DOCSLIB.ORG

Taking on the Future

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taking on the Future Harold Agnew TAKING ON THE and Los Alamos scientists discuss the potential of the FUTURE Laboratory nuclear capability? What kinds of Project and was director of the Labo- activities are necessary to avoid sur- ratory from 1970 to 1979. He be- prises from foreign military technol- came president of General Atomic ogy? Why has basic research always Company after leaving Los Alamos been an essential part of the Labora- and is now retired. He is known for tory? What is special about the Los his candor, his enthusiasm for nu- Alamos culture? What new opportu- clear energy, his pride in Los Alamos, nities have been brought about by and his strength as a leader. Harold the end of the Cold War? How can very effectively encouraged the par- the Laboratory contribute to the eco- ticipants to express their diverse in- Harold Agnew and Paul White nomic security of the nation? terests and opinions. he occasion of the fiftieth an Last October Los Alamos Science Here we present a condensed ver- niversary of Los Alamos Na- invited Laboratory physicists, mathe- sion of the day-long discussion. We Ttional Laboratory offers an op- maticians, biologists, chemists, and thank everyone who participated and portunity to celebrate the past and computer scientists to discuss these hope our readers will appreciate the explore questions about the future. questions in an open forum. To add individuality, talent, creativity, and What is the Laboratory’s mission historical perspective and a little passionate commitment to science now that the Cold War is over? more spice, we invited Harold Agnew and the nation that characterize What responsibility does the Labora- to join us. Harold began his career these scientists and, in fact, the en- tory have in maintaining the nation’s at Los Alamos during the Manhattan tire staff of the Laboratory. 4 Los Alamos Science Number 21 1993 Taking on the Future Harold Agnew: I was asked to success in stopping Soviet expan- I’ve given just one brief example of begin this discussion of the Labora- sion certainly enabled, in the long the importance of the United States tory and its future by commenting run, what transpired in the last two weapons capabilities, hoping to il- first on the past impact of the nu- years; that is, the disintegration of lustrate how important our weapons clear-weapons laboratories. Fol- the Soviet Union. Most people don’t labs are to the stability of both this lowing World War II, the Lab’s first appreciate what transpired in the nation and the world. Clearly the big impact on world politics was in late forties and early fifties and the United States needs to maintain a 1948 when NATO was first being role the weapons labs played. We credible nuclear weapons deterrent formed. In a program called Back- actually made all the weapons at Los capability, and I think Los Alamos is breaker, Los Alamos and Sandia had Alamos and worked with Sandia on in the best position to help do that the job of producing fifty Mark V packaging those weapons in appro- job, not only because of its facilities fission weapons and then shipping priate aerodynamic shapes. People but also because most of the them over to England on a newly also seem to forget that Sandia was weapons in the stockpile were de- initiated Air Force B-47 squadron. part of Los Alamos in the early days. signed at Los Alamos. I am some- The Soviet Union had been gobbling Now there’s some talk of consolidat- what concerned about proposals to up the Eastern European countries, ing Sandia and Los Alamos under a make Los Alamos the sole nuclear- but as soon as NATO was formed, single University of California con- weapons laboratory, but if there is to backed up by the deployment of the tract as part of the plan to scale be only one, I believe it should be at Mark Vs overseas, Soviet expansion down the weapons program. It will Los Alamos. On the other hand, I came to an abrupt halt. NATO’s be interesting to see what happens. don’t like the idea that Los Alamos 1993 Number 21 Los Alamos Science 5 Taking on the Future may perhaps work on nothing but Los Alamos has always been a David Sharp: As I see it the need nuclear weapons. The Laboratory unique institution. Over the last for national security is going to tran- employs a tremendous group of five decades both the importance of scend the end of the cold war. The technical people who can contribute nuclear weapons and the difficulty world is going to remain an uncer- to a broad range of national needs. I of advancing nuclear technology tain place, and nuclear-weapons think your director, Sig Hecker, has have required that Los Alamos be a technology is not going to disappear. done a tremendous job of fostering We will have to live with uncertain- collaboration with General Motors, ty on the political landscape as well and with industry in general. That as with the virtual certainty of new is the sort of thing the Labs are technological challenges. So we going to have to do. Now I’d like to will need to maintain a nuclear- hear your major concerns and ideas weapons capability. One of the keys about the future of the Laboratory. to that capability is people. How are we going to retain a group of Greg Canavan: As I see it, the en- people who are smart, motivated, tire future of the nuclear-weapons and knowledgeable about nuclear program in this country is very un- weapons? The only way is to give certain. On the one hand, the mili- these people things to do that are in- tary forces are essentially walking teresting, challenging, and impor- away from nuclear weapons as fast tant. I have a couple of thoughts on as they can. On the other hand, a lot what those things might be. of senior people in the defense es- tablishment understand that nuclear Greg Canavan First, in the present political climate weapons are a class unto themselves we need to develop the capability to and that we must maintain nuclear design simple, robust nuclear competence regardless of whether It’s clear that the size weapons, the reliability of which these weapons are currently popular and scope of the nuclear can be guaranteed in the absence of relative to smart conventional full-scale testing. We have to learn weapons. Those senior people will establishment are going to design weapons on the basis of be around for the next decade or two to contract pretty sharply better computations, better model- and will ensure that the nuclear- ing, and the testing of components. weapons laboratories maintain some over the next one or two Second, this Lab is rich in dual-use level of competence. But it is decades. The question technologies, technologies that doubtful whether the laboratories apply to both defense and non-de- will be asked to develop new nu- is: What does that fense problems, and we need to turn clear technology. If you listen to the mean for Los Alamos as those strengths in new directions. debates within the nuclear establish- ment, you hear some say it would be a whole? Ray Juzaitis: These are good sug- useful to develop an earth-penetrator gestions, but the political process weapon in case we have to fight a fairly broad-spectrum laboratory at may have overtaken our technologi- Gulf-type war again, but that’s about the forefront of a whole range of cal preparedness. The constraints the only new need that’s mentioned. technologies, including materials, on nuclear testing imposed by the So it’s clear that the size and scope explosives, nuclear physics, atomic Hatfield provisions will prevent the of the nuclear establishment are physics, radiation transport, and so type of deliberate and careful transi- going to contract pretty sharply over on. But nuclear weapons are not tion that you are describing. A few the next one or two decades. The going to be a catalyst for technology years ago Congress legislated a question is: What does that mean development in the next one to two Test-Ban Readiness program, but at for Los Alamos as a whole? decades. the same time, our budgets were cut, 6 Los Alamos Science Number 21 1993 Taking on the Future so we could not address all the tech- now. If we wanted to respond to a fy nuclear weapons at the same high nical issues and requirements that national crisis, we’d be able to come level of confidence as the airlines “test-ban readiness” implied. Now up with a smaller, more efficient certify 747s. But unless we have a we are caught. We would like to put weapon—and do it faster—even if program that exercises our nuclear on the shelf more robust and safer we started from scratch again. So, capabilities to at least the intermedi- weapon design as well as execute what do we want the program to be ate level of contained underground some good “bridging experiments” capable of doing now? We need to testing, there will come a time when in anticipation of a zero-test envi- maintain the stockpile, but we need no one will be able to certify a ronment, but the political climate to specify what that entails. We weapon and the whole image of de- may now prevent us from doing so. must also be able to respond to fu- terrence with safe and reliable nu- ture belligerent governments.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biographies of Edison Lecturers
    Harold Agnew, UC San Diego Professor Agnew was born in Denver, Colorado, in 1921. He received a B.A. in chemistry from the University of Denver in 1942. He joined Fermi’s research group at Chicago as a graduate student in 1942. He was sent to Columbia and then moved with Fermi back to Chicago and participated in the construction of the pile under the west stands of Stagg Field. He was a witness at the initiation of the first controlled nuclear chain reaction on December 2, 1942. Following this event he moved to Los Alamos in 1943. He participated at the Trinity test, the first test explosion of a nuclear bomb at the White Sands Missile test facility in New Mexico. On August 6, 1945; he flew with the 509th Composite Group to Hiroshima with Luis Alvarez (UC Berkeley) and Bernie Waldman (Notre Dame). He participated at the measurement of the yield of the first atomic bomb directly from air over the target. In 1946 he returned to Chicago to complete his graduate studies and received a Ph.D. in 1949 under Fermi’s direction. Following his stay at Chicago he returned to Los Alamos in the Physics Division and eventually became the Weapons Division leader (1964-70). In 1970 he became director of the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory. In 1979 he retired and became president of General Atomics and retired in 1983. Harold Agnew was scientific advisor to SACEUR at NATO (1961-64), a member of the President’s Science Advisory Committee (1965-73), and a White House science councilor (1982-89).
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013.Pdf
    ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION Preserving & Interpreting Manhattan Project History & Legacy preserving history ANNUAL REPORT 2013 WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE THE MANHATTAN PROJECT “The factories and bombs that Manhattan Project scientists, engineers, and workers built were physical objects that depended for their operation on physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and other nat- ural sciences, but their social reality - their meaning, if you will - was human, social, political....We preserve what we value of the physical past because it specifically embodies our social past....When we lose parts of our physical past, we lose parts of our common social past as well.” “The new knowledge of nuclear energy has undoubtedly limited national sovereignty and scaled down the destructiveness of war. If that’s not a good enough reason to work for and contribute to the Manhattan Project’s historic preservation, what would be? It’s certainly good enough for me.” ~Richard Rhodes, “Why We Should Preserve the Manhattan Project,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2006 Photographs clockwise from top: J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie R. Groves pinning an award on Enrico Fermi, Leona Woods Marshall, the Alpha Racetrack at the Y-12 Plant, and the Bethe House on Bathtub Row. Front cover: A Bruggeman Ranch property. Back cover: Bronze statues by Susanne Vertel of J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves at Los Alamos. Table of Contents BOARD MEMBERS & ADVISORY COMMITTEE........3 Cindy Kelly, Dorothy and Clay Per- Letter from the President..........................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons Technology 101 for Policy Wonks Bruce T
    NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY FOR POLICY WONKS NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS BRUCE T. GOODWIN BRUCE T. GOODWIN BRUCE T. Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory August 2021 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS BRUCE T. GOODWIN Center for Global Security Research Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory August 2021 NUCLEAR WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY 101 FOR POLICY WONKS | 1 This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in part under Contract W-7405-Eng-48 and in part under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The views and opinions of the author expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. ISBN-978-1-952565-11-3 LCCN-2021907474 LLNL-MI-823628 TID-61681 2 | BRUCE T. GOODWIN Table of Contents About the Author. 2 Introduction . .3 The Revolution in Physics That Led to the Bomb . 4 The Nuclear Arms Race Begins. 6 Fission and Fusion are "Natural" Processes . 7 The Basics of the Operation of Nuclear Explosives. 8 The Atom . .9 Isotopes . .9 Half-life . 10 Fission . 10 Chain Reaction . 11 Critical Mass . 11 Fusion . 14 Types of Nuclear Weapons . 16 Finally, How Nuclear Weapons Work . 19 Fission Explosives . 19 Fusion Explosives . 22 Staged Thermonuclear Explosives: the H-bomb . 23 The Modern, Miniature Hydrogen Bomb . 25 Intrinsically Safe Nuclear Weapons . 32 Underground Testing . 35 The End of Nuclear Testing and the Advent of Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship . 39 Stockpile Stewardship Today . 41 Appendix 1: The Nuclear Weapons Complex .
    [Show full text]
  • Eyes for Gamma Rays” Though the Major Peaks Suggest a Periodic- Whether These Are Truly Gamma-Ray Bursts for a Description of This System)
    sion of regularity and slow evolution in the They suggested that examination of the Vela exe-atmospheric nuclear detonation. Surpris- universe persisted into the 1960s. data might disclose evidence of bursts of ingly, however, the survey soon revealed that The feeling that transient cosmic events gamma rays at times close to the appearance the gamma-ray instruments on widely sepa- were rare was certainly prevalent in 1959 of supernovae. Such searches were con- rated satellites had sometimes responded when summit meetings were being held be- ducted; however, no distinctive signals were almost identically. Some of these events were tween England, the United States, and found. attributable to solar flare activity. However, Russia to discuss a nuclear test-ban treaty. On the other hand, there was evidence of one particularly distinctive event was dis- One key issue was the ability to detect treaty variability that had been ignored. For exam- covered for which a solar origin seemed violations unambiguously. A leading ple, the earliest x-ray data from small rocket inconsistent. Fortunately, the characteristics proposal for the detection of exo-at- probes and from satellites were often found of this event did not at all resemble those of a mospheric nuclear explosions was the use of to disagree significantly. The quality of the nuclear detonation, and thus the event did satellites with instruments that included de- data, rather than actual variations in the not create concern of a possible test-ban tectors sensitive to the gamma rays emitted sources, was suspected as the reason for treaty violation. by the explosion as well as those emitted these discrepancies.
    [Show full text]
  • 7.4 News 684 MH
    news Pope praised for CHILD/AP partial conciliation of B. science and religion Quirin Schiermeier,Munich Catholic researchers and bioethicists have responded to the death of Pope John Paul II with tributes to his efforts to achieve reconciliation between faith and science. And some are optimistic that his successor will keep on the same path. The Polish Pope had a strong personal interest in science and worked to reduce hostility between the scientific community and the Roman Catholic Church. Nonetheless, his strict rejection Water bombs: US submarines such as the Virginia are armed with W76 thermonuclear warheads. of abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and contraception, including the distribution of condoms to help Nuclear chiefs scotch story contain AIDS, drew him into conflict with some scientists. AIDS activist groups around the on frailty of ageing warheads world still condemn John Paul’s refusal to endorse the use of condoms.“It should Geoff Brumfiel,Washington told the The New York Times.Morse did not not be forgotten that millions have died Senior weapons scientists emphatically respond to Nature’s requests for an interview. in Africa as a result of this theological denied a report this week that the most Other scientists familiar with the weapon rigidity,”the London-based Independent important US nuclear warhead has a design dispute Morse’s assertions. “I think he’s newspaper said in an editorial. fault that could make it unreliable. wrong,” says Richard Garwin, a prominent However, John Paul frequently The New York Times reported on 3 April former hydrogen-bomb designer. Agnew, discussed scientific matters with such that the W76, a thermonuclear warhead who was present at several tests of the W76, luminaries as Stephen Hawking, who is launched from submarines, has a flaw in the says that it never failed to detonate.
    [Show full text]
  • Character List
    Character List - Bomb ​ Use this chart to help you keep track of the hundreds of names of physicists, freedom fighters, government officials, and others involved in the making of the atomic bomb. Scientists Political/Military Leaders Spies Robert Oppenheimer - Winston Churchill -- Prime Klaus Fuchs - physicist in ​ ​ ​ designed atomic bomb. He was Minister of England Manhattan Project who gave accused of spying. secrets to Russia Franklin D. Roosevelt -- ​ Albert Einstein - convinced President of the United States Harry Gold - spy and Courier ​ ​ U.S. government that they for Russia KGB. Narrator of the needed to research fission. Harry Truman -- President of story ​ the United States Enrico Fermi - created first Ruth Werner - Russian spy ​ ​ chain reaction Joseph Stalin -- dictator of the ​ Tell Hall -- physicist in Soviet Union ​ Igor Korchatov -- Russian Manhattan Project who gave ​ physicist in charge of designing Adolf Hitler -- dictator of secrets to Russia ​ bomb Germany Haakon Chevalier - friend who ​ Werner Reisenberg -- Leslie Groves -- Military approached Oppenheimer about ​ ​ German physicist in charge of leader of the Manhattan Project spying for Russia. He was designing bomb watched by the FBI, but he was not charged. Otto Hahn -- German physicist ​ who discovered fission Other scientists involved in the Manhattan Project: ​ Aage Niels Bohr George Kistiakowsky Joseph W. Kennedy Richard Feynman Arthur C. Wahl Frank Oppenheimer Joseph Rotblat Robert Bacher Arthur H. Compton Hans Bethe Karl T. Compton Robert Serber Charles Critchfield Harold Agnew Kenneth Bainbridge Robert Wilson Charles Thomas Harold Urey Leo James Rainwater Rudolf Pelerls Crawford Greenewalt Harold DeWolf Smyth Leo Szilard Samuel K. Allison Cyril S. Smith Herbert L. Anderson Luis Alvarez Samuel Goudsmit Edward Norris Isidor I.
    [Show full text]
  • Rare Books, Autographs & Maps
    RARE BOOKS, AUTOGRAPHS & MAPS Wednesday, April 17, 2019 NEW YORK RARE BOOKS, AUTOGRAPHS & MAPS AUCTION Wednesday, April 17, 2019 at 10am EXHIBITION Saturday, April 13, 10am – 5pm Sunday, April 14, Noon – 5pm Monday, April 15, 10am – 7pm Tuesday, April 16, 10am – 4pm LOCATION Doyle 175 East 87th Street New York City 212-427-2730 www.Doyle.com INCLUDING PROPERTY CONTENTS FROM THE ESTATES OF Printed & Manuscript Americana 1 - 50 Marian Clark Adolphson, CT Maps 51 - 57 Frances “Peggy” Brooks Autographs 58 - 70 Elizabeth and Donald Ebel Manuscripts 71 - 74 Elizabeth H. Fuller Early Printed Books 75 - 97 Robin Gottlieb Fine Bindings 98 - 107 Arnold ‘Jake’ Johnson Automobilia 108 - 112 George Labalme, Jr. Color Plate & Plate Books Including 113 - 142 Peter Mayer Science & Natural History Suzanne Schrag Travel & Sport 143 - 177 Barbara Wainscott Children’s Literature 178 - 192 Illustration Art 193 - 201 20th Century Illustrated Books 202 - 225 19th Century Illustrated Books 226 - 267 INCLUDING PROPERTY FROM Modern Literature 268 - 351 A Gentleman A Palm Beach Collector Glossary I A Maine Collector Conditions of Sale II The Collection of Rudolf Serkin Terms of Guarantee IV Information on Sales & Use Tax V Buying at Doyle VI Selling at Doyle VIII Auction Schedule IX Company Directory XI Absentee Bid Form XII Lot 167 Printed & Manuscript Americana 1 4 AMERICAN FLAG A large 35 star American Flag. Cotton or linen flag, the canton [CALIFORNIA - BANKING] with 35 stars, likely Civil War era, approximately 68 x 136 inches or Early and rare ledger of the Exchange Bank of Elsinore. 5 1/2 x 11 feet (172 x 345 cm); the canton 36 x 51 inches (91 x 129 cm), August 1889-November 1890.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Chapter 68KB
    Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 HAROLD M. AGNEW 1921–2013 Elected in 1976 “Pioneering contributions in weapons engineering and combining science and engineering into effective technology.” BY RICARDO B. SCHWARZ HAROLD MELVIN AGNEW, a scientist who worked on the Manhattan Project that gave the United States its first atomic bomb and who later became the third director of Los Alamos National Laboratory, died September 29, 2013, at his home in Solana Beach, California. He was 92. He was born March 28, 1921, in Denver, the only child of a stonecutter father and homemaker mother. He attended South Denver High School and the University of Denver, where he majored in chemistry. After the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor brought the United States into World War II, Agnew and his girlfriend, Beverly Jackson, attempted to join the US Army Air Corps together. But Joyce Stearns, head of the Physics Department at the University of Denver, persuaded them to instead join him at the University of Chicago, where Stearns became deputy head of the Metallurgical Laboratory. In Chicago, Harold worked with Enrico Fermi and others on the construction of Chicago Pile-1, the first graphite- moderated nuclear reactor. Initially, he worked on instrumen- tation, calibrating Geiger counters, and then on stacking the graphite bricks that formed the reactor’s neutron moderator. On December 2, 1942, he witnessed the first self-sustained nuclear chain reaction when Pile-1 went critical. 3 Copyright National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Memorial Tributes: Volume 21 4 MEMORIAL TRIBUTES After these successful tests, he and Beverly, now married, followed Fermi and others to Los Alamos to participate in the Manhattan Project for the development of a nuclear bomb.
    [Show full text]
  • Weapons-Test Connection by Roger C
    COMMENT The Weapons-Test Connection by Roger C. Eckhardt t the test ban summit meetings in 1959, Stirling Colgate from the gamma-ray detectors were searched for enhanced signals in watched the attention of the delegates drifting off the the vicinity of the times of reported supernovae in distant galaxies. technical discussion onto thoughts of wine and women. When these searches proved fruitless, the idea that an unknown and A He refocused their attention with one abrupt question: startlingly different phenomenon might be hiding in the data could Would the gamma rays from a supernova trigger the detectors in the not be examined with high priority by the people involved. During the proposed test-surveillance satellites? With this question, Colgate ten-year span they, instead, pursued an answer to a broader version connected the political goal of test surveillance with the scientific goal of Colgate’s original query: Could a natural background event mimic of understanding cosmic phenomena. In the satellite detection of the signal of an exe-atmospheric weapons test? Although this gamma rays this connection has persisted now for two decades. question was directed primarily toward the political goal, the natural However, it has been perceived in different ways with different scientific drive to eliminate even minor doubts resulted eventually in a consequences by different groups of people. surprise—the discovery of gamma-ray bursts. In truth, the time span At one extreme is the opinion represented by the National was due, not to classification, but to the fact that gamma-ray bursts Enquirer story that claimed gamma-ray bursts were evidence of were totally unexpected.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Transcript
    THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Committee on International Security and Arms Control 60th Anniversary of Trinity: First Manmade Nuclear Explosion, July 16, 1945 PUBLIC SYMPOSIUM July 14, 2005 National Academy of Sciences Auditorium 2100 C Street, NW Washington, DC Proceedings By: CASET Associates, Ltd. 10201 Lee Highway, Suite 180 Fairfax, VA 22030 (703) 352-0091 CONTENTS PAGE Introductory Remarks Welcome: Ralph Cicerone, President, The National Academies (NAS) 1 Introduction: Raymond Jeanloz, Chair, Committee on International Security and Arms Control (CISAC) 3 Roundtable Discussion by Trinity Veterans Introduction: Wolfgang Panofsky, Chair 5 Individual Statements by Trinity Veterans: Harold Agnew 10 Hugh Bradner 13 Robert Christy 16 Val Fitch 20 Don Hornig 24 Lawrence Johnston 29 Arnold Kramish 31 Louis Rosen 35 Maurice Shapiro 38 Rubby Sherr 41 Harold Agnew (continued) 43 1 PROCEEDINGS 8:45 AM DR. JEANLOZ: My name is Raymond Jeanloz, and I am the Chair of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control that organized this morning’s symposium, recognizing the 60th anniversary of Trinity, the first manmade nuclear explosion. I will be the moderator for today’s event, and primarily will try to stay out of the way because we have many truly distinguished and notable speakers. In order to allow them the maximum amount of time, I will only give brief introductions and ask that you please turn to the biographical information that has been provided to you. To start with, it is my special honor to introduce Ralph Cicerone, the President of the National Academy of Sciences, who will open our meeting with introductory remarks. He is a distinguished researcher and scientific leader, recently serving as Chancellor of the University of California at Irvine, and his work in the area of climate change and pollution has had an important impact on policy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Proceedings of the 1St International Workshop O Laboratory Astrophysics Experiments with Large Lasers
    CONF-960297— The Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop o Laboratory Astrophysics Experiments with Large Lasers B. A. Remington W.H. Goldstein August 9,1996 DISCLAIMER This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither die United States Government nor the University of California nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any infonriation,apparatas,prodnc^orprocessdisdosed,ori«presentsthatitsnsewonldnotinfrmgeprivatelyownedright8. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement; recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or the University of California. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Govenunent or the University of California, and shall notbe used for advertising or product endorsement purposes. This report has been reproduced directly from the best available copy. Available to DOE and DOE contractors from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62, Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Prices available from (615) 576-8401, FTS 626-8401 Available to the public from the National Technical Information Service US. Department of Commerce 5285 Port Royal Rcu, Springfield, VA 22161 WorkperfonnedundertheatispicesoftheU^.Departmentof Energy by IawrenceLivennoreNationalLaboratory-under Contract W-7405-Eng-48. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document Contents Conference Photo i Title Page ii Scientific Committee/ Organizing Committee iii Preface iv-v Summary vi-xi I.
    [Show full text]
  • The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions
    Los Alamos National Laboramry Is operated by the University d Csllfornla for thsi United States department” of %rgy under contract “W-7405 -ENG-36. i .. ... .?...-----.-,- - . I —. 11%)~~ LOS AIENTIOS NationalLaboratory I . .. .. .. .... .. ... <,.. ., .. ,..’ ., . ...’ .- ..,,-- -,. ,. ,,. , ~. , r“ ., .. ,,. ~,-.,; -., - . .-. ,. .,, ,. .. ,. .. “;. .: . .“ . .... 1. \, , ,.. Ttr&”rs’&r was p~~”red & an accoun; ;fwork s&n”&~”bYariagency of the United Stati Govemmcn!. Neither tire (Jrritcd Mates Government nor any agency ther@, nor any ofthcir employees, makes any warranty, >xpressor implied, or assure= any legal Ikbiiity or re@mrst%iIity ror the accuracy, completeness, w u~fulp~ ofa~ information, ap6aralus, product, or p~<ess ditilosed, or represents that its usewould not inf~ngc privately owned @rts. Reference herein to any s~i@ commercial product, py or service by h%dc name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply ISS egdome.rne~t, !reornrnen~qtion. ,> or. fav@r&. b~,!hc Unit@ S_&aI.~-Coye-~qgl,or arq agency thereoc Thc - sd~~d opirdons ofaulhors expressed herein do not necessarily ssateor refleet those of the United Ssates . Government or any ageney thereof. c:,, ,. .t. +- .- ,,’. I . .. ,, , y.t ,~*,’.’!,~,..- , f , .,..-, LA-8819 UC-34 Issued: September 1985 The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions — .— -. -.. -.. Los Alamos National Laboratory .~~ ~b~~~ LosAla.os,Ne..e.ic.87545 — THE YIELDS OF THE HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI EXPLOSIONS by John Malik ABSTRACT A deterministic estimate of the nuclear radiation fields from the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear weapon explosions requires the yields of these explosions. The yield of the Nagasaki explosion is rather well established by both fireball and radiochemical data from other tests as 21 kt. There are no equivalent data for the Hiroshima explosion.
    [Show full text]