CTBT: LLNL's Impact on US Nuclear Policy from 1958 to 2000

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

CTBT: LLNL's Impact on US Nuclear Policy from 1958 to 2000 THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY’S IMPACT ON U.S. NUCLEAR LIVERMORE LABORATORY’S IMPACT LAWRENCE THE BROWN NATIONAL COMPREHENSIVE POLICY TEST BAN 2000 TREATY: PAUL TO FROM 1958 THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY’S IMPACT ON U.S.NUCLEAR POLICY FROM 1958 TO 2000 PAUL BROWN THE COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Impact on U.S. Nuclear Policy from 1958 to 2000 Paul Brown Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Office of Defense Coordination P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551 April 2019 (925) 424-6325 Acronyms AFTAC Air Force Technical Applications Center ABM Anti-ballistic missile ACDA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency AEC Atomic Energy Commission CINCPAC Commander in chief of the Pacific CTB Comprehensive test ban CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty CTBTO Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization CD Conference on Disarmament DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency DDR&E Department of Defense Research and Engineering DNA Defense Nuclear Agency DoD Department of Defense DOE Department of Energy DP Defense Programs ENDC Eighteen Nation Disarmament Committee FLR Federal Laboratory Review GSE Group of Scientific Experts HASC House Armed Services Committee HEDEF High-energy-density experimental facility HE High explosive HASC House Armed Services Committee ICF Inertial confinement fusion IFE Integrated field exercise JVE Joint Verification Experiment LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory LEP Life extension program LTBT Limited Test Ban Treaty LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory This document was produced by the Office of Defense Coordination within the Director’s Office LYNM Low-yield nuclear monitoring at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. NAS National Academy of Sciences NDC National Data Center NIF National Ignition Facility Technical comments and queries are encouraged and should be directed to Dr. Craig R. Wuest, NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration (925) 423-2909, [email protected]. NSC National Security Council NSS National seismic station NTS Nevada Test Site NPT Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty This document was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United NTEM Nuclear Test Experts Meeting States government. Neither the United States government nor Lawrence Livermore National OTA Office of Technology Assessment OSI Onsite inspection Security, LLC, nor any of their employees makes any warranty, expressed or implied, or PNE Peaceful Nuclear Explosion assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of PDD Presidential Decision Directive any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would PNET Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty PRM Presidential Review Memorandum not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, PSAC President’s Science Advisory Committee process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily RSTN Regional Seismic Test Network constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States RRW Reliable Replacement Warhead SNL Sandia National Laboratories government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. The views and opinions of authors SASC Senate Armed Services Committee expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or SFRC Senate Foreign Relations Committee Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC, and shall not be used for advertising or product SVA Separate Verification Agreement endorsement purposes. SSMP Stockpile Stewardship Management Plan SSP Stockpile Stewardship Program SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks/Treaty This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by SDI Strategic Defense Initiative Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. START Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty TTBT Threshold Test Ban Treaty LLNL-TR-765657 TID-53407 U.C. University of California Foreword and Acknowledgments This history is the final work of Dr. Paul S. Brown, who served in a va- riety of technical and management positions at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) for more than 50 years. In this work, Paul focuses on aspects of arms control during the timeframe of 1958 to 2000, particularly on issues related to the need for nuclear testing and the efforts that would eventually bring about its end as a result of U.S. policy actions in light of the changing geopolitical and technical drivers and constraints. Paul’s history provides a perspective of how the issues surrounding nuclear testing evolved, with an emphasis on LLNL’s participation over the years. He describes key events as they relate to nuclear testing and its ban, such as the development of the stockpile stewardship program. This represents a mostly finished effort, with some final editing. Unfortunately for the Laboratory and the nation, Paul passed away before this work was completed. However, he was active in shaping the final draft up until the time of his death, while valiantly fighting a host of medical challenges. This work is a fitting tribute to Paul’s dedi- cation and service to the country, and it is hoped that technologists, scholars, and policy makers can learn from the events described herein as the U.S. navigates its challenging national security course for the 21st century. A variety of sources were used to provide an accounting of some of the Laboratory’s contributions over the decades relating to the events surrounding the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Sources include excerpts from previous LLNL publications such as Energy and Technology Review, and the Laboratory’s 40th an- niversary publication;* Dr. Milo Nordyke’s unpublished draft history of the Laboratory’s involvement in the nuclear test ban negotiations (Nordyke was LLNL’s treaty verification program leader from the time The author, Paul Brown. the program was formed in 1976 to the 1980s); Dr. Glenn Seaborg’s * Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), Preparing for the 21st Century, 40 Years of Excellence, UCRL-AR-108618. COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY | vii book, Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Test Ban*; Dr. Herbert York’s C. Bruce Tarter, Mr. John Nuckolls, Dr. Paul Chrzanowski, Dr. Carol book, Making Weapons, Talking Peace: A Physicist’s Journey from Alonso, and Mr. David Brown. Finally, a special acknowledgment is Hiroshima to Geneva†; extracted, unclassified excerpts from Dr. owed to Ms. Gabriele Rennie, who worked closely with Paul during William Ogle’s early test ban history‡; and Benjamin Greene’s book, the final months of his life, and whose expertise in scientific and Eisenhower, Science Advice, and the Nuclear Test-Ban Debate, technical editing was crucial to the completion of this history. 1945–1963.§ The LLNL technical report archives provided a key source for Dr. Craig R. Wuest Laboratory involvement from the 1950s through the 1970s, and LLNL, December 2018 we extend our thanks to former Laboratory archivist Maxine Trost, who organized the archives to make it easier to find documents and helped in locating information. We also thank Laboratory archivist Jeffrey Sahaida, who helped us locate photographs for this book. This history also benefits from the work of Dr. Carol Alonso, who was LLNL’s assistant associate director for national security in the 1990s. Alonso wrote a draft white paper, “The Road to Zero Yield,” that describes the events that led the U.S. to adopt a zero nuclear yield position for the CTBT negotiations that began in 1995.**¶ She also provided excellent references to public materials, such as congres- sional testimonies, that were not readily available in the Laboratory’s files. Information was also gleaned from a number of Laboratory and interagency reports, and personal communications between Labora- tory personnel and other individuals involved in test ban negotiations and deliberations or who supported the representatives at the meetings. During the time that Paul was working on this history and after his death, a number of colleagues and experts were involved in the completion of the final draft of Paul’s work. We are sure he would have wanted to acknowledge the contributions and support of Dr. Jay Zucca, Dr. Bill Dunlop, Dr. Wayne Shotts, Dr. George Miller, Dr. * G. Seaborg, Kennedy, Khrushchev, and the Test Ban, University of California Press, 1981. † H. York, Making Weapons, Talking Peace: A Physicist’s Journey from Hiroshima to Geneva, Harper & Row, 1987. ‡ Account of the Return to Nuclear Weapons Testing by the United States after the Test Moratorium 1958–1961, U.S. DOE Nevada Operations Office, October 1985, NVO-291. § B.P. Greene, Eisenhower, Science Advice, and the Nuclear Test-Ban Debate, 1945–1963, Stanford University Press, 2007, p. 145. **¶ C. Alonso, “The Road to Zero Yield,” June 1996. This unpublished draft report was marked “In Strictest Confidence” because of the political sensitivities at the time regarding what people said or did and in what context it occurred. However, more than twenty years have passed, and we have been careful to avoid any political sensitivities. viii | PAUL BROWN COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY | ix Contents Laboratory Studies on Permitted Experiments . 94 Shaping DOE Secretary Hazel O’Leary’s Views and Her Visit to Livermore . 95 Hydronuclear Experiments . 100 The Dellums Report on the National Ignition
Recommended publications
  • An Inquiry Whether the International Court of Justice Has Found the Right
    An Inquiry whether the International Court of Justice has found the right application of article 62 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties – Fundamental Change of Circumstances? Written by Peter Szilvasi LLM. Candidate, supervised by Dr. I. Heko Scheltema, at The University of Amsterdam, for the course LLM. in European Union and Public International Law 2015 Word count: 13.990 Student number: 10866523 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................................iii ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE THESIS ........................................................................................................ vii KEYWORDS ...................................................................................................................................................... vii ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................................viii INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1. CIRCUMSTANCES CONCERNING THE DRAFTING OF ARTICLE 62 AND INHERENT PROBLEMS ...... 3 1.1 Legal status of article 62 – the lex lata .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2013.Pdf
    ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION Preserving & Interpreting Manhattan Project History & Legacy preserving history ANNUAL REPORT 2013 WHY WE SHOULD PRESERVE THE MANHATTAN PROJECT “The factories and bombs that Manhattan Project scientists, engineers, and workers built were physical objects that depended for their operation on physics, chemistry, metallurgy, and other nat- ural sciences, but their social reality - their meaning, if you will - was human, social, political....We preserve what we value of the physical past because it specifically embodies our social past....When we lose parts of our physical past, we lose parts of our common social past as well.” “The new knowledge of nuclear energy has undoubtedly limited national sovereignty and scaled down the destructiveness of war. If that’s not a good enough reason to work for and contribute to the Manhattan Project’s historic preservation, what would be? It’s certainly good enough for me.” ~Richard Rhodes, “Why We Should Preserve the Manhattan Project,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2006 Photographs clockwise from top: J. Robert Oppenheimer, General Leslie R. Groves pinning an award on Enrico Fermi, Leona Woods Marshall, the Alpha Racetrack at the Y-12 Plant, and the Bethe House on Bathtub Row. Front cover: A Bruggeman Ranch property. Back cover: Bronze statues by Susanne Vertel of J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie Groves at Los Alamos. Table of Contents BOARD MEMBERS & ADVISORY COMMITTEE........3 Cindy Kelly, Dorothy and Clay Per- Letter from the President..........................................4
    [Show full text]
  • A Selected Bibliography of Publications By, and About, J
    A Selected Bibliography of Publications by, and about, J. Robert Oppenheimer Nelson H. F. Beebe University of Utah Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB 155 S 1400 E RM 233 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090 USA Tel: +1 801 581 5254 FAX: +1 801 581 4148 E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] (Internet) WWW URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ 17 March 2021 Version 1.47 Title word cross-reference $1 [Duf46]. $12.95 [Edg91]. $13.50 [Tho03]. $14.00 [Hug07]. $15.95 [Hen81]. $16.00 [RS06]. $16.95 [RS06]. $17.50 [Hen81]. $2.50 [Opp28g]. $20.00 [Hen81, Jor80]. $24.95 [Fra01]. $25.00 [Ger06]. $26.95 [Wol05]. $27.95 [Ger06]. $29.95 [Goo09]. $30.00 [Kev03, Kle07]. $32.50 [Edg91]. $35 [Wol05]. $35.00 [Bed06]. $37.50 [Hug09, Pol07, Dys13]. $39.50 [Edg91]. $39.95 [Bad95]. $8.95 [Edg91]. α [Opp27a, Rut27]. γ [LO34]. -particles [Opp27a]. -rays [Rut27]. -Teilchen [Opp27a]. 0-226-79845-3 [Guy07, Hug09]. 0-8014-8661-0 [Tho03]. 0-8047-1713-3 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1714-1 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1721-4 [Edg91]. 0-8047-1722-2 [Edg91]. 0-9672617-3-2 [Bro06, Hug07]. 1 [Opp57f]. 109 [Con05, Mur05, Nas07, Sap05a, Wol05, Kru07]. 112 [FW07]. 1 2 14.99/$25.00 [Ber04a]. 16 [GHK+96]. 1890-1960 [McG02]. 1911 [Meh75]. 1945 [GHK+96, Gow81, Haw61, Bad95, Gol95a, Hew66, She82, HBP94]. 1945-47 [Hew66]. 1950 [Ano50]. 1954 [Ano01b, GM54, SZC54]. 1960s [Sch08a]. 1963 [Kuh63]. 1967 [Bet67a, Bet97, Pun67, RB67]. 1976 [Sag79a, Sag79b]. 1981 [Ano81]. 20 [Goe88]. 2005 [Dre07]. 20th [Opp65a, Anoxx, Kai02].
    [Show full text]
  • Tokamak Foundation in USSR/Russia 1950--1990
    IOP PUBLISHING and INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY NUCLEAR FUSION Nucl. Fusion 50 (2010) 014003 (8pp) doi:10.1088/0029-5515/50/1/014003 Tokamak foundation in USSR/Russia 1950–1990 V.P. Smirnov Nuclear Fusion Institute, RRC ’Kurchatov Institute’, Moscow, Russia Received 8 June 2009, accepted for publication 26 November 2009 Published 30 December 2009 Online at stacks.iop.org/NF/50/014003 In the USSR, nuclear fusion research began in 1950 with the work of I.E. Tamm, A.D. Sakharov and colleagues. They formulated the principles of magnetic confinement of high temperature plasmas, that would allow the development of a thermonuclear reactor. Following this, experimental research on plasma initiation and heating in toroidal systems began in 1951 at the Kurchatov Institute. From the very first devices with vessels made of glass, porcelain or metal with insulating inserts, work progressed to the operation of the first tokamak, T-1, in 1958. More machines followed and the first international collaboration in nuclear fusion, on the T-3 tokamak, established the tokamak as a promising option for magnetic confinement. Experiments continued and specialized machines were developed to test separately improvements to the tokamak concept needed for the production of energy. At the same time, research into plasma physics and tokamak theory was being undertaken which provides the basis for modern theoretical work. Since then, the tokamak concept has been refined by a world-wide effort and today we look forward to the successful operation of ITER. (Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version) At the opening ceremony of the United Nations First In the USSR, NF research began in 1950.
    [Show full text]
  • Archons (Commanders) [NOTICE: They Are NOT Anlien Parasites], and Then, in a Mirror Image of the Great Emanations of the Pleroma, Hundreds of Lesser Angels
    A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES WATCH THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO UFOs, Aliens, and the Question of Contact MUST-SEE THE OCCULT REASON FOR PSYCHOPATHY Organic Portals: Aliens and Psychopaths KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GNOSIS Boris Mouravieff - GNOSIS IN THE BEGINNING ...1 The Gnostic core belief was a strong dualism: that the world of matter was deadening and inferior to a remote nonphysical home, to which an interior divine spark in most humans aspired to return after death. This led them to an absorption with the Jewish creation myths in Genesis, which they obsessively reinterpreted to formulate allegorical explanations of how humans ended up trapped in the world of matter. The basic Gnostic story, which varied in details from teacher to teacher, was this: In the beginning there was an unknowable, immaterial, and invisible God, sometimes called the Father of All and sometimes by other names. “He” was neither male nor female, and was composed of an implicitly finite amount of a living nonphysical substance. Surrounding this God was a great empty region called the Pleroma (the fullness). Beyond the Pleroma lay empty space. The God acted to fill the Pleroma through a series of emanations, a squeezing off of small portions of his/its nonphysical energetic divine material. In most accounts there are thirty emanations in fifteen complementary pairs, each getting slightly less of the divine material and therefore being slightly weaker. The emanations are called Aeons (eternities) and are mostly named personifications in Greek of abstract ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • Crater Geometry and Ejecta Thickness of the Martian Impact Crater Tooting
    Meteoritics & Planetary Science 42, Nr 9, 1615–1625 (2007) Abstract available online at http://meteoritics.org Crater geometry and ejecta thickness of the Martian impact crater Tooting Peter J. MOUGINIS-MARK and Harold GARBEIL Hawai‘i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, University of Hawai‘i, Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96822, USA (Received 25 October 2006; revision accepted 04 March 2007) Abstract–We use Mars Orbiter Laser Altimeter (MOLA) topographic data and Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) visible (VIS) images to study the cavity and the ejecta blanket of a very fresh Martian impact crater ~29 km in diameter, with the provisional International Astronomical Union (IAU) name Tooting crater. This crater is very young, as demonstrated by the large depth/ diameter ratio (0.065), impact melt preserved on the walls and floor, an extensive secondary crater field, and only 13 superposed impact craters (all 54 to 234 meters in diameter) on the ~8120 km2 ejecta blanket. Because the pre-impact terrain was essentially flat, we can measure the volume of the crater cavity and ejecta deposits. Tooting crater has a rim height that has >500 m variation around the rim crest and a very large central peak (1052 m high and >9 km wide). Crater cavity volume (i.e., volume below the pre-impact terrain) is ~380 km3 and the volume of materials above the pre-impact terrain is ~425 km3. The ejecta thickness is often very thin (<20 m) throughout much of the ejecta blanket. There is a pronounced asymmetry in the ejecta blanket, suggestive of an oblique impact, which has resulted in up to ~100 m of additional ejecta thickness being deposited down-range compared to the up-range value at the same radial distance from the rim crest.
    [Show full text]
  • CHARACTERIZATION of the COMPANION Μ HER Lewis C
    The Astronomical Journal, 151:169 (7pp), 2016 June doi:10.3847/0004-6256/151/6/169 © 2016. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE COMPANION μ HER Lewis C. Roberts Jr.1, Brian D. Mason2, Jonathan Aguilar3, Joseph Carson4, Justin Crepp5, Charles Beichman1,6,7, Douglas Brenner8, Rick Burruss1, Eric Cady1, Statia Luszcz-Cook8, Richard Dekany6, Lynne Hillenbrand6, Sasha Hinkley9, David King10, Thomas G. Lockhart1, Ricky Nilsson8,11, Rebecca Oppenheimer8, Ian R. Parry10, Laurent Pueyo3,12, Emily L. Rice13, Anand Sivaramakrishnan12, Rémi Soummer12, Gautam Vasisht1, Aaron Veicht8, Ji Wang14, Chengxing Zhai1, and Neil T. Zimmerman15 1 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena CA 91109, USA 2 U.S. Naval Observatory, 3450 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20392-5420, USA 3 Johns Hopkins University, 3400 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA 4 Department of Physics & Astronomy, College of Charleston, 58 Coming Street, Charleston, SC 29424, USA 5 Department of Physics, University of Notre Dame, 225 Nieuwland Science Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA 6 Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA 7 NASA Exoplanet Science Institute, 770 S. Wilson Avenue, Pasadena, CA 911225, USA 8 American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, USA 9 School of Physics, University of Exeter, Stocker Road, Exeter, EX4 4QL, UK 10 Institute of Astronomy, University
    [Show full text]
  • HD 165054: an Astrometric Calibration Field for High-Contrast Imagers In
    Draft version April 8, 2020 Typeset using LATEX twocolumn style in AASTeX63 HD 165054: an astrometric calibration field for high-contrast imagers in Baade's Window 1 2, 3 4, 1 1, 5 Meiji M. Nguyen, Robert J. De Rosa, Jason J. Wang, ∗ Thomas M. Esposito, Paul Kalas, James R. Graham,1 Bruce Macintosh,3 Vanessa P. Bailey,6 Travis Barman,7 Joanna Bulger,8, 9 Jeffrey Chilcote,10 Tara Cotten,11 Rene Doyon,12 Gaspard Duchene^ ,1, 13 Michael P. Fitzgerald,14 Katherine B. Follette,15 Benjamin L. Gerard,16, 17 Stephen J. Goodsell,18 Alexandra Z. Greenbaum,19 Pascale Hibon,2 Justin Hom,20 Li-Wei Hung,21 Patrick Ingraham,22 Quinn Konopacky,23 James E. Larkin,14 Jer´ ome^ Maire,23 Franck Marchis,5 Mark S. Marley,24 Christian Marois,17, 16 Stanimir Metchev,25, 26 6, 3 27 28 Maxwell A. Millar-Blanchaer, y Eric L. Nielsen, Rebecca Oppenheimer, David Palmer, Jennifer Patience,20 Marshall Perrin,29 Lisa Poyneer,28 Laurent Pueyo,29 Abhijith Rajan,29 Julien Rameau,13, 12 Fredrik T. Rantakyro¨,30 Bin Ren,31 Jean-Baptiste Ruffio,3 Dmitry Savransky,32 Adam C. Schneider,20 Anand Sivaramakrishnan,29 Inseok Song,11 Remi Soummer,29 Melisa Tallis,3 Sandrine Thomas,22 J. Kent Wallace,6 Kimberly Ward-Duong,15 Sloane Wiktorowicz,33 and Schuyler Wolff34 1Department of Astronomy, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA 2European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Cordova 3107, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile 3Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA 4Department of Astronomy, California Institute of Technology,
    [Show full text]
  • Psychology of Space Exploration Psychology of About the Book Douglas A
    About the Editor Contemporary Research in Historical Perspective Psychology of Space Exploration Psychology of About the Book Douglas A. Vakoch is a professor in the Department As we stand poised on the verge of a new era of of Clinical Psychology at the California Institute of spaceflight, we must rethink every element, including Integral Studies, as well as the director of Interstellar Space Exploration the human dimension. This book explores some of the Message Composition at the SETI Institute. Dr. Vakoch Contemporary Research in Historical Perspective contributions of psychology to yesterday’s great space is a licensed psychologist in the state of California, and Edited by Douglas A. Vakoch race, today’s orbiter and International Space Station mis- his psychological research, clinical, and teaching interests sions, and tomorrow’s journeys beyond Earth’s orbit. include topics in psychotherapy, ecopsychology, and meth- Early missions into space were typically brief, and crews odologies of psychological research. As a corresponding were small, often drawn from a single nation. As an member of the International Academy of Astronautics, intensely competitive space race has given way to inter- Dr. Vakoch chairs that organization’s Study Groups on national cooperation over the decades, the challenges of Interstellar Message Construction and Active SETI. communicating across cultural boundaries and dealing Through his membership in the International Institute with interpersonal conflicts have become increasingly of Space Law, he examines
    [Show full text]
  • Water Logging in Punjab
    REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL EXPERT GROUP ON WATER LOGGING IN PUNJAB GOVERNMENT OF INDIA PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY, 2013 REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL HIGH LEVEL EXPERT GROUP ON WATER LOGGING IN PUNJAB Dr Mihir Shah Member (Water Resources and Rural Development) Government of India Planning Commission, New Delhi Dr Tushaar Shah Dr. Himanshu Kulkarni Sr. Fellow, International Water Management Executive Director Institute (IWMI), Anand, Gujarat Advanced Centre for Water Resources Development and Managemen (ACWADAM), Pashan Pune, Maharashtra Dr.Karam Singh, Dr. S.C.Dhiman Retd. Professor and HoD Former Chairman, Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Faridabad, Haryana Department of Economics and Sociology, 2 Punjab Agricultural University Ludhiana, Punjab Shri Rajesh Kumar Chairman, Central Water Commission & Ms Savita Anand Member (Water Planning and Projects), Joint Secretary, Department of Land Resources, CWC Ministry of Rural Development, New Delhi New Delhi Director, Ground Water Shri G.S. Jha Water Resources & Environment Irrigation Department, Commissioner, Command Area Government of Punjab, Development and Water Management, Chandigarh Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi Prof. Dr. A.K.Jain Chairman, Punjab State Farmers Commission, Mohali, Punjab HoD, Department of Soil & Water Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 3 Joint Secretary (NRM&RFS) Shri Vinod Chaudhry Department of Agriculture and Cooperation, Chief Engineer, Drainage Ministry of Agriculture Irrigation Department New Delhi Government of Punjab Chandigarh Dr. D.R.Prasada Raju Mission Cell, Department of Science and Shri K.B.S. Sidhu Technology, Principal Secretary, Irrigation Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of Punjab, New Delhi Chandigarh Shri Avinash Mishra, Joint Adviser & Member Secretary to the Expert Group Water Resources Division Planning Commission Government of India 4 REPORT OF THE HIGH LEVEL EXPERT GROUP ON WATER LOGGING IN PUNJAB January 2013 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity Site July 16, 1945
    Trinity Site July 16, 1945 "The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beauti­ ful, stupendous, and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun." Brig. Gen. Thomas Farrell A national historic landmark on White Sands Missile Range -- www.wsmr.army.mil Radiation Basics Radiation comes from the nucJeus of the gamma ray. This is a type of electromag­ individual atoms. Simple atoms like oxygen netic radiation like visible light, radio waves are very stable. Its nucleus has eight protons and X-rays. They travel at the speed of light. and eight neutrons and holds together well. It takes at least an inch of lead or eight The nucJeus of a complex atom like inches of concrete to stop them. uranium is not as stable. Uranium has 92 Finally, neutrons are also emitted by protons and 146 neutrons in its core. These some radioactive substances. Neutrons are unstable atoms tend to break down into very penetrating but are not as common in more stable, simpler forms. When this nature. Neutrons have the capability of happens the atom emits subatomic particles striking the nucleus of another atom and and gamma rays. This is where the word changing a stable atom into an unstable, and "radiation" comes from -- the atom radiates therefore, radioactive one. Neutrons emitted particles and rays. in nuc!ear reactors are contained in the Health physicists are concerned with reactor vessel or shielding and cause the four emissions from the nucleus of these vessel walls to become radioactive.
    [Show full text]
  • Eyes for Gamma Rays” Though the Major Peaks Suggest a Periodic- Whether These Are Truly Gamma-Ray Bursts for a Description of This System)
    sion of regularity and slow evolution in the They suggested that examination of the Vela exe-atmospheric nuclear detonation. Surpris- universe persisted into the 1960s. data might disclose evidence of bursts of ingly, however, the survey soon revealed that The feeling that transient cosmic events gamma rays at times close to the appearance the gamma-ray instruments on widely sepa- were rare was certainly prevalent in 1959 of supernovae. Such searches were con- rated satellites had sometimes responded when summit meetings were being held be- ducted; however, no distinctive signals were almost identically. Some of these events were tween England, the United States, and found. attributable to solar flare activity. However, Russia to discuss a nuclear test-ban treaty. On the other hand, there was evidence of one particularly distinctive event was dis- One key issue was the ability to detect treaty variability that had been ignored. For exam- covered for which a solar origin seemed violations unambiguously. A leading ple, the earliest x-ray data from small rocket inconsistent. Fortunately, the characteristics proposal for the detection of exo-at- probes and from satellites were often found of this event did not at all resemble those of a mospheric nuclear explosions was the use of to disagree significantly. The quality of the nuclear detonation, and thus the event did satellites with instruments that included de- data, rather than actual variations in the not create concern of a possible test-ban tectors sensitive to the gamma rays emitted sources, was suspected as the reason for treaty violation. by the explosion as well as those emitted these discrepancies.
    [Show full text]