top of page

Domestic Child Sex Trafficking

Public·16 members

Target Dust Buster



The Damp Duster collects and traps dust in one quick wipe! Under running water it rinses clean so you can use it time and time again. Perfect for blinds, vents, baseboard, railings, mirrors and more! Product arrives pre-moistened in packaging. Dampen with water before each use to soften foam.




target dust buster


Download File: https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fjinyurl.com%2F2ueyJ8&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AOvVaw2Mk9QFmhy7RaahdAIJ2R6y



Love this duster all of scub daddy products are absolutely amazing!!! I have gotten friends and coworkers to buy products, they love them as well. Eveytime I tell someone about them, they tell me I should be a sells person cause I make them run to a store and buy them.


This product is a game changer!! It picks up dust completely, instead of spreading it around into the air. Rinses completely and lasts for such a long time!! Everyone should have at least one in their homes!


This little piece of magic allowed me to get dust quick and easily from places that were hard to reach. It dusts so fast, that I can get the dusting done quickly. I was shocked to see how much it could pick up in just a few swipes.


S/o to Vanesa Amaro from TikTok. I ordered 2 when they finally came back in stock. I was wanting to try something to clean the dust from my bathroom and around the house. I was shocked on how much dust I had around!!! 10/10 recommend.


i loved this, but the first one i ordered got moldy in a week. it arrived damp and sealed, so i stored it damp and sealed. i guess it has to dry out? i ordered three more dusters (upstairs, downstairs and a give-away one to my mom) and will try to let them dry out?


This duster is amazing! It gets into every groove, nook and cranny and lifts every bit of dust. It also saves me time. I used to use a wet rag and once the rag was full of dust, it took some time to wash the dust off it before I could continue. With this, the dust washes away completely with a quick rinse. So glad I bought two because I never want to be without this!


I first saw this being used by someone on Instagram while cleaning dust from their baseboards. I wanted to try them, but they were sold out. I stalked the website until they were in stock. It was definitely worth the wait. It is now a staple in my cleaning supplies. The best invention ever!


I love this product but I wish I knew how to dry it correctly. Everytime I place it down it gets like orangy like if it gets rust which is weird I never know where to dry it but, besides that it so helpful when dusting and reusable!


This product is pure magic! It picks up dirt and dust so easily! The best part, is that it all rinses right off under water, and the Damp Duster looks brand new again. I love that it is reusable! Just an all around wonderful product! Another home run for Scrub Daddy!


I bought this duster and it works great. It picks up the dust and does not filter it back into the air like my swifter does. It cleans the surface and dust does not seem to settle back down in the same place as it holds on to the dust until I wash it out. It does not replace my swifter as I need a handle for some places but it is my preferred tool. If they can add something with a handle then this would be my single dusting item. LOVE IT and bought backups.


A nuclear bunker buster,[1] also known as an earth-penetrating weapon (EPW), is the nuclear equivalent of the conventional bunker buster. The non-nuclear component of the weapon is designed to penetrate soil, rock, or concrete to deliver a nuclear warhead to an underground target. These weapons would be used to destroy hardened, underground military bunkers or other below-ground facilities. An underground explosion releases a larger fraction of its energy into the ground, compared to a surface burst or air burst explosion at or above the surface, and so can destroy an underground target using a lower explosive yield. This in turn could lead to a reduced amount of radioactive fallout. However, it is unlikely that the explosion would be completely contained underground. As a result, significant amounts of rock and soil would be rendered radioactive and lofted as dust or vapor into the atmosphere, generating significant fallout.


While conventional bunker busters use several methods to penetrate concrete structures, these are for the purpose of destroying the structure directly, and are generally limited in how much of a bunker (or system of bunkers) they can destroy by depth and their relatively low explosive force (versus nuclear weapons).


The primary difference between conventional and nuclear bunker busters is that, while the conventional version is meant for one target, the nuclear version can destroy an entire underground bunker system.


Major advancements in the accuracy and precision of nuclear and conventional weapons subsequent to the invention of the missile silo itself have also rendered many "hardening" technologies useless. With modern weapons capable of striking within feet (meters) of their intended targets, a modern "near miss" can be much more effective than a "hit" decades ago. A weapon need only cover the silo door with sufficient debris to prevent its immediate opening to render the missile inside useless for its intended mission of rapid strike or counter-strike deployment.[citation needed]


A nuclear bunker buster negates most of the countermeasures involved in the protection of underground bunkers by penetrating the defenses prior to detonating. A relatively low yield may be able to produce seismic forces beyond those of an air burst or even ground burst of a weapon with twice its yield.[citation needed] Additionally, the weapon has the ability to impart more severe horizontal shock waves than many bunker systems are designed to combat by detonating at or near the bunker's depth, rather than above it.


Geologic factors also play a major role in weapon effectiveness and facility survivability. Locating facilities in hard rock may appear to reduce the effectiveness of bunker-buster type weapons by decreasing penetration, but the hard rock also transmits shock forces to a far higher degree than softer soil types. The difficulties of drilling into and constructing facilities within hard rock also increase construction time and expense, as well as making it more likely construction will be discovered and new sites targeted by foreign militaries.[citation needed]


While soil is a less dense material, it also does not transmit shock waves as well as concrete. So while a penetrator may actually travel further through soil, its effect may be lessened due to its inability to transmit shock to the target.


Altering the shape of the projectile to incorporate an ogive shape has yielded substantial improvement in penetration ability. Rocket sled testing at Eglin Air Force Base has demonstrated penetrations of 100 to 150 feet (30 to 46 m) in concrete[citation needed] when traveling at 4,000 ft/s (1,200 m/s). The reason for this is liquefaction of the concrete in the target, which tends to flow over the projectile. Variation in the speed of the penetrator can either cause it to be vaporized on impact (in the case of traveling too fast), or to not penetrate far enough (in the case of traveling too slowly). An approximation for the penetration depth is obtained with an impact depth formula derived by Sir Isaac Newton.


Another school of thought on nuclear bunker busters is using a light penetrator to travel 15 to 30 meters through shielding, and detonate a nuclear charge there. Such an explosion would generate powerful shock waves, which would be transmitted very effectively through the solid material comprising the shielding (see "scabbing" above).


The main criticisms of nuclear bunker busters regard fallout and nuclear proliferation. The purpose of an earth-penetrating nuclear bunker buster is to reduce the required yield needed to ensure the destruction of the target by coupling the explosion to the ground, yielding a shock wave similar to an earthquake. For example, the United States retired the B-53 warhead, with a yield of nine megatons, because the B-61 Mod 11 could attack similar targets with much lower yield (400 kilotons),[citation needed] due to the latter's superior ground penetration. By burying itself into the ground before detonation, a much higher proportion of the explosion energy is transferred to seismic shock[2] when compared to the surface burst produced from the B-53's laydown delivery. Moreover, the globally dispersed fallout of an underground B-61 Mod 11 would likely be less than that of a surface burst B-53. Supporters note that this is one of the reasons nuclear bunker busters should be developed. Critics claim that developing new nuclear weapons sends a proliferating message to non-nuclear powers, undermining non-proliferation efforts.[who?]


Local fallout from any nuclear detonation is increased with proximity to the ground. While a megaton-class yield surface burst will inevitably throw up many tons of (newly) radioactive debris, which falls back to the earth as fallout, critics contend that despite their relatively minuscule explosive yield, nuclear bunker busters create more local fallout per kiloton yield.[citation needed] Also, because of the subsurface detonation, radioactive debris may contaminate the local groundwater.


Proponents, however, contend that lower explosive yield devices and subsurface bursts would produce little to no climatic effects in the event of a nuclear war, in contrast to multi-megaton air and surface bursts (that is, if the nuclear winter hypothesis proves accurate). Lower fuzing heights, which would result from partially buried warheads, would limit or completely obstruct the range of the burning thermal rays of a nuclear detonation, therefore limiting the target, and its surroundings, to a fire hazard by reducing the range of thermal radiation with fuzing for subsurface bursts.[5][6] Professors Altfeld and Cimbala have suggested that belief in the possibility of nuclear winter has actually made nuclear war more likely, contrary to the views of Carl Sagan and others, because it has inspired the development of more accurate, and lower explosive yield, nuclear weapons.[7] 041b061a72


About

Welcome to the group! You can connect with other members, ge...
bottom of page