Jump to content

Talk:Sedan (nuclear test)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Sudan misunderstanding

[edit]

Was is a "reporter" or a Congressional "recorder" (or reporter or whatever) that made the mistake? I cannot see how the mistake of a press reporter could make its way into the congressional record. -- 70.231.147.149 21:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a mis-interpretation of the source article by the author of this article. The article makes no mention of the congressional record but a congressional website. Two very different things. I would make a change but I will post here and see what happens.--Art8641 19:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As there is no obvious source specifying who made the mistake, I've rephrased the sentence. Djr32 (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please ask some questions, please don't flame. Does the US government see the fallout of these tests as acceptable in exposing millions of people to radiation? The article does not say or link to how much radiation a people can take before it becomes dangerous. I would have thought any amount (excluding what natually occurs) is unexceptable. Has anybdy in these counties where fallout occurred tried to sue the US govt? I'm sure the govt. would have know at the time the dangers they are putting their own people to. I mean they are preventing other countries from attacking them with bombs (and rightfully so), but they are exploding N-bombs themselves. What were they thinking??? 124.254.78.121 (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine the place to look would be the main articles about the programs as a whole, going into the broader implications of the testing program within the article for any individual test would lead to massive amounts of redundancy. --81.149.74.231 (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much wasn't known at the time about the health impact of nuclear fallout. Add to that lack of civilian knowledge the fact that anything atomic was classified, there was no information available to the public about either their exposure (denied for decades by the US government) and later, downplayed. By the time the information was declassified, those responsible could only be held to task if one dug up their graves and the government being held culpable in a court of law was and remains problematic, as the efforts were in the effort to protect the nation, as insane as that sounds.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major Error

[edit]

The graph of total population exposed has been altered from the original report - the y axis should read "percent of total population exposure", and shows Sedan's percent contribution to total fallout exposure from ALL NTS tests, not the percent of people who were "exposed" at the time of its detonation. The corresponding text is also incorrect. -- 128.36.156.209 (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will look carefully at this possible mistake and change everything which is affected. Binksternet (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have corrected the misinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was the exit from the earth and the resulting plumes a result of computational error, or was it planned like that from the beginning???

[edit]

I came to this article to find out if the radiation released on the country from Sedan was a result of computational error, or whether it was expected to break the surface of the earth and thus create a plume, but this article doesn't address this important issue at all. Does anybody know??? I mean, if the idea was to test atomic bombs for making things like harbours, then it would seem that the resultant radiation release was expected. If that is so, it is criminal IMO. As for it being a computational error, any idiot would have known that a 100+ kiloton explosion only 600 feet below the surface would have broken through the surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course it was expected to "break the surface" - this was what the test was conducted for - to see if there were practical applications of thermonuclear blasts for mining, clearing a harbour, etc. The only way to find out is to test. Note that, while to the layman it may seem that massive amounts of radioactive material fell as a result of the test, the actual RAD/REM was biologically not significant from the test - BUT it was politically not acceptable. I was exposed to much more radiation than this as a nuclear eng. for the US Navy, and was still well within the acceptable limit. The gov't did the right thing in abandoning this idea - eventually there would have been problems. Power generation from thermonuclear explosions, however, may some day see use. HammerFilmFan (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was NOT designed to broach the surface, as that would spread radioisotopes as fallout. It was SUPPOSED to melt a large chamber in the rock, which would collapse after cooling, due to contraction creating a partial vacuum. The surface crater would be significant, but the irradiated rock and warhead remnants would remain trapped in obsidian. There were several releases from similar miscalculations of the forces involved in rock strata. Sedan and Gnome come to mind as classic screw-ups involving releases of radioisotopes. New field, new knowledge after experimentation.Wzrd1 (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, it actually was planned to crater the surface. The bomb was buried to a depth of 194 meters, while tests around it intended to be underground were routinely buried to depths of a half mile. Nougat/Haymaker, held a month before, was 67 kT and buried to 400 meters. There were studies done to determine how exactly the alluvial earth in Yucca Flat would react, and the depth was selected to maximize the excavation. Plowshare had done a number of large explosions nearby (the largest crater 1 kilometer SE of Sedan, a chemical charge called "Skooter", was one). There was no doubt it would break.
What you describe is the intent behind underground shaft delivery. Sedan was classed as a cratering delivery. 04:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sedan (nuclear test). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sedan_(nuclear_test)&oldid=1216918013"