclei that comprise it can be fissionati, that is broken, by neutrons; breaking, the nuclei release energy, a lot of energy, however, the probability that a neutron strikes a nucleus and the break is small, because the neutrons are very small, also the nuclei, and hence the probability that the neutron learn to hit the core is very low: it is like to do the shooting. To increase this probability, it is necessary therefore to put a large number of nuclei: in this way, if the neutron crosses a space where there are many nuclei, sooner or later it gets one.
This technique is the basis of what is called the 'critical mass'.
If I take a block of uranium 235 such that its size exceeds what in jargon is called the 'mean free path', ie the distance to make the neutron before you have a chance to hit a nucleus, each neutron passing of there sooner or later hits a nucleus and then the explosion occurs. The value of the critical mass is a military secret but it is an open secret: we know that it varies between 7 and 8 pounds. So if I take a mass of uranium-235 than 3 pounds, does not burst; increase the mass and 7 pounds I explode.

Given this, it is made a nuclear bomb?
Since I can not hold together the critical mass explodes otherwise, this mass is divided into many sub-masses, fragments that do not explode separately, inserted inside a container lined with explosives outside normal; When it explodes, the fragments implode, that are projected against each other, creating the critical mass and has a bang nuclear. The fact that below the critical mass, there can be nuclear explosion means that the explosion have to be gigantic.
The atomic bomb or destroy an entire city or anything, you can not do with this system only weapon that destroys a building and just. In this sense, the nuclear weapon is a weapon of last resort, inflexible weapon that can not be used for normal military purposes.

Yet, in the cases in question - the first Gulf War, the Balkans, the conflicts of recent years in the Middle East, perhaps in Chechnya - it seems that the weapons used were mini-nuclear weapons, which the military powers deny just saying that like all know, a nuclear weapon does not work below a critical mass.
After the first Gulf War of 1991 was released a book written by a French missionary, Father Jean-Marie Benjamin, translated in Italian with the title Iraq: the Apocalypse, where you have many pictures. You see tanks destroyed, and the distinction is that if you take photographs of World War II, the Korean War, or the first wars of the Middle East, there tanks bombarded retain more or less the original silhouette; only closer you see that there's a big hole in the armor, caused by the grenade that came inside, in contact with vapors of gasoline, produces the blaze that charred the military.
In the pictures from 1991 onwards we see another thing: the tank has lost its silhouette, it became a mass of molten metal. A tank is made of steel and weighs 40 tons, there is no conventional explosive can melt it: it means being able to release a lot of energy and for more localized, because around the tank there is destruction for 20 meters, not beyond. Hiroshima was destroyed in an area whose radius was 1.5 km, ie a circle of 3 km in diameter.
This means that were invented mini-nuclear weapons, overcoming the problem of critical mass? And if passed, as they did? Certainly if so, the result must be well defended the secret.

When did the atomic bomb in '45, the physical principles on which the bomb was based were already known and had been cleared in the thirties: there was little to keep secret, only the technology used to implement well-known physical principles . But if a state invests money and gets to work enough engineers, in the head a few years the secret technology is discovered and revealed.
If it is the physical principle to be unknown, then it is different because you have to have the idea. If someone has an idea, then, the best way to protect it is to depress a blanket of silence, not talk about it and not allow to talk about it, and maybe sidetrack attention to something else, such as depleted uranium.
The first Gulf War began in January 1991, the military mobilization began in the 90's: therefore already in the 90's these weapons existed. What happened on the scientific front in the same years?
There was a big controversy about the so-called 'cold fusion'. In March 1989 two scientists, an Englishman and an American, Fleischmann and Pons, announced that they have managed to achieve it - note that Fleischmann, previously, had worked for seven years in military laboratories of the British navy.

What is cold fusion? Let's first step back: what is the merger?
The nuclei of the elements are a set of protons and neutrons held together by forces of nuclear type in addition, as a correction, the electrostatic repulsion of protons being positive charges repel. If protons are few, this repulsion is small, if you begin to increase the number of the electrical correction starts to become great. There are two extremes: very few nucleons - so defined the subatomic particles that make up the core, either protons or neutrons - or many nucleons.
In the case of many nucleons, such as uranium, where the protons and neutrons are 92 143, the repulsion between these 92 protons threatens the stability of the core which therefore tends to break. In the nuclei-called light instead, for example a core made with 2 protons and 2 neutrons, since these nucleons are attracted to each other and the electrostatic repulsive force is minimal, if I will add another energy produced increases. Imagine two people hugging each other: in two embrace with some force, in four with more force, gradually to the point of saturation.

From light nuclei so you get the release of energy by fusing, ie increasing the number of nucleons, while the heavy nuclei is obtained by breaking; from the latter therefore free energy with the process of fission, breaking the core, from the first rather the opposite, that is melting.
For example: take a hydrogen nucleus made of one proton and just. If I add a neutron get something that is still hydrogen but weighs more: ie heavy hydrogen is deuterium. Then take two deuterium nuclei, put them together and make a nucleus with two neutrons and two protons, which is helium. I made a merger. From this fusion releases energy.

But there is a difficulty in merging: nuclear forces are a million times more intense electrical forces but have a range of very small so only if the two nuclei come into contact merge; if you are a little far, nuclear forces do not have the range sufficient to attract them. On the other side, the electrical forces are much weaker but have the largest radius of action, however, are repulsive: the two nuclei repel each other, and then the fusion can not be realized unless I do not find a way to let them get in touch.
How to do? There are two ways: either by force or with good manners.
The first is the method of so-called 'hot melt', which is based on the idea of ​​giving the nuclei so much of that energy which they win the repulsion; This energy is provided by the temperature.

Made calculations, it turns out that you need a temperature of 60 million degrees to overcome the electrical repulsion. With this technique it was realized the H-bomb, the hydrogen bomb: I take an atomic bomb to fission, it explodes, it produces a temperature of millions of degrees and we have the fusion of the nuclei. The bomb H is therefore a two-stage process. It should be a detonator, formed by a normal atomic bomb, exploding determines that the merger.
Incidentally, this is only useful for military applications, not for the energy, because I can not blow up a nuclear bomb for energy. In the field of energy use then the nuclear still has many problems, because such high temperatures vaporize anything, hydrogen heated to 60 million degrees you have to look good from touching any wall because otherwise vaporizes. The smart idea is to take a container with powerful magnets, confine nuclei in the center of the container, so away from the walls, and bombard them with powerful laser in order to raise the temperature. Standing up, the power of the magnets must still increase because the nuclei tend to repel ... in short, it is a contradiction that never ends and therefore not surprising that the problem is not yet resolved.

In this situation of technological challenge come two professors who say we have achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature, spending five years in the making, since nobody was funding us, our savings, in total the equivalent of 20 million pounds of then. And how? Using good manners instead of violence.
The nuclei are not left alone in a vacuum, but incorporated into a metal matrix, can be found in the free state that electrons are negatively charged. The idea is that electrons, interposed between the deuterium nuclei, they mask. The metal which is suitable to do this is palladium. Fleischmann was one of the greatest electrochemical the world - after the announcement has been portrayed as an idiot who did not understand anything, but he was president of the International Association of electrochemistry - and some have had first received the Palladium Medal, the Medal of palladium: he took this pataccone and fused to make the electrodes in which to insert the nuclei.
When the number of deuterium nuclei inserted in the metal exceeds a certain threshold - which corresponds to a core of palladium for each deuterium nucleus - deuterium nuclei begin to merge spontaneously and releases energy in the form of electromagnetic fields that have the frequency of gamma rays, fields which then degrade and give rise to the heat. Now: the frequency of gamma rays is suitable to break a nucleus.

If, then, rather than use a 'bullet', as a neutron, seeks an electromagnetic field, which is not point-like but extended, the problem of the critical mass to have a nuclear explosion does not exist anymore, because an extended field has no difficulty in ' hit 'all nuclei that is, to shake them vigorously - given that the electromagnetic field is a swing - and break them. Thus we have found an alternative way of achieving nuclear fission without using 'bullets', and thus overcome the problem of ballistic hit the target. This will not break your heart but taken down by resonance.

That this is not a hypothesis but a certainty I can personally guarantee it, because I participated in cold fusion experiments made in Frascati and examining electron microscope, after the experiment, the metal piece in which this occurred, it showed that c 'virgins were areas where nothing had happened, and areas where the entire crystal lattice was uneven; by examination of the nature of the nuclei with another technique, called SEM, these were in the tracts virgin, 99.9% of palladium nuclei, while in the uneven sections were 10% nickel, and the core of nickel is about half of the core of palladium. This means that had occurred a fission palladium.
Incidentally, the fission of palladium is completely harmless, does not free energy because palladium is neither heavy nor light but not in balance and then broke free energy.

This experiment was done in 2002, but suppose someone had discovered these physical principles much earlier than they did Fleischmann and Pons; Suppose that in the 70/80, in military laboratories, someone has discovered this thing, and have tried to use as host metal, uranium instead of palladium. Even the uranium nuclei would break, but unlike the nuclei of palladium would release energy. So you could get a nuclear explosion, and no critical mass; there would be no need to blow 7/8 pounds of uranium, could suffice even a gram. It could therefore realize a nuclear weapon the size of a pistol bullet. And that would power this mini nuclear explosion?

We make a proportion: Hiroshima, using 7 pounds of uranium 235, for which I have to use 1,000 pounds of uranium normal - because the ratio of 0.7% uranium 235 in uranium present in nature - has produced an explosion which corresponds to 20,000 tons of TNT, or twenty kilotons. With a pound would explosion equal to 1,000 times less, 20 tons; with a gram would the equivalent of 20 pounds of TNT, which correspond to the position of a cannon.
Then, firing a bullet from a gun gram not only produce the effect of a cannon, but I also have all the consequences of a nuclear explosion, or radioactivity.

Probably, at the base of the so-called Gulf War syndrome is the fact that the US military did not expect radioactive effects because, in fact, this is a non-radioactive fission: while a neutron strikes a nucleus breaks in the case, as when one throws a glass against a wall, if the core is put into resonance in reality is not broken but, in fact, taken down; its fragments are then in equilibrium and therefore not radioactive - the radioactivity is caused by the fact that a fragment is not in balance and begins to throw out some particles to find the balance.
This is true, however, in the first instance, because they still are emitted gamma rays that make radioactive surrounding matter and produce a second-radioactivity that produces health effects.
It is true that this type of radiation is confined to 30/50 meters from where the explosion occurred, which is an area much smaller than that involved in Hiroshima, but it is also true that the Hiroshima bomb was: if Use percent of these bombs, or thousands of these projectiles, can I still cover the entire territory of radioactivity.

On the basis of this discovery the great powers, those before and those after, realize therefore weapons of this kind, made in this way: take a piece of uranium, is charged with deuterium to just below the threshold, so it does not explode in hand, it shoots the bullet, the bullet hits the target, it undergoes a compression that makes the density of deuterium to go above the threshold, snaps cold fusion, produces the electromagnetic field that shakes the uranium nuclei which begin to break and we bang nuclear. The process is then reversed with respect to the H-bomb: while in this we use a fission bomb to trigger fusion, here we use the opposite fusion to trigger fission.

Let's go back to the first Iraq war in 1991. A war correspondent reported the following fact: he saw a chariot Iraqi chased by an American tank. The first hid behind a sand dune, the second, without even going to try to flush him out, he fired a cannon against the dune. The bullet passed the dune from side to side, struck the chariot of Iraq and destroyed it.
First, such a power of cannon was never seen in conventional weapons; secondly, the corpses of Iraqi soldiers had black skin. They were charred, the hair, such as eyebrows, were intact: those soldiers had not burned, as were sunburned. But given that the gamma rays are much more powerful ultraviolet rays, it was as if the poor had been made a super lamp. This event is the evidence that there happened a nuclear phenomenon.

Another case, in Baghdad: an air raid shelter was hit by a missile which pierced a concrete block of a few meters in diameter and went inside, exploding and killing all the people present. The peculiarity is that on the wall were printed silhouette of three people, one of which was a pregnant woman. Why? The person who is there and who then casts its shadow on the wall is instantly vaporized, which takes place in a very short time: the shadow did not have time to disappear, because the heat wave heats the entire wall in the shade and not save the part in shadow. Facts like these have been photographed in Hiroshima.
This means that those persons have been vaporized, and there is no chemical explosion capable of vaporizing a person.

Another example: in Basra, where there were heavy bombardments, the percentage of tumors has multiplied exponentially. While in 1989 deaths from cancer were 34, in 2001 exceeding 600 cases and show rare tumors. The primary oncology of Basra, which had reported these data, subsequently received a formal warning from the Iraqi government not to disclose further, cutting the total worth of the loans; of course, has not spoken.

It was also conducted an intermediate weapon, used its near Basra; is under investigation conducted by Maurizio Torrealta video and aired by Rainews24 in 2008, still visible and downloadable on the site (1).
American veterans say that the last day of the war, February 27, 1991, the US Air Force dropped an atomic bomb in the area between Basra and the Iranian border. To confirm this, Torrealta has a brilliant idea: check in area and at that time, the seismographs have detected an earthquake. Nuclear explosion, in fact, produces a wave similar to an earthquake but with different characteristics: while this part of the plan and then grows, nuclear explosion strong part and then decreases, so if you look at the shape of the wave can be distinguished an event on the other. There is also a table, created in the fifties, which measures the force of the explosion according to the Richter scale for earthquakes.

Torrealta caters Seismological Observatory of Stockholm, specializing in test and check if countries whether or not nuclear tests. The observatory says that February 27, 1991 were recorded earthquakes 30 miles east of Basra, at 13:39 local time, an event of 4.2 on the Richter scale. I declare that the characteristics of the profile of the event can not, for reasons related to the statute Stockholm Observatory, to be made public, and the only thing that can be said is that the recorded event is not incompatible with a nuclear event and that occurred at the surface, between zero and 33 kilometers deep.
The table says that 4.2 on the Richter scale corresponds to 5 kilotons, that is a quarter of the power used in Hiroshima; therefore, less than that which corresponds to the critical mass. However remarkable, because of 5,000 tons of TNT.
Why the last day of the war the Americans would use a weapon of this type, moreover in a desert area where apparently there were no targets? You can only make assumptions: taking into account that the area is contiguous to the Iranian border, the explosion may have been a warning to Iran.
[source] (translation by Google Translator)
Article wrote by:
Emilio Del Giudice ( 1 January 1940 – 31 January 2014) was an Italian theoretical physicist who worked in the field of condensed matter. Pioneer of string theory in the early 1970s, later on he became better known for his work with Giuliano Preparata at the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN);

Post popolari in questo blog

Septum piercing anello al naso: significato di una moda particolare

Si chiama septum piercing, il piercing al naso, quello che in lingua italiana si chiama anello al naso, tipico delle antiche popolazioni africane e australiane, è diventata una moda, vediamo insieme cosa significa di questo nuovo trend: l'anello al naso o septum piercing in voga specialmente tra le ragazze, ma non disdegnato dai ragazzi.

Septum piercing - anello al naso: cosa significa?
Qual'è il significato di un anello al naso? i significati del Septum o piercing al naso sono molteplici, uno per ogni cultura e uno per ogni periodo storico.
Oggi come oggi, portarlo in Italia significa solo un vezzo, una moda, niente di più, ma andiamo a vedere alcune cose che bisognerebbe sapere riguardo un anello al naso.

L'anello al naso è tipico dei bovini, serviva per prendere i bovini con una corda e condurli dove si voleva, da qui il detto "prendere per il naso", cioè portare a spasso, come si dice a Roma, che nella lingua italiana potremmo dire "prendere in giro"…

Resilienza: significato del Tatuaggio

Anche Gianluca Vacchi ha un tatuaggio con la scritta resilienza, ma cosa significa questa parola? La resilienza indica tutte quelle persone che, nonostante le avversità della vita, non si abbattono e si rialzano anche più forti di prima. Descrive tutte quelle persone che hanno un carattere forte e che sanno fare tesoro delle esperienze negative della vita e sfruttarle a proprio vantaggio. Descrive la capacità di evolvere anche grazie agli eventi negativi.
Il termine ha spopolato grazie all’imprenditore Gianluca Vacchi che tra Facebook e Istagram conta oltre un milione di fan. Vacchi ha tatuato la parola “resilienza” sul proprio corpo e ne ha fatto anche una filosofia di vita. Resilienza significato La resilenza indica la capacità di un corpo di resistere ad eventi che provocano uno choc e di riprendere la sua struttura iniziale. In ambito psicologico indica la capacità di un individuo di superare i momenti dolorosi dell’esistenza e di evolvere, nonostante le avversità.
La resilienz…

COVID-19 Tassi di Mortalità per Età Sesso e Condizioni Mediche

Età, sesso, condizioni esistenti di casi e decessi di COVID-19Ultimo aggiornamento: 18 febbraio, 16:10 GMT Età delle morti per coronavirusSulla base di tutti i 72.314 casi di COVID-19 confermati, sospetti e casi asintomatici in Cina dall'11 febbraio, un articolo del CCDC cinese pubblicato il 17 febbraio e pubblicato sul Chinese Journal of Epidemiology ( vedi FONTE in fondo all'articolo ) ha scoperto che il rischio di la morte aumenta con l'età, come segue : Tasso di mortalità COVID-19 per ETÀ:ETÀ TASSO DI MORTALITÀ80+ anni 14,8% 70-79 anni 8,0% 60-69 anni 3,6% 50-59 anni 1,3% 40-49 anni 0,4% 30-39 anni 0,2% 20-29 anni 0,2% 10-19 anni 0,2% 0-9 annisenza vittime In generale, si osservano relativamente pochi casi tra i bambini.
In questi dati si osserva che la mortalità più alta è superati gli 80 anni. Quasi 15 persone su 100 che hanno preso il coronavirus sono morte se avevano superato gli 80 anni di età.
Molto importante anche il dato dei bambini sotto ai 9 anni: non c'è 1 morto tra i bambin…

20 Lavori Più Pagati Senza Laurea

L'Università  è sopravvalutata? I 20 migliori lavori di pagamento senza laurea
"Devi studiare per ottenere un buon lavoro."
Quella era una frase che mio padre mi picchiava continuamente nella testa più di quanto Lars Ulrich potesse battere sulla sua grancassa. (Nel caso ci sia un gap generazionale, Lars è il batterista del gruppo rock Metallica).
Mentre sono grato di aver seguito il consiglio di mio padre e di aver ottenuto la mia laurea in finanza, un interessante articolo di ha colto la mia curiosità. L'articolo aveva dato uno sguardo ad alcuni dei lavori più pagati che si potrebbero ottenere senza laurea.

Come evidenziato dal College Board in un recente sondaggio che illustra i cambiamenti nelle tasse scolastiche tra il 2008 e il 2018 e il 2018, le tasse scolastiche sono in costante ascesa. Negli ultimi 10 anni, il costo medio di un diploma privato di 4 anni è aumentato di oltre $ 7000 entro il 2019, forse rendendo l'idea di ottenere quella laure…

Buoni Fruttiferi Postali 2020 Interessi Rendimenti Consigli Opinioni

I Buoni Fruttiferi Postali 2020 (BFP) sono da sempre uno degliinvestimenti più sicuri per gli italiani. Quali interessi danno oggi? Conviene investire soldi nei Buoni Postali in questo 2020?

In un periodo di crescente sfiducia da parte del risparmiatore, clima dovuto ai recenti scandali pompati anche dalla stampa e dall'opinione pubblica che hanno coinvolto Banche conosciute a livello nazionale ( anche perchè una di loro interessava un importante membro del Governo), nonchè alla nuova normativa in vigore dal Gennaio 2016 che prevede il Bail In, cioè il prelievo forzoso dai conti correnti superiori a 100 mila euro di importo in caso di fallimento di una banca, i clienti di molte banche stanno seriamente pensando di spostare l'eccedenza dei 100 mila euro verso risparmi garantiti dallo Stato, cioé Buoni Postali e libretti postali.

Purtroppo come tutti sanno i gli interessi dei Buoni Fruttiferi Postali non sono molto alti in questo periodo anzi, possiamo dire tranquillamente che h…