Talk:Castle Bravo

Is the date correct?

I have the date as Feb 28, 1954 on page 4 of the Department of Energy Nuclear Tests document. Is that a date line issue? Kea2 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on which time zone you go by. As the article says, March 1 was local time. Feb 28 is GMT time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

distance

Can someone add the distance (camera to detonation) to the pictures' captions? (217.162.207.224 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Correct dates for Alvin Graves?

This article gives his birth year as 1912; the Wiki article on the man says 1909. Which is correct? Both say he died in 1966. Karn (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fission yield?

What fraction of the Castle Bravo yield came from fission? For Ivy Mike, a figure of 77% of total yield coming from fast fission of the uranium tamper is widely reported, but I haven't found anything for Castle Bravo. I can see how, despite the unexpectedly large total yield, that a large fraction of that yield might still come from fast fission of the tamper because of the higher than expected production of fast neutrons in the fusion reactions. Karn (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

copy-editing needed

Re "poisoned the islanders who inhabited the test site"...uhhh, if they really inhabited the island (atoll) they would have been vapourised. copyediting is clearly needed. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Changed it to "poisoned the islanders who had previously inhabited the atoll and returned there afterwards" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.206 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also added paragraph about the contamination with ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.206 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

The filling weight cannot be the same as the total weight, and LiH would need to be compressed to a ridiculous level in order for it to weigh that much in a bomb of this size. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 05:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The lithium used in the secondary was a small percentage of the total weight of the device (10.7 tonnes). Most of the weight was in the heavy steel casing and the uranium in the primary and secondary stages. Chasrob (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I know...but LiH is listed as the filling and the weights of the bomb and the filling are equal -- it just can't be. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Manipulated Picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Castle_Bravo_Shrimp_device.jpg

Te picture in the Image Box (with the silhouette) labeled "Shrimp" is clearly a fake. Compare to the MANY versions founf on-line, for example here: http://simplethinking.com/home/nuclear_weapons.htm . Wht would Wikipedia allow such an OBVIOUSLY FAKE image? Who knows... =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The picture, as best I can tell is not fake. It does not resemble the pictures you pointed to because of the difference of three orders of magnitude difference in explosion energies. Castle Bravo (like many multi-megaton fusion bombs) had a fireball which reached the stratosphere, while small (kiloton) explosions have much smaller fireball. Those smaller fireballs then move upwards causing a draft and producing the characteristic mushroom shape. For examples of various fusion bombs, see (for example) http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Castle.html - Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If the photo with the silhouette, superimposed OVER a background of the device, is not a "photoshop" than *why* are there copies of the exact same photo down to the numerical negative markings WITHOUT the silhouette? To me it seems common sense. One is real, one has been manipulated for effect. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Now I understand what you are talking about. You are referring to the image of "shrimp", 2nd picture down, with a superimposed silhouette of a human being for scale. From your comment, that was not at all clear. As to the issue of fakery, If you'll notice, the title says "The Shrimp device, silhouette added for scale.". It is not faked, it states clearly a silhouette has been superimposed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh cripes sake! I was talking about something way way different. Now it all makes sense. Wow was I confused! Yes the silhoette was added later,,,clearly. Ignore my other comments--Racerx11 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I was probably unclear... So my bad as well, I should have been a bit more exact in my words... =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Johnny, the link you provided shows no pictures of Castle Bravo. The first image is a "typical fission weapon" labeled {Grable, 15KT, 1953) and then there is a photo of Castle Romeo. That's it. There is a link on that page that links to more images but these are of a completely different photographic technique, none of which are of Castle Bravo anyway. I doubt the infobox photo is fake.--Racerx11 (talk) 06:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Scroll down. Halfway down the page is the EXACT photo without the silhouette, down to the numerical negative markings WITHOUT the silhouette? To me it seems common sense. One is real, one has been manipulated for effect. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides what Tarl.Neustaedter point out about magnitude, there are several other factors that can effect the appearance of these blasts in photos: The time after detonation the photo was taken, the test conditions themselves, the altitude of the detonation, atmospheric condtions, etc.--Racerx11 (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see THIS comparison: http://siliconsatan.com/brovo.html

You can clearly see the manipulation. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jane Dibblin's Book "Day of Two Suns"

I reverted an edit based on material from Jane Dibblin's "Day of Two Suns", since this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. The author is described by Library Journal as "a British journalist with a clear antinuclear agenda", and I don't see her claims supported elsewhere. She doesn't seem to have other publications to her name that could give me a further read on her reliability, and the claim that the radiation contamination was not accidental is a huge claim to make. Other opinions on whether this article should claim doubts on the accidental nature of Castle Bravo's effects? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

This reference was included to provide a broader discussion, and leave the option for people to consider the wider issues for themselves. You have removed this option for people by forcing them to consider only one view - and that cannot meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. Clearly you have not read the book if you refer to the Library Journal as your justification and stating it doesn't "seem" to be a reliable source. I would suggest you read the book first before you censor the inclusion of this reference - it is equally as valid as other 'agenda' driven references used in this article. I don't agree with everything Diddlin she says but there is some very good research in the book, especially the first hand accounts and testimony of surviors. Do you deny their assessment of the fallout? Read the book about the evidence of the fallout potentially being deliberate, or at least very, careless. This is no conspiracy theory. A couple of more recent books back up the possibility of this claim. Should Wikipedia readers not be allowed to consider this option? Or are you so offended that the USA could have done this? Whatever your reasons, clearly your decision to edit out this content - before any discussion - shows you have an agenda as well. That is concerning to fairness and intent of Wikipedia. Should I reinsert the content of Diddlin's book? Yes, in time, I will. Mari370 (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't have an agenda. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what is reported by reliable sources, and vague allegations by reporters with a specific bias are explicitly not a reliable source. If you want to cite specific evidence of malfeasance or specific evidence of intentional contamination, feel free. But simply saying doubts have been cast about it being unintentional without any details is not suitable for Wikipedia. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

2.5 Times Greater?

The article has listed the yield as two and a half times "as great as" and two and a half times "greater than" expected. These are NOT, as that recent poster stated, grammatical differences. If the expected yield was one, then the first would be 2.5 and the second would be 3.5. Which was it? The article states that "...a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 6 megatons..." Given the range of potential yields this means 2.5 to 3.75 times. Either way the "as great as" is more correct and "greater than" is often used by people who don't understand the difference between the two. Citation anyone? Senor Cuete (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Cause of high yield section also says "...two and a half times as great as..." I think that this should stay. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed it should stay this way. A source would be nice, but does not seem to be a hard requirement for arithmetic. I would take the top of the expected range (6 Mt) to be the "as expected" portion. VQuakr (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

"...as great as" is awkward English. How about: "With a yield of fifteen megatons, Castel Bravo was between 2.5 to 3.75 times the yield than originally planned." Dinkytown talk 00:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

As great as is NOT awkward English. "...times the yield than originally planned..." is grammatically wrong. It doesn't make sense unless you remove the "than". Edit warring to include factual errors and bad grammar is awkward. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems likely we can reach an agreement as to the best phrasing, so let's do that. How about, "The yield of 15 megatons was two and a half times the maximum yield anticipated by the device's designers."? VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That would work but I still think that a reliable source for the expected yield is needed. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

This sounds good and balanced. I'll put that in, if it's not there already. A good source to back this up will never hurt... Dinkytown talk 17:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

According to this site: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Castle.html "The yield of Bravo dramatically exceeded predictions, being about 2.5 times higher than the best guess and almost double the estimated maximum possible yield (6 Mt predicted, estimated yield range 4-8 Mt)." Once again they mean 2.5 times as high as (6 * 2.5 = 15). Senor Cuete (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Licking fallout

An IP address has added a sentence about a crewman on the Maru licking fallout (that mention had been there a while back and removed). This struck me as largely irrelevant and I reverted it, but it's been re-added. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether this is relevant to an article about Castle Bravo? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty trivial. It obviously illustrates that the crew had no idea the dust was hazardous, but better to just state this and that they did not shelter-in-place on their ship. VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TIES vs WP:ALUM

I have been reverted by two different editors when trying to apply WP:ALUM to this article. I am not sure if it is a reading problem or a comprehension problem, or something else, but let's try to discuss here. WP:ALUM aplies to chemistry-related articles. The detailed discussion of different radioisotopes and their chemistry clearly puts this article into that category. Does anyone who has read the article seriously disagree with this? --John (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is written in American English. Wikipedia's policy is to respect varieties of English, see WP:ENGVAR. You have violated Wikipedia's policy on varieties of English three times and this constitutes vandalism and violates the three revert rule. Yes, this is a reading and comprehension problem - your failure to read Wikipedia's policies on regional English as spelled out in WP:ENGVAR and edit warring. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:ALUM overrides WP:ENGVAR. Please go and read the two so you know what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself further. Please also read WP:VAND so you know what vandalism means, for the same reason. The only reason you should oppose my edit is if you think this article is not "chemistry-related". If you have actually read it, I think this would be quite a difficult position to take. --John (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I read them all. Nowhere does it say that the IUPAC names trump WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. This is NOT a chemistry-related article. Wikipedia has a problem with British chauvinist editors that use their accounts only for violating WP:ENGVAR. Yes, technically, deliberately violating WP:ENGVAR is disruptive editing, not vandalism. Wikipedia discourages person attacks like the ones you made above. Sometimes other Wikipedia editors will reject your edits. Get used to it. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)