DOCSLIB.ORG

Plowshare Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Plowshare Report DOE/NV/26383-22 CULTURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 111 DIVISION OF EARTH AND ECOSYSTEM SCIENCES DESERT RESEARCH INSTITUTE LAS VEGAS, NEVADA THE OFF-SITE PLOWSHARE AND VELA UNIFORM PROGRAMS: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects, High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities VOLUME 3 of 3 by Colleen M. Beck, Susan R. Edwards, and Maureen L. King with contributions by Harold Drollinger, Robert Jones, and Barbara Holz September 2011 Disclaimer This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, nor any of their contractors, subcontractors or their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or any third party’s use or the results of such use of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. 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 any agency thereof or its contractors or subcontractors. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. Available for sale to the public from: U.S. Department of Commerce National Technical Information Service 5301 Shawnee Road Alexandria, VA 22312 Phone: 800.553.6847 Fax: 703.605.6900 E-mail: [email protected] Online ordering: http://www.ntis.gov/help/ordermethods.aspx Available electronically at http://www.osti.gov/bridge Available for a processing fee to the U.S. Department of Energy and its contractors, in paper, from: U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. Box 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0062 Phone: 865.576.8401 Fax: 865.576.5728 E-mail: [email protected] Cover Illustrations: The Project Bronco Site in northwestern Colorado and a schematic of a nuclear explosive-created rubble chimney. Bronco was a planned but never executed Plowshare project designed for the application of nuclear explosives to fracture underground oil shale deposits for in situ retorting and recovery (Photos by C. Beck, July 2005; Graphic from Lekas et al 1967, Figure 3). DOE/NV/26383-22 THE OFF-SITE PLOWSHARE AND VELA UNIFORM PROGRAMS: Assessing Potential Environmental Liabilities through an Examination of Proposed Nuclear Projects, High Explosive Experiments, and High Explosive Construction Activities VOLUME 3 of 3 by Colleen M. Beck, Susan R. Edwards, and Maureen L. King with contributions by Harold Drollinger, Robert Jones, and Barbara Holz Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Nevada Site Office, Las Vegas, Nevada Cultural Resources Technical Report No. 111 Division of Earth and Ecosystem Sciences Desert Research Institute Las Vegas, Nevada September 2011 The work upon which this report is based was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract #DE-AC52-06NA26383. THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK APPENDIX A PROJECT DATA SUMMARIES A-i THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK A-ii Table of Contents Appendix A: Project Data Summaries………………………………………………................. A-1 A.1 Aquarius………………………………………………………………………………... A-3 A.2 Boca Bypass…………………………………………………………………………….A-7 A.3 Bo-Peep………………………………………………………………………................A-9 A.4 Bronco………………………………………………………………………................A-11 A.5 Bruneau Canyon Dam………………………………………………………................A-13 A.6 Caddo Pine Island………………………………………………………….................. A-15 A.7 Cape Darby Harbor…………………………………………………………................ A-17 A.8 Carryall…………………………………………………………………….................. A-19 A.9 CHASE…………………………………………………………………….................. A-21 A.10 Chomly Cutoff……………………………………………………………..…………. A-25 A.11 Cochiti Dam……………………………………………………………..……………. A-27 A.12 Colona Earthquake………………………………………………………..………….. A-29 A.13 Copper Ore Chemical Mining……………………………………………..…………. A-31 A.14 Copper Recovery…………………………………………………………..…………. A-35 A.15 Cowboy……………………………………………………………………………….. A-39 A.16 Dogsled……………………………………………………………………………….. A-41 A.17 Dragon Trail…………………………………………………………………………...A-43 A.18 Drum Inlet…………………………………………………………………………….. A-45 A.19 Excavator……………………………………………………………………………... A-49 A.20 Galley………………………………………………………………………................ A-53 A.21 Geothermal Power Plant……………………………………………………................ A-55 A.22 Gold Leaching…………………………………………………………………………A-57 A.23 Gondola………………………………………………………………………………. A-59 A.24 Groundhog……………………………………………………………………………. A-61 A.25 Hebgen Lake Earthquake……………………………………………………………... A-63 A.26 Iki……………………………………………………………………………………... A-65 A.27 Katalla Harbor………………………………………………………………............... A-67 A.28 Kaunakakai Harbor…………………………………………………………................ A-69 A.29 Ketch………………………………………………………………………………….. A-71 A.30 Lake Tahoe Sewage…………………………………………………………………... A-75 A.31 Libby………………………………………………………………………………….. A-77 A.32 Lost Creek……………………………………………………………………………. A-79 A.33 NAWAPA…………………………………………………………………………….. A-81 A.34 New Madrid Earthquake……………………………………………………................ A-83 A.35 Nome Harbor…………………………………………………………………………. A-85 A.36 North Slope Harbor…………………………………………………………............... A-87 A.37 Old Reliable Mine……………………………………………………………………. A-89 A.38 Operation Breakup……………………………………………………………………. A-93 A.39 Phaeton……………………………………………………………………………….. A-95 A.40 Pinot…………………………………………………………………………………... A-97 A.41 Plowboy………………………………………………………………………………. A-99 A.42 Point Barrow Harbor…………………………………………………………………A-103 A.43 Port Moller Canal…………………………………………………………………… A-105 A.44 Pre-Dribble………………………………………………………………………….. A-107 A.45 Pre-Gnome…………………………………………………………………………... A-109 A-iii Table of Contents (continued) A.46 Pre-Gondola…………………………………………………………………………. A-111 A.47 Pre-Schooner………………………………………………………………................A-115 A.48 R. D. Bailey…………………………………………………………………………. A-119 A.49 Rampart Canyon Dam………………………………………………………………. A-121 A.50 Red Lake Gas Storage………………………………………………………………. A-123 A.51 Rufus/Larkspur……………………………………………………………................ A-125 A.52 San Clemente Island………………………………………………………................ A-129 A.54 Sergius Narrows…………………………………………………………………….. A-133 A.55 Shemya Island………………………………………………………………………. A-137 A.56 Sloop………………………………………………………………………................ A-139 A.57 South Point Harbor………………………………………………………………….. A-143 A.58 Spiridon Lake……………………………………………………………………….. A-145 A.59 Surrey……………………………………………………………………………….. A-147 A.60 Swan Lake Dam……………………………………………………………………... A-149 A.61 Tar…………………………………………………………………………................ A-151 A.62 Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway…………………………………………………… A-155 A.63 Thunderbird…………………………………………………………………………. A-157 A.64 Travois………………………………………………………………………………. A-161 A.65 Trencher……………………………………………………………………………... A-163 A.66 Trinidad……………………………………………………………………............... A-165 A.67 Tugboat……………………………………………………………………............... A-169 A.68 Utah…………………………………………………………………………………. A-171 A.69 Wagon Wheel……………………………………………………………………….. A-173 A.70 WASP……………………………………………………………………………….. A-177 A.71 West Virginia Earthquake……………………………………………………………A-181 A.72 Wheelbarrow………………………………………………………………............... A-183 A.73 Whitestone Narrows………………………………………………………………… A-185 A-iv APPENDIX A: PROJECT DATA SUMMARIES The Project Data Summaries provide a brief overview of important basic facts for each of the 74 projects discussed in Chapters 3 and 4 and are presented in alphabetical order by title of the project. These summaries were designed to meet data quality objectives for project information considered crucial to understanding and evaluating the potential liability of project activities. These summaries were used during the course of the research to track project information as it was acquired to determine data needs. There are nine data categories called characteristics on the project summaries: 1) the project purpose and scope, 2) the project location, 3) the beginning date of the project, 4) the dates of fieldwork, 5) a description of the field activities, 6) the level of field activity, 7) the ending date of the project, 8) the land ownership (or agency jurisdiction), and 9) the agencies and companies identified as participants in the project. The level of field activity refers one of five levels assigned after an evaluation of field activities. The five levels are: 1) locations where radioactive materials were used for tracer experiments; 2) locations where conventional explosives were used to test for excavation and cratering experiments or for scaling experiments prior to proposed nuclear detonations; 3) locations where geologic or hydrologic tests were conducted to evaluate a site for tracer or explosives tests; 4) locations where existing facilities, such as mines, wells, and drill holes, were utilized for data collection; and 5) locations where activity was confined to conceptual designs, background research, and visual field inspections. In Chapter 2.2, there is detailed discussion of the project methodology. A-1 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK A-2 A.1 Data Quality Objectives AQUARIUS Plowshare Program CHARACTERISTIC DATA STATUS* DESCRIPTION 1. Purpose/Scope C Aquarius focused on the feasibility of using nuclear explosives to reconfigure the landscape in Arizona
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest
    AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF D. Erik Ellis for the degree of Master of Science in History of Science, presented on December 17,2002. Title: The Hanford Laboratories and the Growth of Environmental Research in the Pacific Northwest. 1943 to 1965. Redacted for privacy Abstract approved: William G. Robbins The scientific endeavors that took place at Hanford Engineer Works, beginning in World War II and continuing thereafter, are often overlooked in the literature on the Manhattan Project, the Atomic Energy Commission, and in regional histories. To historians of science, Hanford is described as an industrial facility that illustrates the perceived differences between academic scientists on the one hand and industrial scientists and engineers on the other. To historians of the West such as Gerald Nash, Richard White, and Patricia Limerick, Hanford has functioned as an example of the West's transformation during in World War II, the role of science in this transformation, and the recurring impacts of industrialization on the western landscape. This thesis describes the establishment and gradual expansion of a multi-disciplinary research program at Hanford whose purpose was to assess and manage the biological and environmental effects of plutonium production. By drawing attention to biological research, an area in which Hanford scientists gained distinction by the mid 1950s, this study explains the relative obscurity of Hanford's scientific research in relation to the prominent, physics- dominated national laboratories of the Atomic Energy Commission. By the mid 1960s, with growing public concern over radiation exposure and changes in the government's funding patterns for science, Hanford's ecologically relevant research provided a recognizable and valuable identity for the newly independent, regionally-based research laboratory.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008
    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS.
    [Show full text]
  • Project Chariot: Part
    9/3/2019 The Nuclear Legacy of Project Chariot - Part I Project Chariot: The Nuclear Legacy of Cape Thompson, Alaska Norman Chance "In 1957, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission [AEC] established the 'Plowshare Program' to "investigate and develop peaceful uses for nuclear explosives." In early 1958, the AEC selected a site at the mouth of the Ogotoruk Creek near Cape Thompson, approximately 30 miles southeast of the Inupiat Eskimo village of Point Hope. Shortly thereafter, they developed plans for an experimental harbor excavation to be called Project Chariot. Late in 1962, after extensive scientific studies, the AEC announced that it "would defer further consideration of the proposed Chariot experiment," due in part to public criticism.... Douglas L. Vandegraft U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Part One of this case study traces the process of events from the initial design of Project Chariot to its cancellation in 1962. Part Two addresses recent developments stemming from a 1990s investigation of contaminated radioactive soil that had been left at the site thirty years previously. Also included is a Postscript analyzing allegations that without their knowledge, the Inupiat and other Alaskan Natives were injected with radioactive iodine/131 in the 1950s as part of a U.S. military research project to determine whether soldiers "could be better conditioned to fight in cold conditions." Part One [There was] a general atmosphere and attitude that the American people could not be trusted with the uncertainities, and therefore the information was withheld from them. I think there was concern that the American people, given the facts, would not make the right risk-benefit judgments.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Farquhar
    1 2 Created by Bob Farquhar For and dedicated to my grandchildren, their children, and all humanity. This is Copyright material 3 Table of Contents Preface 4 Conclusions 6 Gadget 8 Making Bombs Tick 15 ‘Little Boy’ 25 ‘Fat Man’ 40 Effectiveness 49 Death By Radiation 52 Crossroads 55 Atomic Bomb Targets 66 Acheson–Lilienthal Report & Baruch Plan 68 The Tests 71 Guinea Pigs 92 Atomic Animals 96 Downwinders 100 The H-Bomb 109 Nukes in Space 119 Going Underground 124 Leaks and Vents 132 Turning Swords Into Plowshares 135 Nuclear Detonations by Other Countries 147 Cessation of Testing 159 Building Bombs 161 Delivering Bombs 178 Strategic Bombers 181 Nuclear Capable Tactical Aircraft 188 Missiles and MIRV’s 193 Naval Delivery 211 Stand-Off & Cruise Missiles 219 U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 229 Enduring Stockpile 246 Nuclear Treaties 251 Duck and Cover 255 Let’s Nuke Des Moines! 265 Conclusion 270 Lest We Forget 274 The Beginning or The End? 280 Update: 7/1/12 Copyright © 2012 rbf 4 Preface 5 Hey there, I’m Ralph. That’s my dog Spot over there. Welcome to the not-so-wonderful world of nuclear weaponry. This book is a journey from 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert to where we are today. It’s an interesting and sometimes bizarre journey. It can also be horribly frightening. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the civilized world several times over. Over 23,000. “Enough to make the rubble bounce,” Winston Churchill said. The United States alone has over 10,000 warheads in what’s called the ‘enduring stockpile.’ In my time, we took care of things Mano-a-Mano.
    [Show full text]
  • Japan, the Atomic Bomb, and the “Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Power” 日本、原爆、「原子力の平和利用」•Japanese Translation Available
    Volume 9 | Issue 18 | Number 1 | Article ID 3521 | May 02, 2011 The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Japan, the Atomic Bomb, and the “Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Power” 日本、原爆、「原子力の平和利用」•Japanese translation available Yuki Tanaka, Peter J. Kuznick sense, a nuclear power accident can be seen as an “act of indiscriminate mass destruction,” Japan, the Atomic Bomb, and the and thus “an unintentionally committed crime “Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Power” against humanity.” Yuki Tanaka and Peter Kuznick It is well known that the origin of “the peaceful use of nuclear energy” was part of “Atoms for In this two part article Yuki Tanaka and Peter Peace,” a policy that U.S. President Dwight D. Kuznick explore the relationship between the Eisenhower launched at the U.N. General atomic bombing of Japan and that nation’s Assembly in December 1953. embrace of nuclear power, a relationship that may be entering a new phase with the 3.11 earthquake, tsunami and nuclear catastrophe at Fukushima. A Japanese translation by Noa Matsushita is available here. “The Peaceful Use of Nuclear Energy” and Hiroshima Yuki Tanaka The ongoing grave situation at the Fukushima No. 1 Nuclear Power Plant, which continues to contaminate vast areas of surrounding land and sea with high levels of radiation, forces us to reconsider the devastating impact of the so- called “peaceful use of nuclear energy” upon all forms of life, including human beings and Eisenhower addresses the UN General nature. The scale of damage to human beings Assembly, December 13, 1953 and the environment caused by a major accident at a nuclear power plant, where radiation is emitted either from the nuclear As Peter Kuznick concisely explains in the vessel or spent fuel rods, may be comparable to following article, what the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons, Propaganda, and Cold War Memory Expressed in Film: 1959-1989 Michael A
    James Madison University JMU Scholarly Commons Masters Theses The Graduate School Spring 2016 Their swords, our plowshares: "Peaceful" nuclear weapons, propaganda, and Cold War memory expressed in film: 1959-1989 Michael A. St. Jacques James Madison University Follow this and additional works at: https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019 Part of the Cultural History Commons, Defense and Security Studies Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Other Film and Media Studies Commons, Political History Commons, and the Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies Commons Recommended Citation St. Jacques, Michael A., "Their swords, our plowshares: "Peaceful" nuclear weapons, propaganda, and Cold War memory expressed in film: 1959-1989" (2016). Masters Theses. 102. https://commons.lib.jmu.edu/master201019/102 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the The Graduate School at JMU Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of JMU Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Their Swords, Our Plowshares: "Peaceful" Nuclear Weapons, Propaganda, and Cold War Memory Expressed in Film: 1949-1989 Michael St. Jacques A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of Master of Arts History May 2016 FACULTY COMMITTEE: Committee Chair: Dr. Steven Guerrier Committee Members/ Readers: Dr. Maria Galmarini Dr. Alison Sandman Dedication For my wife, my children, my siblings, and all of my family and friends who were so supportive of me continuing my education. At the times when I doubted myself, they never did.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Full PDF Version
    Page 2 Spring - Summer 1995 Race, Poverty & the Environment 6 August 1945 The dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Thefirst suspicion that the attacks had little to do with was not a forgone conclusion. Immediately after the first test either ending the war or saving American lives came as early explosion in Alamogordo, New Mexico, in July, 1945, U.S. as 1946. The Army Air Force released a study, the Strategic political leaders, Pentagon strategists, and atomic scientists Bombing Survey, asserting:" Prior to I November 1945 (the entered into a debate: should the United States pressure Japan proposed date of the U.S. invasion of Japan), the Japanese to surrender by verbally threatening them with the bomb but would have surrendered, even if the atomic bomb had not been not actually dropping it? Might such a threat be made more used, and even if no invasion had been planned or contem- effective with a demonstration explosion in, say, an unpop- pl~ted."~In 1948, a distinguished British physicist who had ulated region? Or should an actual attack be executed? been involved in the wartime debate claimed the bombings After the actual attacks took place - Hiroshima on August constituted a gross power play to ensure that the U.S. would 6 and Nagasaki on August 9 - an explanation came from have the upper hand in negotiations with Russia after the war.3 Washington: they had been motivated by military necessity - This suspicion is now accepted as historical fact. to end the war and save American lives. As President Truman The latest suspicion centers on the matter of race.
    [Show full text]
  • The Discursive Emergence of Us Nuclear Weapons Policy
    BUILDING MORE BOMBS: THE DISCURSIVE EMERGENCE OF US NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY by JOHN M. VALDEZ A DISSERTATION Presented to the Department of Political Science and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy June 2018 DISSERTATION APPROVAL PAGE Student: John M. Valdez Title: Building More Bombs: The Discursive Emergence of US Nuclear Weapons Policy This dissertation has been accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in the Department of Political Science by: Jane K. Cramer Chair Gerald Berk Core Member Lars Skalnes Core Member Greg McLauchlan Institutional Representative and Sara D. Hodges Interim Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School Original approval signatures are on file with the University of Oregon Graduate School. Degree awarded June 2018. ii © 2018 John M. Valdez iii DISSERTATION ABSTRACT John M. Valdez Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science June 2018 Title: Building More Bombs: The Discursive Emergence of US Nuclear Weapons Policy This dissertation investigates the social construction and discursive emergence of US nuclear weapons policy against the backdrop of the nuclear taboo and its associated anti-nuclear discourse. The analysis is drawn from poststructuralism with a focus on the discourses that construct the social world and its attendant “common sense,” and makes possible certain policies and courses of action while foreclosing others. This methodology helps overcome the overdetermined nature of foreign policy, or its tendency to be driven simultaneously by the international strategic environment, the domestic political environment, and powerful domestic organizations, and while being shaped and delimited by the discourses associated with the nuclear taboo.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Contributing Towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons by Jean Du Preez 1
    2016-2017 Critical Issues Forum (CIF) Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty: Contributing towards a World Free of Nuclear Weapons by Jean du Preez 1. History of Nuclear Testing, Nuclear Testing and the Arms Race 5. Educational resources to train the next generation of CTBT experts “If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky, that would be like the splendor of the mighty one. Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds“ From the Hindu scripture Bhagavad Gita as recalled by Dr Robert Oppenheimer Trinity test: 16 July 1945 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuRvBoLu4t0 Absolute Devastation: Hiroshima & Nagasaki Hiroshima Nagasaki 6 August 1945- “Little Boy” 9 August 1945- “Fat Man” 118,000 killed, 80,000 wounded 74,000 killed, 75,000 wounded The Destruction of Hiroshima bomb (13Kt) • 0-1.0 km: 86% killed • 1-2.5 km: 27% killed • 0-1.3 km: prompt radiation zone • 0-2.1 km: 3rd degree burns • 0-2.7 km: 2nd degree burns Heat: 6000 degrees Celcius • 0-0.3 km: 50 psi overpressure – destroys everything • 0-0.7 km: 10 psi - sweep everything in a high-rise building onto streets • 0-1.2 – 1.6 km: 3 - 5 psi - destroy brick houses & shatter windowpanes Testing and the start of the nuclear arms race Trinity Test (20 kt) UK USSR Tsar Bomba USSR JOE Hurricane (57 mt) (22 kt) (25 kt) China tests at Lop Nur 1945 1949 1952 1961 1964 1960 1962 1974 US Mike Hiroshima & (10.4 mt) Blue Little Feller Nagasaki (Davy Crockett) Dessert Rat (0.01 – 0.02 kt) Smiling France test Budha in Algeria (12Kt): India 70Kt For more on nuclear testing over time, see the CTBTO website Scale comparison U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • LLNL 65 Th Anniversary Book, 2017
    Scientific Editor Paul Chrzanowski Production Editor Arnie Heller Pamela MacGregor (first edition) Graphic Designer George Kitrinos Proofreader Caryn Meissner About the Cover Since its inception in 1952, the Laboratory has transformed from a deactivated U.S. Naval Air Station to a campus-like setting (top) with outstanding research facilities through U.S. government investments in our important missions and the efforts of generations of exceptional people dedicated to national service. This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, About the Laboratory nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) was founded in 1952 to enhance process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to the security of the United States by advancing nuclear weapons science and any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise technology and ensuring a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent. With does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States a talented and dedicated workforce and world-class research capabilities, the government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors expressed Laboratory strengthens national security with a tradition of science and technology herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • Facility List
    Text size: Smaller - Normal - Larger ­ You are Here: DOE > HSS > HealthSafety > FWSP Largest Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Home | Health and Safety Facility List There were 382 records found for all records in the list. 1 - A.O. Smith Corporation State: Wisconsin Location: Milwaukee Time Period: 1948-1950 Facility Type: Beryllium Vendor Facility Description: A.O. Smith studied methods for protecting beryllium carbide-matrix bodies for the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project. 2 - AC Spark Plug Also Known As: AC Spark Plug State: Michigan Location: Flint Time Period: AWE/BE 1946-1947; Residual Radiation 1948-March 1, 2011 Facility Type: Atomic Weapons Employer Beryllium Vendor Facility Description: AC Spark Plug performed beryllium work for the AEC. Records indicate that approximately 10 men worked with beryllium at this location in 1947. Information about AC Spark Plug is found in health hazard surveys, shipping reports and in a MED history. The company continued to receive hundreds of pounds of beryllium for use under government contract into the 1960's. It is possible that some or all of this beryllium was being used for other, non-AEC projects. There was also a small amount of thorium procurement related to AC Spark Plug in the 1946-1947 timeframe. During the period of residual contamination, as designated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and as noted in the dates above, employees of subsequent owners and operators of this facility are also covered under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act. 3 - Accurate Machine & Tool Also Known As: Accurate Machine & Tool State: New Mexico Location: Albuquerque Time Period: 1987-2002 Facility Type: Beryllium Vendor Facility Description: Accurate Machine & Tool provides machine shop services to Sandia National Laboratory, California.
    [Show full text]