[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: The Kitchen Table Atom Bomb...review
". The USA has conducted such tests - of these I know almost nothing."
The US blew up its first "Dirty Bomb" back in 1957. The US "Safety Shots"
consisted of Project 57 located near Area 51 and the Roller Coaster series
(1963); Double Tracks, Clean Slate I, II, and III. Two other safety shots
were conducted at Plutonium Valley in Area 11 of the NTS; and at the
Gadgets, Mechanics and Explosives (GMX) site in Area 5 of the NTS. The
safety tests did not result in significant nuclear yield (zero I think), but
resulted in Pu dispersion at 3,000 plus acres of surface soils. Some of
these test involved animals placed at pre determined distances from the
chemical detonation of U and Pu mock warheads to investigate uptake. During
the nuclear rocket development days a nuclear reactor containing high
enriched U-235 (~93%)was blown up (on purpose) by turning the control rods
out so fast that the resultant vapor pressure blew it apart. The
contamination cloud was tracked as far south as San Diego and up to Oxnard
CA before heading out to sea. Only a small fraction of these sites have
been cleaned up. The Air force, DOE, and the State of Nevada can not agree
on what dose model to use.
-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Schoenhofer <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>
To: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM <AndrewsJP@AOL.COM>; newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk
<newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk>
Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
Date: Thursday, June 13, 2002 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: The Kitchen Table Atom Bomb...review
>
>-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>Von: AndrewsJP@AOL.COM <AndrewsJP@AOL.COM>
>An: newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk <newsonline.errors@bbc.co.uk>
>Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
>Datum: Donnerstag, 13. Juni 2002 20:13
>Betreff: The Kitchen Table Atom Bomb...review
>
>
>>You say in this report:
>>
>> 'The report adds: "Even if the device, when detonated, did not produce
a
>>significant nuclear explosion, the explosion of the chemical high
>explosives
>>would disperse the plutonium widely."
>>
>> 'So much of the stricken city would remain uninhabitable until
>>decontaminated, which could take years. '
>>
>>Please note, aside from the fact that such a weapon will not provide a
>>nuclear explosion for a variety of physical reasons, that the standard
>method
>>for recovering from widespread plutonium contamination in buildings and
>>streets is to simply paint it, then clean up the paint. This is
relatively
>>clean and quick; not the scenario you propose. This technique is slightly
>>more difficult in tomato fields and on snow and ice, but the process still
>>works.
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To clean up plutonium contamination is most probably almost routine for the
>army. Remember the accidents at Thule, Greenland and Palomares, Spain?
>Plutonium was spread widely because airplanes crashed and plutonium bombs
>were destroyed. Maybe the plutonium was not so finely dispersed as it might
>be when detonated "properly". People still live in the areas affected.
>
>Another good experience is the use of explosives to detonate nuclear bombs
>to look whether a chain reaction would be started - they were called
"Safety
>Tests". The USA has conducted such tests - of these I know almost nothing.
>Great Britain has done it at Maralinga and as far as I know, efforts for
>cleaning up are still going on, or at least the battle, who will pay for
it.
>France has done it at Mururoa and of this I know quite well, because one of
>the most important tasks of my "Terrestrial Group" in the framework of the
>International Mururoa Study, conducted by the IAEA, was to check the areas
>for contamination, where the atmospheric safety tests had been conducted. I
>have to admit, that those areas are uninhabitable, so the decontamination
>criteria have not been so strict as they probably would be for Manhattan,
>but we could show, that there was practically no possibility for people
>visiting those areas to incorporate enough plutonium to suffer from it: The
>large particles with enough plutonium in them could not be resuspended and
>therefore not inhaled. The smalls which might get airborne contained to
>little plutonium, so no harm was to be expected from inhalation. So I was
>twice in an area with "a lot" of plutonium on the ground without any
>protective clothing - except for plastic overshoes in order not to
>contaminate the laboratory(!) and I have not suffered any illness, nor have
>the friends in my group. Therefore not even the dispersal of some dozens of
>gramms of plutonium (where to get them from?) would in my opinion not do
any
>harm, at least not in the long term. Gamma-emitters like Cs-137 or Co-60
>would do even less.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Franz
>
>
>************************************************************************
>You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
>send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
>radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
>You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/
>
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.
You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/