Talk:Project Chariot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Alaska (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Military history (Rated Stub-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality assessment scale.

Should be moved to "Project Chariot." (talk) 22:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

thank goodness...[edit]

Would it be helpful to note more explicitly that this did not in fact happen? squibix(talk) 02:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Rename: Project Chariot[edit]

It has been proposed on this page for several years that the article be renamed Project Chariot, as its subject is termed in most discussions and in AEC/DOE documents. I will do so in a few days if there are no objections. Dankarl (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

DoneDankarl (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


The statement that "no practical use of such a harbor was ever identified." is false. A harbor there would have useful for exploiting Alaska's coal reserves. Edward Teller announced at a news conference "A study commissioned by LRL [now LLNL] had shown that the area contained 'the highest quality of proven coal deposits in Alaska,' Teller said. He claimed Alaska's 'black diamonds can pay off better than its gold ever did or will.'" ('Project Chariot: How Alaska Escaped Nuclear Excavation', Dan O'Neill, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Dec. 1989, p30<>)

Moreover, Chariot was to server as a demonstration project. The results of which would have allowed other projects to be planned.

21:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pulu (talkcontribs)

"...a few scientists engaged in environmental studies"[edit]

...under AEC contract, and a handful of conservationists. This looks to me like a vague, if not derogatory, comment. This should be re-written in a more appropriate way, with references included; or deleted altogether. Seneika (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The comment is accurate as far as it goes. I am not in a position to expand it due to not having source material at hand (for instance, names and employers of the scientists). As I understand it AEC issued a contract to UAF, which assigned and/or recruited scientists. Their eventual opposition cost some their jobs. Dankarl (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


The article refers to lichen as "a tundra plant". Lichen is not a plant and it comes in numerous different species (c. 20 000) which are found in many other environments besides the tundra. In the words of Wikipedia's own article on the subject, "A lichen is a composite organism that emerges from algae or cyanobacteria (or both) living among filaments of a fungus in a mutually beneficial (symbiotic) relationship". In other words, lichens are symbiants, neither partner of which belongs to the plant kingdom.--Jarmo K. (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The parenthetical was meant to clarify what a lichen is (far anyone not familiar). I kinda doubt "algal/cyanobacterial/fungal symbiot" would be helpful in that regard. I've removed the problematic text and added a wikilink to do the job. - SummerPhD (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


I am confused with the dating on the information used on the Project Chariot, somewhere during the years, 1952 was mentioned, also, the small radiative material was released to see how long the radio-active would remain. Unfortunately, some of the participants may have exposed, and some died of lukemnia. This is based on listening to someone who was involved with the project. [comment 02:24, 22 September 2016‎ (talk)‎ moved from main article page by Dankarl (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)]

Plowshare started in 1958 [[1]]. There was certainly earlier nuclear testing. As far as I am aware the only US 1952 test was at Enewetak Atoll and I am not aware of any earlier tests in Alaska. Dankarl (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC)