Menu Atomic Heritage Foundation in Partnership with The

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Menu Atomic Heritage Foundation in Partnership with The Skip to main content Menu • About • Advisors and Directors • Projects • FAQs • Jobs • History • Project Sites • Timeline • Key Documents • Lesson Plans • Tours • Profiles • News Atomic Heritage Foundation In partnership with the National Museum of Nuclear Science & History • Donate Search form Search Search Join Today as an Atomic History Patron Member Japanese Atomic Bomb Project Japanese Atomic Bomb Project History Page Type: Race for the Bomb Profiles: Ernest O. Lawrence Robert Furman Yoshio Nishina Bunsaku Arakatsu Date: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 The Manhattan Project was not the only effort to create an atomic bomb during World War II. Much of the theory behind fission had been published before the war and was internationally available. In addition to the British research that helped jumpstart the Manhattan Project, and the unsuccessful German efforts uncovered by the Alsos Mission, there was a small and ultimately fruitless attempt by the Japanese to create an atomic weapon. The Japanese military invested in various efforts to research the potential technology, and created technology for uranium enrichment (including several cyclotrons and a thermal diffusion device). But Japan never enriched enough uranium to make a weapon, or developed the detonation technology that went into the American atomic bombs. Many of the details of the project remain unclear, and new documents have only come to light in recent years. Discussions and debates over the extent of Japan’s bomb program continue today, perhaps because there is fascination about atomic research in the country that would become the most prominent victim of atomic weapons. The Japanese Bomb Effort: Ni-Go and F-Go Historians generally cite a report from October 1940, penned by Tatsusaburo Suzuki, as the beginning of the Japanese atomic bomb research effort. The report was commissioned by Lieutenant General Takeo Yasuda of the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA), a former engineer who was intrigued by the discovery of nuclear fission. Suzuki’s report stated that it would be possible to construct an atomic weapon. Even at that early stage, uranium procurement was identified as a crucial problem. Yasuda contacted physicist Yoshio Nishina, later known as the Japanese “father of nuclear physics,” who had studied under Niels Bohr in Copenhagen. Nishina worked at the institute known as RIKEN, near Tokyo. He succeeded in building the first cyclotron outside the United States in 1937, and completed a larger one in 1944, both with the assistance of Ernest Lawrence. The IJA officially authorized Nishina’s lab to research an atomic bomb in April 1941. The project became known as Ni-Go. Ni-Go had five “research themes”: atomic bomb theory, separation of uranium-235, production of uranium hexafluoride, measurement of physical constants, and analysis of isotopes. Nishina’s team’s initial conclusion was that an atomic bomb was theoretically, but not technically, feasible. Though they continued to pursue uranium enrichment via gaseous thermal diffusion, their focus shifted away from just researching how to create an atomic bomb. Some historians have asserted that Nishina may have used the military’s focus on weaponry to get funding for the cyclotrons, his pet project. An exchange between Nishina and his military liaison, Major General Nobuji (or Nobuuji), exemplifies military leaders’ lack of scientific understanding of the project: Nobuuji: If uranium is to be used as an explosive, 10 kg is required. Why not use 10 kg of a conventional explosive? Nishina: That’s nonsense. RIKEN was hit by Allied bombing in April 1945, destroying their thermal diffusion device, and interrupting the research there. After the Japanese surrender, Allied forces captured paperwork and cyclotrons from Ni-Go. Nishina was originally granted permission to continue using the cyclotrons for biological and medical research in October 1945. But a month later, orders came from the Secretary of War to destroy every Japanese cyclotron (not just those in Tokyo). The ones from RIKEN were disassembled and thrown into the Gulf of Tokyo. Nishina also participated in a committee convened by the Technical Research Institute of the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to explore whether developing the bomb was feasible. The IJN worked separately from the IJA on atomic research for much of the war, due to animosity between the two military branches. The committee was headed by Captain Yoji Ito, and met several times between July 1942 and March 1943. It concluded that the US was probably working on a bomb, but that neither it nor Germany could complete one during wartime. The committee pegged their estimate for how long it would take Japan at 10 years, and disbanded after this pessimistic conclusion. A different part of the IJN started a project referred to as F-Go, under the direction of Bunsaku Arakatsu, a physics professor at Kyoto Imperial University who had also studied in Europe, including with Albert Einstein. At the beginning of the project in 1942-43, Arakatsu received less than $80,000 in funding, showing how low a priority it was. Arakatsu and his lab pursued uranium enrichment with centrifuges. Toward the war’s end, the IJA and IJN joined forces, but F-Go was nowhere close to success. Obstacles: Prioritization and Uranium A number of factors contributed to the lack of success of the Japanese project, including Allied bombing and lack of information-sharing with Germany. In contrast, American and British scientists worked together on the Manhattan Project. However, the main obstacles were prioritization and issues with uranium supply. The Japanese military did not consider atomic bomb development a necessity the way American decision-makers did, as evidenced by the low level of funding and the diversion of resources to other areas of research. Captain Ito, for example, turned his focus to radar and other electronic weapons. By 1945, Japan had started to develop multiple strategies for uranium enrichment. There was the thermal diffusion device at RIKEN that was destroyed by Allied bombings. Blueprints have been found at Kyoto University for turbine-based centrifuges, including one that was scheduled for completion in August 1945. The major obstacle to enrichment, however, was uranium procurement. Missions were sent to various parts of Asia, even to Mongolia and Burma, without finding useful uranium ore. On this front, there was some cooperation between the Axis powers: in 1945, as Germany was falling to the Allies, a U-boat loaded with uranium was dispatched to Japan. Allied naval forces captured the submarine before it arrived, but the amount of uranium being transported was not enough to make a bomb. Ironically, North Korea later exploited uranium deposits in the Hungnam region, which had been a center of Japanese industry during World War II. The connection between Hungnam and nuclear weapons production has fueled conspiracy theories about a secret Japanese program there. As a result of these roadblocks, Japan did not come close to building a bomb. The US sent a mission to Japan in the aftermath of the war to see what their progress had been on an atomic weapon. Robert Furman, who participated in that mission, recounted how none of the project components were nearly on the scale of US facilities like Oak Ridge. Furman said about the mission in a 2008 interview: Don’t forget, if they had a project, we knew it would have to be a tremendous project like Oak Ridge. If somebody showed us a 40,000 foot warehouse and said that was their project, why, we felt pretty safe because Oak Ridge was a million feet. Our project was half the size of the state of Rhode Island. As far as we knew, nobody could do it any quicker or any faster. … From this, we could make our report back that there was no serious project. I think that report has stood up under questioning over the years. Every once in a while, someone wants to write an article saying a secret plant was producing atomic bombs. This we could easily check out and force them to remove the report. To hear more from Robert Furman about the mission, click here. The Situation Today Some have asked what Japan would have done had it obtained an atomic bomb during World War II. Would it have used it on an enemy civilian population, as the US did? The Japanese government did send a letter to the US after the bombing of Nagasaki, declaring the atomic bomb a violation of the Hague Convention and a crime against humanity. Nevertheless, there are some indications that Japan would have acted in a similar manner, had their atomic project succeeded, though it is impossible to say definitively one way or the other. Some historians have argued that the US was more willing to use its atomic bombs because it had already conducted extensive bombing raids. Japan was no stranger to bombing civilian targets, since it did so in China and (to a lesser extent) Australia. However, the Japanese did not do nearly as much bombing as the US did. Yoichi Yamamoto, an IJA officer who worked on uranium procurement, defended the dropping of the atomic bombs as a wartime necessity. Japan also showed willingness to attack civilians, such as atrocities committed against civilians during their conquest of China. Japan even caused civilian fatalities in the US, albeit on a much smaller scale, during the attacks on Pearl Harbor and via explosives sent by balloon to the West Coast. The fact that their government pursued an atomic bomb and might have used it is troubling to some Japanese citizens, especially since the project is absent from many museums, textbooks, and other historical sources. Today, Japan is one of the world’s most technologically advanced nations, and has invested a great deal in nuclear energy.
Recommended publications
  • Rice University General Announcements
    fju.<JLu!^]iA^.^uSo^ THE RICE INSTITUTE HOUSTON, TEXAS ANNOUNCEMENTS FOR THE ACADEMIC YEAR BEGINNING SEPTEMBER EIGHTEENTH NINETEEN HUNDRED AND FORTY-ONE THE RICE INSTITUTE A UNIVERSITY OF LIBERAL AND TECHNICAL LEARNING FOUNDED IN THE CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS BY WILLIAM MARSH RICE AND DEDICATED BY HIM TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF LETTERS SCIENCE AND ART OPENED FOR THE RECEPTION OF STUDENTS IN THE AUTUMN OF NINETEEN HUNDRED AND TWELVE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES JAMES ADDISON BAKER: CHAIRMAN WILLIAM MARSH RICE, JR.: VICE-CHAIRMAN JOHN THADDEUS SCOTT: VICE-CHAIRMAN BENJAMIN BOTTS RICE: SECRETARY-TREASURER EDGAR ODELL LOVETT ALEXANDER SESSUMS CLEVELAND ROBERT LEE BLAFFER Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from Lyrasis members and Sloan Foundation funding http://www.archive.org/details/riceuniversityge194142hous — CALENDAR 1941 September 15-18 Entrance Examinations September 18 . Registration of Academ- ic Students September 19 . Registration of Students of Architecture and Engineering September 22 . Opening of Courses September 24 . Matriculation Address November 26 . Beginning of Thanksgiv- ing Recess at 5:00 p.m. December i Resumption of Courses at 8:00 A.M. December 13-20 December Examinations December 20 . Beginning of Christmas Recess at 5:00 p.m. 1942 January 2 . Resumption of Courses at 8:00 A.M. January 26- February 5 February Examinations February 22 Washington's Birthday (Monday February 23 — a holiday) March 2 Texas Independence Day April 21 San Jacinto Day May 11-16 Entrance Examinations May 25-June 5 . Final Examinations June 6-8 . Twenty-seventh Annual Commencement THE RICE INSTITUTE OFFICERS OF ADiMlNISTRATION EDGAR ODELL LOVETT, Ph.D., Sc.D., LL.D.
    [Show full text]
  • Tsetusuo Wakabayashi, Revealed
    Tsetusuo Wakabayashi, Revealed By Dwight R. Rider Edited by Eric DeLaBarre Preface Most great works of art begin with an objective in mind; this is not one of them. What follows in the pages below had its genesis in a research effort to determine what, if anything the Japanese General Staff knew of the Manhattan Project and the threat of atomic weapons, in the years before the detonation of an atomic bomb over Hiroshima in August 1945. That project drew out of an intense research effort into Japan’s weapons of mass destruction programs stretching back more than two decades; a project that remains on-going. Unlike a work of art, this paper is actually the result of an epiphany; a sudden realization that allows a problem, in this case the Japanese atomic energy and weapons program of World War II, to be understood from a different perspective. There is nothing in this paper that is not readily accessible to the general public; no access to secret documents, unreported interviews or hidden diaries only recently discovered. The information used in this paper has been, for the most part, available to researchers for nearly 30 years but only rarely reviewed. The paper that follows is simply a narrative of a realization drawn from intense research into the subject. The discoveries revealed herein are the consequence of a closer reading of that information. Other papers will follow. In October of 1946, a young journalist only recently discharged from the US Army in the drawdown following World War II, wrote an article for the Atlanta Constitution, the premier newspaper of the American south.
    [Show full text]
  • History Newsletter CENTER for HISTORY of PHYSICS&NIELS BOHR LIBRARY & ARCHIVES Vol
    History Newsletter CENTER FOR HISTORY OF PHYSICS&NIELS BOHR LIBRARY & ARCHIVES Vol. 43, No. 1 • Summer 2011 Taking Technology Through the “Valley of Death,” Physicists Don’t Fear Risk As the History of Physics Entrepreneur- Physicists are highly skilled in risk Two other issues surprised us by ship (HoPE) project transitions from the analysis and few, if any, appear inclined the degree to which they influenced interview phase to the analysis phase, to venture into activity at which they physics-based innovation in the US. The new and intriquing insights have begun do not feel confident they will succeed role of the federal SBIR/STTR programs to bubble to the surface. The project even though they are aware that they in providing resources to enable high staff have completed 114 interviews with are bringing new technologies through tech innovation appears critical. SBIR/ physicist entrepreneurs, STTR grants play at least 11 interviews with univers- two important roles. At ity intellectual property one level they provide transfer offices, and two critical seed funding for interviews with venture ideas and innovations capitalists throughout that have not yet the U.S. With field trips reached a stage that will to Georgia and Colorado attract venture capital remaining on the agenda, or angel investment. we expect to interview At another level they another ten to fifteen provide an essential physicist entrepreneurs resource for companies and five or six venture whose technologies are capitalists. We’ll then nearly fully developed spend the last year of but have not yet found the three-year study their proper market coding and analyzing and for whom venture the interviews and other capitalists are either resources and compiling our findings.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Nuclear Forensics: Analysis of Nuclear Material for Security
    THE NEW NUCLEAR FORENSICS Analysis of Nuclear Materials for Security Purposes edited by vitaly fedchenko The New Nuclear Forensics Analysis of Nuclear Materials for Security Purposes STOCKHOLM INTERNATIONAL PEACE RESEARCH INSTITUTE SIPRI is an independent international institute dedicated to research into conflict, armaments, arms control and disarmament. Established in 1966, SIPRI provides data, analysis and recommendations, based on open sources, to policymakers, researchers, media and the interested public. The Governing Board is not responsible for the views expressed in the publications of the Institute. GOVERNING BOARD Sven-Olof Petersson, Chairman (Sweden) Dr Dewi Fortuna Anwar (Indonesia) Dr Vladimir Baranovsky (Russia) Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi (Algeria) Jayantha Dhanapala (Sri Lanka) Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger (Germany) Professor Mary Kaldor (United Kingdom) The Director DIRECTOR Dr Ian Anthony (United Kingdom) Signalistgatan 9 SE-169 70 Solna, Sweden Telephone: +46 8 655 97 00 Fax: +46 8 655 97 33 Email: [email protected] Internet: www.sipri.org The New Nuclear Forensics Analysis of Nuclear Materials for Security Purposes EDITED BY VITALY FEDCHENKO OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 2015 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © SIPRI 2015 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of SIPRI, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organizations.
    [Show full text]
  • Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project, 1939-1945: a Study in German Culture
    Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project http://content.cdlib.org/xtf/view?docId=ft838nb56t&chunk.id=0&doc.v... Preferred Citation: Rose, Paul Lawrence. Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project, 1939-1945: A Study in German Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1998 1998. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft838nb56t/ Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project A Study in German Culture Paul Lawrence Rose UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS Berkeley · Los Angeles · Oxford © 1998 The Regents of the University of California In affectionate memory of Brian Dalton (1924–1996), Scholar, gentleman, leader, friend And in honor of my father's 80th birthday Preferred Citation: Rose, Paul Lawrence. Heisenberg and the Nazi Atomic Bomb Project, 1939-1945: A Study in German Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1998 1998. http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/ft838nb56t/ In affectionate memory of Brian Dalton (1924–1996), Scholar, gentleman, leader, friend And in honor of my father's 80th birthday ― ix ― ACKNOWLEDGMENTS For hospitality during various phases of work on this book I am grateful to Aryeh Dvoretzky, Director of the Institute of Advanced Studies of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, whose invitation there allowed me to begin work on the book while on sabbatical leave from James Cook University of North Queensland, Australia, in 1983; and to those colleagues whose good offices made it possible for me to resume research on the subject while a visiting professor at York University and the University of Toronto, Canada, in 1990–92. Grants from the College of the Liberal Arts and the Institute for the Arts and Humanistic Studies of The Pennsylvania State University enabled me to complete the research and writing of the book.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: the PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S
    ABSTRACT Title of Dissertation: THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 Vincent Jonathan Houghton, Doctor of Philosophy, 2013 Dissertation directed by: Professor Jon T. Sumida Department of History The subject of this dissertation is the U. S. atomic intelligence effort against both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in the period 1942-1949. Both of these intelligence efforts operated within the framework of an entirely new field of intelligence: scientific intelligence. Because of the atomic bomb, for the first time in history a nation’s scientific resources – the abilities of its scientists, the state of its research institutions and laboratories, its scientific educational system – became a key consideration in assessing a potential national security threat. Considering how successfully the United States conducted the atomic intelligence effort against the Germans in the Second World War, why was the United States Government unable to create an effective atomic intelligence apparatus to monitor Soviet scientific and nuclear capabilities? Put another way, why did the effort against the Soviet Union fail so badly, so completely, in all potential metrics – collection, analysis, and dissemination? In addition, did the general assessment of German and Soviet science lead to particular assumptions about their abilities to produce nuclear weapons? How did this assessment affect American presuppositions regarding the German and Soviet strategic threats? Despite extensive historical work on atomic intelligence, the current historiography has not adequately addressed these questions. THE PRINCIPAL UNCERTAINTY: U.S. ATOMIC INTELLIGENCE, 1942-1949 By Vincent Jonathan Houghton Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Maryland, College Park, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy 2013 Advisory Committee: Professor Jon T.
    [Show full text]
  • Making the Bomb by John Lamperti
    November, 2012 Thoughts on Making the Bomb by John Lamperti I recently finished reading Martin Sherwin and Kai Bird’s monumental American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer.1 It's an admirable book, although I think the title might better have been American Faust. (No less than Freeman Dyson said Oppenheimer made a "Faustian bargain."2) There have been many books about Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb project in general; I've read some but not all of them. This one seems to be definitive. Everything we need to know is there – and it's a fascinating read. Two things struck me especially, and neither was directly about Oppenheimer. One was the ideological rigidity, and the blindness, of the crowd of Army and FBI "security" operatives who dogged Oppenheimer and the whole Manhattan Project from the beginning. To a man (no women are mentioned) they were obsessed with the pre-war leftist politics of many of the scientists, which they found highly suspicious and probably indicative of disloyalty. But while these agents were hounding leftists and "premature anti-fascists" (as supporters of the Spanish Republic were called) at Los Alamos and elsewhere and finding little or nothing, real spies were sending real scientific information to the USSR under their noses, apparently unsuspected. If the "security" people, especially Lt. Col. Boris Pash of Army Counter– Intelligence, had been given free rein, Oppenheimer and many others (but not the actual spies!) would have been banished from the Project and the "Trinity" test, as well as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, might never have happened.
    [Show full text]
  • Hitler's Uranium Club, the Secret Recordings at Farm Hall
    HITLER’S URANIUM CLUB DER FARMHALLER NOBELPREIS-SONG (Melodie: Studio of seiner Reis) Detained since more than half a year Ein jeder weiss, das Unglueck kam Sind Hahn und wir in Farm Hall hier. Infolge splitting von Uran, Und fragt man wer is Schuld daran Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. The real reason nebenbei Die energy macht alles waermer. Ist weil we worked on nuclei. Only die Schweden werden aermer. Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. Die nuclei waren fuer den Krieg Auf akademisches Geheiss Und fuer den allgemeinen Sieg. Kriegt Deutschland einen Nobel-Preis. Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. Wie ist das moeglich, fragt man sich, In Oxford Street, da lebt ein Wesen, The story seems wunderlich. Die wird das heut’ mit Thraenen lesen. Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. Die Feldherrn, Staatschefs, Zeitungsknaben, Es fehlte damals nur ein atom, Ihn everyday im Munde haben. Haett er gesagt: I marry you madam. Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn. Even the sweethearts in the world(s) Dies ist nur unsre-erste Feier, Sie nennen sich jetzt: “Atom-girls.” Ich glaub die Sache wird noch teuer, Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, Und fragt man, wer ist Schuld daran, So ist die Antwort: Otto Hahn.
    [Show full text]
  • Burn Before Reading: the Japanese Atomic Bomb Program, the Battles of the Chosin Reservoir, and the Cave at Koto-Ri
    Draft Burn before Reading: The Japanese Atomic Bomb Program, the Battles of the Chosin Reservoir, and the Cave at Koto-ri. The Cell. Dwight R. Rider Dwight R. Rider: 14 May 2016 Draft “The higher the headquarters, the more important is calm…nothing is ever as bad as it first seems.” General Joseph Stillwell. "If everybody is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking." George S. Patton Jr. “The task of government in this enlightened time does not extend to actually dealing with problems. Solving problems might put bureaucrats out of work. No, the task of government is to make it look as though problems have been solved, while continuing to keep the maximum number of consultants and bureaucrats employed dealing with them.” Bob Emmers Dwight R. Rider: 14 May 2016 Draft Foreword The conflict that became popularly known as “The Korean War” (but was never truly a declared war nor did it end) was one that I experienced only vicariously, as I was a few months underage for the draft or enlistment when it entered the perpetual truce phase. Still, through newspapers and radio, as well as having slightly older friends who went “over there,” I was as immersed as one could be without wearing the uniform. These avenues of input were woven into my novel about a man of a little older than my age who served in WW-2 and Korea, two conflicts that imprinted me deeply. My son was in the Air Force during the end of the Vietnam era, a period that highlighted the end of an era in which the USA actually won wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2008.Pdf
    Table of Contents Board Members & Advisory Committee__ 3 Visitors check out the new scale-model at the B Reactor Letter From the President______________ 4 Sites: Past & Present_____________________ 5 Hanford B-Reactor Exhibits_____________ 6 The Manhattan Project _________________ 7 Bill Wilcox, Steve Goodpas- ture, and D. Ray Smith AHF Events Across the Country________ 9 General Groves Day_____________________ 10 Secret City Festival 2008_______________ 11 National Traveling Exhibition__________ 12 Paul Vinther, Roger Rohr- Films and Upcoming Events ____________ 13 bacher, and Hank Kosmata Products, Membership & Support______ 14 Dan Gillespie and Ray Stein “The Manhattan Project is in danger of becoming a metaphor. Op-ed pieces now ask for a Manhattan Project for global warming, for energy self-sufficiency, for any large problem that requires a marshalling of enormous resources and collective will. Well, fine, let’s marshal them. But let’s also remember the Manhattan Project as a unique event, at a unique time.” Joseph Kanon, author of Los Alamos, from Cindy Kelly and Ted Rockwell October 6, 2006 Symposium in Los Alamos, NM at the Air & Space Museum Annual Report 2008 page 2 AHF Board Members Richard Rhodes, Pulitzer-Prize winning author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Dark Sun, Arsenals of Folly, and over twenty Recent Contributions other books. John D. Wagoner, Former Manager of the Department of The Atomic Heritage Foundation has Energy’s Richland Operations Office (Hanford). Cynthia C. Kelly, Founder and President of the Atomic Heritage benefited from the generosity of the Foundation, and for over twenty years, a senior executive with following foundations, corporations, the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency.
    [Show full text]
  • The History Of
    The History of 1 INDEX Introduction........................................................................................Page 3 The Hudson River & the Highlands……………………………………………….….…..Page 14 The Van Cortlandts – 1698 to 1853……………………………………………….….….Page 18 Louisa Sophia Ludlow – 1853 to 1876……………………………………………........Page 57 Louis W.Stevenson – 1876 to 1887………………………………………………..….….Page 91 Emma E. Stevenson – 1887 to 1899…………………………………………………....Page 142 Henry Jackson Morton Jr. – 1899 to 1901……………………………………………....Page 154 Ernest E. Slocum – 1901 to 1903………………………………………………….……Page 166 Greenhalge – 1903 to 1905……………………………………………………………..Page 168 Maud & William Boag – 1905 to 1914…………………………………………………..Page 174 Collin Kemper & Hope Latham – 1914 to 1942…………………………………………...Page 186 The Guiles – 1942 to 1952………………………………………………………….…Page 265 The Matzners – 1952 to 1966………………………………………………….....…..Page 274 The Cummings – 1966 to 1975……………………………………………………..….Page 285 GianninaPradella& Milan Olich – 1975 to 2005……………………………..………….Page 289 Richard Friedberg – 2005 to 2011………………………………………………..……Page 295 Arlene & Brent Perrott – 2011 to Present…………………………………………..…..Page 299 Myths, Legends and Ghosts……………………………………………………….….Page 303 2 INTRODUCTION Oldstone sits above the banks of the Hudson River, its gray, thick stone walls firmly anchored to the soil and rock of the Hudson Highlands. With Peekskill to the south, Bear Mountain Bridge and Westpoint just to the north, it is surrounded by some of the most beautiful and historic sites on the Hudson River. When Oldstone
    [Show full text]
  • Aiphistory Newsletter
    HISTORY NEWSLETTER One Physics Ellipse CENTER FOR HISTORY OF PHYSICS NEWSLETTER Vol. XXXVI, Number 2 Fall 2004 College Park, MD 20740-3843 AIP Tel. 301-209-3165 Plans Underway to Designate Historic Physics Sites in the U.S. variety of groups designate sites as “historic,” attracting A attention to the events commemorated. More important, the publicity and ceremonies attending the announcement of a designation, and a permanent plaque plus other informational materials, can educate the public in the locality or even more widely. With these ends in mind, the chairman of the American Physical Society’s Forum on the History of Physics, Michael Riordan, recently established an American Physical Society Historic Sites Committee. The members of the committee have agreed that “the presence of strategically-placed plaques that identify sites of historical significance to physics will be an effective means to raise public awareness of physics. We also recognize the initiative will ben- efit physicists by increasing their own awareness of important past scientific advances, hence of their membership in the his- toric evolution of their profession.” CAPTION courtesy AIP Emilio Segrè Visual Archives. The committee has recommended that two categories of sites be selected: sites with national or international significance to Hideki Yukawa in his house, doing calligraphy, March 1962. AIP physics and its history, and sites of more local significance. The Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, Yukawa Collection. Donated by Mrs. committee plans to select a set from potential sites suggested Yukawa through Professor Michiji Konuma. by committee members or from ones formally nominated by American Physical Society (APS) members; a nomination form New Web Site Explains Marie Curie's and a few selection criteria will be posted on the Web.
    [Show full text]