[ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

Tue Aug 6 06:18:57 CDT 2013

Maury: you caused me to spend over a day in reading all the interesting information on the web regarding the development of the "boys" and led on to a review of criticality incidents.

Those who did similar Google searches probably came across information on the two criticality accidents (both with fatal consequence) with a plutonium core (nicknamed thereafter the "demon core"): see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core

But what became evident after a while is that more often, criticality accidents occurred with liquid processes. Which is probably common knowledge among many on this list. Not being someone who has been involved in the processing of radioactive materials, I was interested to see how easily a small error could cause material to go critical, sometimes with serious or fatal consequence. 

Here is a summary of all US criticality accidents:
http://www.cddc.vt.edu/host/atomic/accident/critical.html

I also found this very comprehensive review of criticality accidents that includes those in Russia:
http://www.orau.org/ptp/library/accidents/la-13638.pdf

Regards
___________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Aitken
QHSE Advisor, Schlumberger D&M Operations Support
Cell Phone: 713-562-8585
(alternate e-mail: doug.aitken at slb.com )
Mail:
Schlumberger, Drilling & Measurements HQ,
300 Schlumberger Drive, MD15,
Sugar Land, Texas 77478

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Franz Schönhofer
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 3:04 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

Maury et al.,

More than enough and detailed information about nuclear weapons including "Little Boy" can be found on google. For information on the latter just type in the words and there is at least one information which would answer all your questions! There are also films frequently shown in documentaries, how the bomb was loaded into the Enola Gay and I would be surprised if these scenes were not available on the internet. There exists a number of excellent books on the Manhattan Project with a lot of details - I bought a few during my visits to Los Alamos, Albuquerque, the Trinity site etc. Don't forget the museum in Albuquerque with replicas.

U-235 has a shorter half-life than U-238, therefore it is more radioactive than natural uranium, but not so much that handling would involve a radiation risk.

One conclusion one can draw, is that this uranium would not be effective for a dirty weapon! Plutonium would be a different story if one would be able to disperse it extremely finely.

Best regards,

Franz

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
From: McClung, Danny
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 6:31 PM
To: 'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

Maury,

The components are only mildly radioactive prior to nuclear detonation.  Not a lot of shielding required.

It would likely be something small.  10 KT seems a plausible yield.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Maury
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 12:17 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Curiosity query

Can anyone tell me or suggest a link to description of the size and weight of the radioactive components of the Hiroshima bomb?  Also would like to know weight and size of the shielding required to handle this material.  How did they load this material onto the USS Indianapolis without lethal irradiation of handlers?  Am wondering if these answers would shed any light on what would be required to attempt a practicable so-called dirty bomb if not a practicable nuclear weapon.

Seems to me that terrorist groups would be hard pressed to handle a nuclear weapon even if any of our opponents saw fit to give them one ...?  The implication to me is that a dirty bomb of any serious yield would not be feasible?

Thanks for comments.
Maury&Dog
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu 

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu