DOCSLIB.ORG

University of Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Alberta Radiation, Researchers, and the United States Atomic Energy Commission: Biomedical Research from the Early Twentieth Century to the Early Cold War by Katherine Jane Zwicker A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History Department of History & Classics ©Katherine Jane Zwicker Spring 2012 Edmonton, Alberta Permission is hereby granted to the University of Alberta Libraries to reproduce single copies of this thesis and to lend or sell such copies for private, scholarly or scientific research purposes only. Where the thesis is converted to, or otherwise made available in digital form, the University of Alberta will advise potential users of the thesis of these terms. The author reserves all other publication and other rights in association with the copyright in the thesis and, except as herein before provided, neither the thesis nor any substantial portion thereof may be printed or otherwise reproduced in any material form whatsoever without the author's prior written permission. Library and Archives Bibliotheque et Canada Archives Canada Published Heritage Direction du Branch Patrimoine de I'edition 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington Ottawa ON K1A0N4 Ottawa ON K1A 0N4 Canada Canada Your file Votre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-87892-7 Our file Notre reference ISBN: 978-0-494-87892-7 NOTICE: AVIS: The author has granted a non­ L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive exclusive license allowing Library and permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives Archives Canada to reproduce, Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver, publish, archive, preserve, conserve, sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public communicate to the public by par telecommunication ou par I'lnternet, preter, telecommunication or on the Internet, distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans le loan, distrbute and sell theses monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres, sur worldwide, for commercial or non­ support microforme, papier, electronique et/ou commercial purposes, in microform, autres formats. paper, electronic and/or any other formats. The author retains copyright L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur ownership and moral rights in this et des droits moraux qui protege cette these. Ni thesis. Neither the thesis nor la these ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci substantial extracts from it may be ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement printed or otherwise reproduced reproduits sans son autorisation. without the author's permission. In compliance with the Canadian Conformement a la loi canadienne sur la Privacy Act some supporting forms protection de la vie privee, quelques may have been removed from this formulaires secondaires ont ete enleves de thesis. cette these. While these forms may be included Bien que ces formulaires aient inclus dans in the document page count, their la pagination, il n'y aura aucun contenu removal does not represent any loss manquant. of content from the thesis. Canada ABSTRACT On the 6th and 9th of August 1945 the United States dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both cities were utterly devastated, in part, due to the sheer blast produced by the bombs, but also due to the radioactive fallout that contaminated each region. Biomedical radiation researchers from around the world studied the resulting radiation sickncss that affected atomic bomb survivors. The work of American biomedical researchers marked a distinct phase in the history of biomedical radiation research in the United States, because researchers had never before been able to study the biological effects of radiation exposure amongst such a large group of individuals. Also, American researchers' investigation of bomb survivors was the first of many postwar initiatives of the federal government to fund biomedical radiation research. This was, however, one chapter in a longer history that began at the turn of the twentieth century. This dissertation examines the development of biomedical radiation research in the United States from the early twentieth century to the early Cold War period. It focuses on three salient and closely related aspects of the field: the practice of interdisciplinary collaboration and creation of hybrid expertise; the development of an influential network of biomedical radiation researchers; and the role of researchers in helping to define and respond to changing social and political priorities within the United States. It argues that the primary reason biomedical radiation research flourished throughout the century was that researchers were socially and politically responsive. They were attentive to changing social and political circumstances and promoted their research accordingly. Throughout the century they promised that their work would advance medicine, especially the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. During World War II and later, they also accepted responsibility for investigating the hazards associated with nuclear weapons development and atomic warfare. By doing so, researchers were able to secure sufficient and, at times, abundant resources to investigate the application of radiation in biology and medicine. The pursuit of this research within a large government-funded research enterprise blurred the lines between civilian and military spheres and helped characterize the Cold War. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to sincerely thank my supervisor, Robert Smith, for his wonderful guidance during my graduate studies. There were, of course, moments throughout writing this dissertation, at which I could not see an end in sight. On many occasions, Robert reminded me that I would not know what 1 was writing, until I got it on the page. Perhaps a simple reassurance, but one I valued greatly. From Robert I have learned so much about the process of research and writing that I will continually draw on throughout my career. I have been very fortunate to have found, not one excellent mentor, but two. I owe a great deal of thanks to Susan Smith for her considerable investment in my professional development. Over the years, Susan has been generous with her time and advice and has really helped nurture my confidence as an academic. Many of my colleagues at the University of Alberta deserve recognition. David Marples, for instance, has been a constant support throughout my studies and, at one time, a great teammate on the soccer field. 1 have very much enjoyed being a part of the History & Classics Department, as well as the history of science and medicine communities on campus. For helping to foster these communities, thanks to Lesley Cormack, Ken Moure, Pat Prestwich, and Andrew Ede. Roberta Lexier, Melanie Niemi-Bohun, Sharon Romeo, Robyn Braun, Jaymie Heilman—thank you all for making work a bit more fun! As for family and friends, I suspect my words will fail me in trying to express my gratitude to you all for your love and support over the years. To my Edmonton, Wolfville, and Lunenburg friends, I will take you with me, wherever I go. To my ever-growing and absolutely wonderful family—well, 1 know I am one of the lucky ones to have each of you by my side. Dad, you are my rock; Mom, my memories of you are a constant inspiration; Meredith and Phil, to me you will always be older and so much wiser and I will look to you to show me the way. Amy, I can hardly believe that there was ever a time when we wanted to go our separate ways. Through the hills and the valleys, we will walk in the best company. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Chapter 1 - X-Rays, Radium, and the Early Twentieth-Century Development of Interdisciplinary Collaboration 27 Chapter 2 - Biomedicine and Bombs: Health and Safety in the Manhattan Project 74 Chapter 3 - From War to Peace: Institutionalizing Biomedical Radiation Research within the Atomic Energy Commission 132 Chapter 4 - The Building Blocks of Research: Radioisotopes Distribution 179 Chapter 5 - The ABC's of the AEC's Biomedical Research: Fellowships and Educational Initiatives 215 Chapter 6 - Waging War on Another Front: The AEC Joins the Cancer Establishment 263 Conclusion 292 Bibliography 307 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Radioisotope Distribution to Non-AEC Institutions Table 2: Diagnostic & Therapeutic Uses of Radioisotopes, 1949 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: AEC Organization Chart, December 1948 Figure 2: ORINS Organizational Chart, September 1949 ABBREVIATIONS & TERMS ACXRP - Advisory Committee on X-ray and Radium Protection, established in 1928. ABCC - Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission, established in 1947. AEC - Atomic Energy Commission, established 1 January 1947. ACBM - Advisory Committee on Biology and Medicine, established in September 1947 within the AEC. ACS - American Cancer Society, established in 1913 as the American Society for the Control of Cancer. The organization adopted its current name in 1945. ARRS - American Roentgen Ray Society, established in 1900. ARS - American Radium Society, established in 1916. AUI - Associated Universities, Inc., consortium of universities, established in 1946. BNL - Brookhaven National Laboratory, established in 1947. C-14- carbon-14. CWS - Chemical Warfare Service, established in 1918. DBM - Division of Biology and Medicine, established in October 1947 within the AEC. FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation, established in 1908. H-3 - hydrogen-3. ICXRP - International Committee on X-Ray and Radium Protection, established in 1928. Interim Medical Advisory Committee - formed in January 1947 by the AEC to advise on the future of biomedical research within the AEC. JCAE - Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, congressional oversight committee of the AEC, established in 1947. MED - Manhattan Engineer District, established in the summer of 1942 within the Army Corps of Engineers for the development of the atomic bomb during World War II. The MED transferred authority over the nation's nuclear weapons complex to the Atomic Energy Commission as of 1 January 1947, and the MED officially ceased to exist 15 August 1947. Medical Advisory Committee - formed by the MED in September 1946 to assess the legacy of the MED's health and safety work and advise on future activities.
Recommended publications
  • Norman Hilberry' Dr

    Norman Hilberry' Dr

    Norman Hilberry' Dr. Norman Hilberry, now retired, was formerly director of Argonne Na tional Laboratory, one of the principal research and development centers in the field of nuclear science and engineering in the United States. The Laboratory is operated by the University of Chicago for the U. S. Atomic Energy Commis sion. Dr. Hilberry's association with the nuclear energy program began late in 1941 when, as personal aide, he joined Dr. A. H. Compton who had just been designated as project director for the Metallurgical Project, later known as the Plutonium Project. In this capacity Dr. Hilberry was associated with the group under Fermi which first achieved a self sustaining, controlled nuclear chain re action on December 2, 1942. As associate project director of the Metallurgical Project, he acted as the project office's representative at Clinton Laboratories during the start-up of the X-10 reactor in the Fall of 1943. Starting in the summer of 1944 he served ( again in his capacity as associate project director) as head of the resident project group which provided the official liaison between the DuPont organization and the Metallurgical Project during the start-up of the production facilities at the Hanford Engineer Works. With the successful operation of Hanford an accomplished fact, Dr. Hilberry returned to the Metallurgical Project office during the winter of 1945. After Dr. Compton's move to St. Louis as Chancellor of Washington University in July, 1945, he took over the closing out of the affairs of the central project office. Dur ing this period he assisted the Manhattan District of the U.
  • Duck and Cover: How Print Media, the U.S. Government, and Entertainment Culture Formedamerica's Understanding of the Atom

    Duck and Cover: How Print Media, the U.S. Government, and Entertainment Culture Formedamerica's Understanding of the Atom

    DUCK AND COVER: HOW PRINT MEDIA, THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, AND ENTERTAINMENT CULTURE FORMEDAMERICA’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE ATOM BOMB A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts By Daniel Patrick Wright B.A., University of Cincinnati, 2013 2015 Wright State University WRIGHT STATE UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL May 5, 2015 I HEREBY RECOMMEND THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Daniel Patrick Wright ENTITLED Duck and Cover: How Print Media, the U.S. Government and Entertainment Culture Formed America’s Understanding of the Atom Bomb BE ACCEPTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts ________________________________ Jonathan Winkler, Thesis Director ________________________________ Carol Herringer, Chair History Department Committee on College of Liberal Arts Final Examination ________________________________ Drew Swanson, Ph.D. ________________________________ Nancy Garner, Ph.D. ________________________________ Robert E. W. Fyffe, Ph.D. Vice President for Research and Dean of the Graduate School ABSTRACT Wright, Daniel Patrick. M.A. Department of History, Wright State University, 2015. Duck and Cover: How Print Media, the U.S. Government and Entertainment Culture Formed America’s Understanding of the Atom Bomb This research project will explore an overview of the different subsections of American post-war society that contributed to the American “atomic reality” in hopes of revealing how and why the American understanding of atomic weapons did not slowly evolve over the course of a generation, but instead materialize rapidly in the years following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. By analyzing government sources and programs, print media sources such as newspapers and magazines, and the American entertainment culture of the 1940s and 1950s, this research project will answer exactly why and how the American public arrived at its understanding of the atom bomb.
  • The Adventures of a Citizen Scientist

    The Adventures of a Citizen Scientist

    The Adventures of a Citizen Scientist Perhaps one never knows one’s parents, really knows them. You never know their early lives and, as a kid, you’re living inside your own skin, not theirs. After that you’re out of there. Growing up in Chicago, I never knew my dad was famous. He was just a firm, affectionate, if too busy father figure, who loved music and the outdoors, played tennis better than I could, was awfully good with tools, and could explain scientific ideas so well that I almost understood them. I knew he was a physicist and taught at the University, and he and mother often took me on lecture or research trips, but I didn’t know what it was all about. During the war, when he was one of those in charge of the bomb project and we’d moved to Oak Ridge, he was just a hard-working ordinary man doing a job like everybody else. August 6th, 1945, brought a dramatically different perspective, as you might expect. My father was suddenly a national and world figure. That fall, as I went off to college, I began to hear something of his achievements — not only the bomb, but the cosmic ray studies and the Nobel Prize, with all that seemed to entail. At that moment, too, he’d become Chancellor of Washington University in St. Louis, and my college was his college, where his father had been Professor of Philosophy and Psychology and Dean. I was in Wooster, Ohio, the town in which my father had grown up, with his childhood house just down College Avenue.
  • Critical Facilities Building No. 1 Critical Assembly Building No. 2

    Critical Facilities Building No. 1 Critical Assembly Building No. 2

    Combustion Engineering, Inc. Windsor, Connecticut Critical Facilities Building No. 1 r Critical Assembly Building No. 2 Prepared for: Prepared by: Combustion Engineering, Inc. Historical Technologies 2000 Day Hill Road 1230 Copper Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095 West Suffield, CT 06093 200-1e Combustion_Engineering_01.06_0305_a COMBUSTION ENGINEERING, INC. - BUILDINGS 1 AND 2 Location: 2000 Day Hill Road (formerly 1000 Prospect Hill Road) Windsor Hartford County Connecticut UTM: USGS Windsor Locks, Connecticut Quadrangle, 1:24000 UTM Coordinates: Zone18 - Easting 689575 - Northing 4639425 Date of Construction: 1956 Engineers: Stone & Webster; Combustion Engineering, Inc. Present Owner: Combustion Engineering, Inc. Present Use: Demolished Significance: Building #1 housed the Flexible Critical Experiment, a research reactor that operated at a virtually zero power level. The reactor first achieved a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in July, 1956. Building #2 was the site of the Advanced Critical Experiment, a research reactor for complex developmental work. This reactor achieved a self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction in November of 1956. Finalized specific engineering and physics design of individual reactors were carried out in these facilities. Project Information: This documentation commenced in 2002 in compliance with a Letter of Agreement between ABB Prospects, Inc. and the Connecticut Historical Commission. Historian: Robert C. Stewart - Historical Technologies - West Suffield, Connecticut Acknowledgement: The author wishes to thank Elaine Hammick and John Conant of Combustion Engineering, Inc. for their efforts in obtaining historic materials and for their reviews of the final report. A taped interview with Richard Knapp, retired engineer, contributed useful insight into the working environment at the site. Cover Photograph: Technician charging experimental reactor mock-up in building No.
  • The Captive Lab Rat: Human Medical Experimentation in the Carceral State

    The Captive Lab Rat: Human Medical Experimentation in the Carceral State

    Boston College Law Review Volume 61 Issue 1 Article 2 1-29-2020 The Captive Lab Rat: Human Medical Experimentation in the Carceral State Laura I. Appleman Willamette University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr Part of the Bioethics and Medical Ethics Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Disability Law Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Juvenile Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal History Commons, and the Medical Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Laura I. Appleman, The Captive Lab Rat: Human Medical Experimentation in the Carceral State, 61 B.C.L. Rev. 1 (2020), https://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/bclr/vol61/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CAPTIVE LAB RAT: HUMAN MEDICAL EXPERIMENTATION IN THE CARCERAL STATE LAURA I APPLEMAN INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 2 I. A HISTORY OF CAPTIVITY AND EXPERIMENTATION .................................................................... 4 A. Asylums and Institutions ........................................................................................................ 5 B. Orphanages, Foundling
  • Epigraphs Note on Terminology Acknowledgments Introduction

    Epigraphs Note on Terminology Acknowledgments Introduction

    Notes Epigraphs 1. “Muskie Hearings”: Hearings before a subcommittee on air and water pollution of the committee on public works of the U.S. Senate, 59th Congress, June 7–15, 1966 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Print- ing Office), pp. 113–343. Note on Terminology 1. For volatility: “At atmospheric pressure C-216 may combine with almost all known elements, with almost explosive rapidity, giving off extreme heat.” Manhattan Project Memo, “Safety and Health Con- ference on Hazards of C-216 (Code for Fluorine)” To: Safety Section Files. RHTG Classified Doc., 1944-94, Box 166, Building 2714-H, Vault #82761. Such violence also makes fluorine difficult to isolate. Although it is the thirteenth-most abundant element in the earth’s crust, it was not until 1886 that a French scientist, Henri Moissan, was finally able to segregate the volatile element. R. E. Banks, “Isolation of Fluorine by Moissan: Setting the Scene,” J. Fluorine Chem., vol. 33 (1986), pp. 1–26. 2. J. Emsley et al., “An unexpectedly strong hydrogen bond: Ab initio calculations and spectroscopic studies of amide-fluoride systems,” J. Am. Chemical Soc., vol. 103, (1981), pp. 24–28. 3. The National Research Council, for example, “uses the term ‘fluoride’ as a general term everywhere, where exact differentiation between ionic and molecular forms or between gaseous and particulate forms is uncertain or unnecessary.” Biological Effects of Atmospheric Pollut- ants: Fluorides (National Academy of Sciences, 1971), p. 3. Acknowledgments 1. Said Ralph Nader: “Once the U.S. government fifty years ago decided to push fluoridation, they stopped doing what Alfred North White- head once said was the cardinal principle of the scientific method, and that is to leave options open for revisions, and it became a party line, it became a dogma, and they weren’t interested in criticism.” Introduction 1.
  • Information to Users

    Information to Users

    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. in the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproductionFurther reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. COLLISIONS OF HISTORY AND LANGUAGE: NUCLEAR WEAPONS TESTING, HUMAN ENVIRONMENTAL RIGHTS ABUSES, AND COVER-UP IN THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS by Holly M.
  • Reaching Critical Mass 2

    Reaching Critical Mass 2

    Reaching Critical Mass: The Rise of Grassroots Groups and the Politics of Nuclear Accountability Carah Lynn Ong Whaley Charlottesville, Virginia Bachelor of Arts, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2002 Master of Arts, University of Virginia, 2010 A Dissertation presented to the Graduate Faculty of the University of Virginia in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Politics University of Virginia December, 2015 REACHING CRITICAL MASS: THE RISE OF GRASSROOTS GROUPS AND THE POLITICS OF NUCLEAR ACCOUNTABILITY Carah Lynn Ong Whaley University of Virginia, 2015 Advisers: Sidney M. Milkis, Sarah Milov, William B. Quandt, Larry J. Sabato Abstract This dissertation examines the factors that contributed to the opening of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) nuclear weapons complex to environmental regulation and public participation and assesses the implications of shifts in regulatory politics for democratic governance. While acknowledging the importance and role of elite actors, this research places community-based grassroots groups at the center of analysis to contribute a better understanding of how a multidimensional regulatory framework structures interactions between communities, states and the federal government. It also evaluates opportunities for public participation in policy and decision-making processes at the federal, state and local level. While some scholars have bemoaned the decay of American politics and a decline in democratic participation, this study finds there is in fact sustained and informed grassroots participation in regulatory decision and policymaking processes. Even if it falls short of participatory ideals, communities are demanding a say in regulatory politics, and not just relegating decisions to administrators, contractors, experts, or national interest groups.
  • The Plutonium Files America’S Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War

    The Plutonium Files America’S Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War

    The Plutonium Files America’s Secret Medical Experiments in the Cold War EILEEN WELSOME Delta Co n ten ts Prologue 1 PART ONE: THE “ PRODUCT” 1. The Acid Taste of Plutonium 15 2. The Rad Lab 20 3. 1942: The Met Lab 32 4. A Tolerable Dose 42 5. The Manhattan Project Is Launched 55 6. Plutonium Rising 65 7. Planning the Experiment 75 8. Ebb Cade 82 9. Next in Line: Arthur and Albert 88 10. Trinity Site 97 11. A “Small Piece of the Sun” 105 12. The Quest Continues 120 13. The Rochester Production Line 124 14. A Misdiagnosed Housewife 136 15. Chicago; Upping the Dose 146 16. Postwar Berkeley: The Final Injections 149 viii Contents PART TWO: ATOMIC UTOPIA 17. At a Crossroads 165 18. Comings and Goings 178 19. The AEC and the Politics of Secrecy 189 20. Shields Warren: “Patriotic Enough to Lie” 197 21. "Wrapped in the Flag" 207 22. The Vanderbilt Women 219 23. The Fernald Boys 229 PART THREE: THE PROVING GROUND 24. Stalin s Labor Day Surprise 239 25. The First GI Guinea Pigs 249 26. "Hot Particles” 255 27. Scorched Earth Maneuvers 261 28. Citizen Volunteers 270 29. The Cloud Samplers 272 30. Dispatch from Ground Zero 285 31. The Inverted Mushroom 290 32. Body-snatching Patriots 299 PART FOUR: “ THE BUCHENWALD TOUCH " 33. “Mice or Men?” 317 34. Houston's “Paperclip” Doctor 330 35. Cincinnati’s Battlefield 337 36. The Chambers of Oak Ridge 352 37. Captive Volunteers: Prisoners in Oregon and Washington 362 38. The Plutonium Experiment: Phase Two 383 39.
  • Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia

    Chicago Pile-1 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Pile-1#Later_operation Chicago Pile-1 (CP-1) was the Site of the First Self Sustaining Nuclear world's first nuclear reactor to Reaction achieve criticality. Its construction U.S. National Register of Historic Places was part of the Manhattan U.S. National Historic Landmark Project, the Allied effort to create Chicago Landmark atomic bombs during World War II. It was built by the Manhattan Project's Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago, under the west viewing stands of the original Stagg Field. The first man-made self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction was initiated in CP-1 on 2 December Drawing of the reactor 1942, under the supervision of Enrico Fermi, who described the apparatus as "a crude pile of black bricks and wooden timbers".[4] The reactor was assembled in November 1942, by a team that included Fermi, Leo Szilard, discoverer of the chain reaction, Location Chicago, Cook County, and Herbert L. Anderson, Walter Illinois, USA Zinn, Martin D. Whitaker, and Coordinates 41°47′32″N 87°36′3″W George Weil. It contained 45,000 Built 1942[2] graphite blocks weighing 400 NRHP Reference # 66000314 [1] short tons (360 t) used as a neutron moderator, and was Significant dates fueled by 6 short tons (5.4 t) of Added to NRHP 15 October 1966 [1] uranium metal and 50 short tons (66000314) (45 t) of uranium oxide. In the Designated NHL 18 February 1965[2] pile, some of the free neutrons Designated CL 27 October 1971[3] produced by the natural decay of uranium were absorbed by other uranium atoms, causing nuclear fission of those atoms, and the release of additional free neutrons.
  • America's Secret Medical Experiments

    America's Secret Medical Experiments

    GO TO MASTER INDEX OF WARFARE AMERICA’S SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS “I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked.” — Dr. Hippocrates HDT WHAT? INDEX SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS GO TO MASTER INDEX OF WARFARE 1900 Charleston’s population was estimated at 55,807. In the early years of the 20th Century physicians in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Ohio would be conducting secret medical experiments, injecting dozens of orphans with syphilis-related materials and tuberculosis. “Here, you little bastards, instead of being a dead weight on society we’re going to give you a chance to be contributors!” “NARRATIVE HISTORY” AMOUNTS TO FABULATION, THE REAL STUFF BEING MERE CHRONOLOGY Secret Medical Experiments “Stack of the Artist of Kouroo” Project HDT WHAT? INDEX SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS GO TO MASTER INDEX OF WARFARE 1931 Under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations, Dr. Cornelius P. Rhoads infected human subjects with cancer cells (well, but they were only Puerto Ricans). Later this researcher would establish US Army Biological Warfare facilities in Maryland, Utah, and Panama, and would be named to the US Atomic Energy Commission. While associated with the US Atomic Energy Commission, he would initiate a series of nuclear radiation exposure experiments upon American soldiers and upon civilian hospital patients. SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS He would write about it in the following manner: The Porto Ricans are the dirtiest, laziest, most degenerate and thievish race of men ever to inhabit this sphere... I have done my best to further the process of extermination by killing off HDT WHAT? INDEX SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS SECRET MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS GO TO MASTER INDEX OF WARFARE eight and transplanting cancer into several more..
  • Plutonium an Overview

    Plutonium an Overview

    Plutonium An overview PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Thu, 09 Jun 2011 13:52:20 UTC Contents Articles Overview 1 Plutonium 1 Allotropes 23 Allotropes of plutonium 23 Isotopes 25 Isotopes of plutonium 25 Compounds and mixtures 34 Plutonium borides 34 Plutonium carbide 35 Plutonium hexafluoride 36 Plutonium hydride 38 Plutonium(III) chloride 39 Plutonium(III) fluoride 40 Plutonium(IV) fluoride 42 Plutonium(IV) oxide 43 Plutonium-gallium alloy 45 MOX fuel 48 Environment 52 Plutonium in the environment 52 References Article Sources and Contributors 61 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 62 Article Licenses License 63 1 Overview Plutonium Plutonium Appearance silvery white General properties Name, symbol, number plutonium, Pu, 94 Pronunciation /pluːˈtoʊniəm/ ploo-toe-nee-əm Element category actinide Group, period, block n/a, 7, f −1 Standard atomic weight (244) g·mol Electron configuration [Rn] 5f6 7s2 Electrons per shell 2, 8, 18, 32, 24, 8, 2 (Image) Physical properties Phase solid Density (near r.t.) 19.816 g·cm−3 Liquid density at m.p. 16.63 g·cm−3 Melting point 912.5 K,639.4 °C,1182.9 °F Boiling point 3505 K,3228 °C,5842 °F Heat of fusion 2.82 kJ·mol−1 Heat of vaporization 333.5 kJ·mol−1 Specific heat capacity (25 °C) 35.5 J·mol−1·K−1 Vapor pressure Plutonium 2 P/Pa 1 10 100 1 k 10 k 100 k at T/K 1756 1953 2198 2511 2926 3499 Atomic properties Oxidation states 7, 6, 5, 4, 3 (amphoteric oxide) Electronegativity 1.28 (Pauling scale) Ionization