It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Port Chicago... accidental nuclear blast?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
exactly, it doesn't. It was a theoritical concept, like many others at Los Alamos including the 'tickling dragon'. They even quit experiments with heavy water after 43, you should know this rogue1 it states quite clearly in Rhodes's book.



Well this theoretical concept was used to construct 2 weapons for the 1953 Upshot Knothole tests, which I have previously stated. SO even if you don't believe the device was proof tested at Port Chicago, it was definately tested twice in 1953 under Teller's direction. Shots Ruth and Ray.




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
Well this theoretical concept was used to construct 2 weapons for the 1953 Upshot Knothole tests, which I have previously stated. SO even if you don't believe the device was proof tested at Port Chicago, it was definately tested twice in 1953 under Teller's direction. Shots Ruth and Ray.


Again, you are in major error.
Your assertion is not adequately sourced or presented, and quite frankly, your continued wordings and assertions are not cutting the cake of truth.

From your own given link, that you purposely ignored and did not address:


This operation exposed exercise personnel to nuclear tests, and thus radiation, more aggressively than previous ones. Observation by troop formations were conducted at what was calculated to be the minimum safe separation distance, with many personnel being exposed to multiple tests. Under current occupational radiation exposure limits (0.3 rem/week and 5 rem/year) this would would limit maximum exposures to 3.3 rems over the 11 week operation. Approximately three thousand soldiers reached or exceeded this limit, with 84 exceeding the annual limit (the highest recorded exposure was 26.6 rem). These exposures do not produce observable symptoms, they simply increase the lifetime risk of cancer a small amount.

The effect on the downwind civilian population, taken together, was much worse. Uphot-Knothole released some 35,000 kilocuries of radioiodine (I-131) into the atmosphere (for comparison, Trinity released about 3200 kilocuries of radioiodine). This produced total civilian radiation exposures amounting to 89 million person-rads of thyroid tissue exposure (about 24% of all exposure due to continental nuclear tests). This can be expected to eventually cause about 28,000 cases of thyroid cancer, leading to some 1400 deaths. Chart of fallout exposures from "underground tests" (61 K, 539x577). From National Cancer Institute Study Estimating Thyroid Doses of I-131 Received by Americans From Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear Bomb Test, 1997. To go to the National Cancer Institute and get the full report, click here.

Operation Upshot-Knothole

If such a device was used as you continue to so assert, two times already that I am thus far aware of, then radiation levels would have been detectable, period, as per your own provided source!

You are purposely telling and asserting fabrications.
Denying Ignorance indeed, huh?



seekerof

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I regret I do not have time, and won't for a while, to respond to all the posts, and thank you Rogue 1 for your contributions in replies.

For those interested in the Port Chicago radiation questions, in addition to what I have written in comparison of shots Ruth and Ray to the Port Chicago Mark II detonation, see Ian Kluft's "Background Radiation Measurements near Port Chicago": ian.kluft.com...

Those interested in the radiation questions should keep in mind that the proof detonation of the nominal 1 kt TNT-equivalent Mark II at Port Chicago 17 July 1944 was made at the reduced yield of 200-300 tons TNT equivalent. T'would have been a waste of the very limited and very expensive quantity of U-235 produced by 17 July 1944 to have made a proof of Mark II at the nominal 1 kt yield.

Successful field-scale proof of the Mark II at Port Chicago, with that reduced yield, proved the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons. Proof of the successful detonation of Mark II within the context of the much large detonation of conventional WW II munitions was recognition of the unique, distinctive and typical manifestations of the Mark II nuclear fission fire ball, which on a larger scale (18,000 feet) would be duplicated by the Trinity test.

As the December 1944 Los Alamos document "History of 10,000 ton gadget reports, in forecast modeling the 16 July 1945 Trinity site Fat Man test, "Ball of fire mushroom out at 18,000 feet in typical Port Chicago fashion."

Typical: "Exhibiting the traits or characteristics peculiar to its kind, class, group, or the like; representative of a whole group; characteristic, distinctive; of the nature of, constituting, or serving as a type; emblematic."

MARK II NEUTRON ENERGY MODERATOR. Not heavy water -- deuterium and boron.

Read the pdf files !



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Vogel
For those interested in the Port Chicago radiation questions, in addition to what I have written in comparison of shots Ruth and Ray to the Port Chicago Mark II detonation, see Ian Kluft's "Background Radiation Measurements near Port Chicago": ian.kluft.com...


Excellent bit of information thanks Peter



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:31 PM
link   
That's actually pretty funny. I find it amazing that Hiroshima, where a bigger more radioactive bomb went off, is supposed to have normal background radiation, but Port Chicago, where the magic non-radioactive bomb went off, and nobody even got sick from radiation, has a higher than average background radiation level from it.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Vogel
I regret I do not have time, and won't for a while, to respond to all the posts, and thank you Rogue 1 for your contributions in replies.

For those interested in the Port Chicago radiation questions, in addition to what I have written in comparison of shots Ruth and Ray to the Port Chicago Mark II detonation, see Ian Kluft's "Background Radiation Measurements near Port Chicago": ian.kluft.com...

Those interested in the radiation questions should keep in mind that the proof detonation of the nominal 1 kt TNT-equivalent Mark II at Port Chicago 17 July 1944 was made at the reduced yield of 200-300 tons TNT equivalent. T'would have been a waste of the very limited and very expensive quantity of U-235 produced by 17 July 1944 to have made a proof of Mark II at the nominal 1 kt yield.

Successful field-scale proof of the Mark II at Port Chicago, with that reduced yield, proved the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons. Proof of the successful detonation of Mark II within the context of the much large detonation of conventional WW II munitions was recognition of the unique, distinctive and typical manifestations of the Mark II nuclear fission fire ball, which on a larger scale (18,000 feet) would be duplicated by the Trinity test.

As the December 1944 Los Alamos document "History of 10,000 ton gadget reports, in forecast modeling the 16 July 1945 Trinity site Fat Man test, "Ball of fire mushroom out at 18,000 feet in typical Port Chicago fashion."

Typical: "Exhibiting the traits or characteristics peculiar to its kind, class, group, or the like; representative of a whole group; characteristic, distinctive; of the nature of, constituting, or serving as a type; emblematic."

MARK II NEUTRON ENERGY MODERATOR. Not heavy water -- deuterium and boron.

Read the pdf files !



Cut to the issue: Why would the US government test a nuke in a port? Logic should prevail in this scenario but as I see it clearly has not.

And uh, heavy water is deuterium.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   
You know, no disrespect here or intended, but the tag-team aspect on this is amusing. No sooner than we began the serious trouncing of the truth on rogue1, then the respected Peter Vogel becomes a member and makes his voice heard. Most convenient. Interesting or ironic?

What I do find a bit humorous though is how wikipedia even seriously questions and virtually debunks the respected Peter Vogel, when it mentions:


One journalist, Peter Vogel, maintains the explosion was caused by a nuclear bomb, based on the discovery of a supposed Los Alamos document from 1944 which contains the line, "Ball of fire mushroom out at 18,000 ft in typical Port Chicago fashion" in the description of a hypothetical atomic weapon. [1]

However during the development of the first atomic weapons, it was common for Manhattan Project workers to use comparative explosions such as the one which happened at Port Chicago in order to give relative estimates on damage and explosive behavior, and for Vogel's theory to be true, all previous Manhattan Project historiography — which indicates that there would not have been enough enriched uranium or plutonium to construct an atomic bomb by July 1944 — would have to be incorrect, and all references to such a plan would have had to be systematically eliminated from documents and kept deeply secret for the many decades which have since passed. Though many of the former Manhattan Project scientists became very opposed to atomic weapons in their later years, none ever indicated any knowledge relating to crime of this scale. Furthermore the atomic bomb which detonated over Hiroshima produced many residual health effects on the survivors, none of which have ever been observed in Port Chicago survivors and city residents.

Port Chicago disaster

Be advised, I have an open mind on a number of historical happenings, being that I am a student of history, but to see some take facts in history and twist them in the slightest to fit their own assertions and beliefs, leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Plausible case here for Port Chicago and what the respected Peter Vogel asserts and claims? Sure, but at the same token, quite debatable and questionable, despite his 20+/- years of research on this subject matter. Nonetheless, I have serious reservations on his work and research, again, no disrespect intended. Just a critical observation from one who has not spent the time researching this subject matter as the respected Peter Vogel.

Anyhow, perhaps the respected Peter Vogel could respond to this response made by a NASA engineer to the question: Re: Is the theory of an atomic blast at Port Chicago plausible?





seekerof

[edit on 30-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That's actually pretty funny. I find it amazing that Hiroshima, where a bigger more radioactive bomb went off, is supposed to have normal background radiation, but Port Chicago, where the magic non-radioactive bomb went off, and nobody even got sick from radiation, has a higher than average background radiation level from it.


Ummm Port Chiacgo does have normal background radiation. Can't you read ? And yes there would be hotspots around Hiroshima and Nagasaki, just as was shown near Port Chicago.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty


And uh, heavy water is deuterium.


Ummm NO, Deuterium is not heavy water
Heavy water contains Deuterium. The natural form of deuterium is as a gas.

Hmmm, I thought you said you knew something about the subject - because this is a basic error.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
You know, no disrespect here or intended, but the tag-team aspect on this is amusing. No sooner than we began the serious trouncing of the truth on rogue1, then the respected Peter Vogel becomes a member and makes his voice heard. Most convenient. Interesting or ironic?


LOL, a serious trouncing, where ? Who is this we ? All I have seen is some poor arguments from people who dn't read too much. Nothing more.


What I do find a bit humorous though is how wikipedia even seriously questions and virtually debunks the respected Peter Vogel, when it mentions:


Ah yes wikipedia, the same site which called abovetopsecret.com a haven for neocons with their own agenda etc ect. LOL. Whilst wikipedia has alot of information it isn't the be all and end all. I have found misinformation on there several times. the entry for ATS being one of them

Hell seekerof, you could have written the entry for Port Chiacago for all I know




[edit on 31-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:37 AM
link   
The Grizzly Island data is disturbing. With the new data collected on July 15, it looks like I've discovered a possible 2-mile wide radioactive plume which faces Port Chicago. The nuclear accident theory at Port Chicago isn't looking so far-fetched any more. But it certainly still isn't proven by a long shot either.

The 2-mile stretch has large patches of 13-17 uR/hr readings. 10-12 is about normal background, the highest you'd expect in most cities. (That's at sea level. Average background is higher with more elevation.)


Now the author of the paper that you're citing as this great work says it's abnormally high, but YOU, the master of all things nuclear says it's normal.
Which is it gonna be?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58


Now the author of the paper that you're citing as this great work says it's abnormally high, but YOU, the master of all things nuclear says it's normal.
Which is it gonna be?


Yes in that spot, just as you would find the same hot spots in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Umm, what don't you understand about that ? Gawd. You assert that there was more radiation released in teh Port Chicagoi blst than in the 2 war shots. Quite simply you are wrong. That was all I was pointing out.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 04:19 AM
link   
It has less radiation than a normal nuke, so much so that the port where it went off nobody even got sick from it and it's back to normal, but enough so that at that spot several miles away it's higher than normal background 60 years later? THAT is what I have trouble believing, along with WHY they would set off a nuke in the middle of a major wartime port in the middle of the war.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I get background readings of almost twice that all the time, just locally... (sitting at desk with computer monitor=23)

Why I question Peters evidence:

I also do background readings whenever I travel, (ATSers can vouch, I travel alot)
I also have a highly accurate and expensive digital Geiger counter with data recorder ability

I can tell you
Peter is unintentionally WRONG... normal background readings vary much more than he seems to realize
they are highly based on time of day, and if a frog farts (fasicious, but almost true).

I get average readings of 8-16 during the night (can go up to 20-25 if I light a cigerette)
I get average readings of 10-25 during the day, depending on many variables

For example... I went to Wichita mountains the other day... background of 12-34... but i can guarantee that a nuke has never gone of in Oklahoma...
the higher readings are from very minor naturally radioactive minerals (i think these were olivines)

these type of minerals are all over the place in America... rock hunters are warry to collect too many.

another note: The port of chicago (if i understand correctly) is also where they decontaminate ships/transports that have been contaminated...
that residual should account for far MORE radioactivity in that area of the port... the lack of it, indicates that they really don't do much decontamination there...

To sum up: even the slightly increased presence of radiation in the "grizzly" area means nothing other than perhaps it collects more of the oceans natural radioactive materials than the other side of the bay.

I get far more radical differences in smaller areas, for no more reason than natural variation of geostrata...
BTW (my detector does pick up all 4 common types of radiation)

Sorry Peter, I don't mean to oppose your view, but I think you will find as you travel, that there are far more radioactive areas, that have perfectly natural reasons...



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty


And uh, heavy water is deuterium.


Ummm NO, Deuterium is not heavy water
Heavy water contains Deuterium. The natural form of deuterium is as a gas.

Hmmm, I thought you said you knew something about the subject - because this is a basic error.


Thank you for reiterating what I said. I merley corrected Peter's comment that there was no heavy water - just deuterium and boron.


Again, why did they detonate a nuke in an American harbour? I know there is no point in my asking as you and Pete will never answer this and jsut tell us 'to read the pdf's'.

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Frosty]



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
I'm still waiting for the explanation as to how nobody even got sick at ground zero, but this spot several miles away is still higher than background 60 years later.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
rogue1:
the respected Peter Vogel's whole theory and premise rests solely on whether there was one single explosion, correct?
All of us are aware that the Navy and surviving witnesses suggest, indicate, assert, and documented that there were two separate explosions 45-50 seconds apart, depending on the source used for and/or citing the time between explosions....

Anyhow, as others have asked, why would the US government, the US Navy, and those at Los Alamos want to test such a device at Port Chicago when there were undoubtedly South Pacific sites and/or locations that would have no cost so many lives and been a bit more discreet or secretive?


Also, was any amount of trinitite found by ikluft, because when I read alleged assertions of having been to Grizzly Island [concerning the radiation plume theory] from the link provided, he mentions nothing of this? Probably not because he did not check Port Chicago area itself, just Grizzly Island?


Mention has been made that the nuclear detonation may have occured underwater. Sourcing searching indicates that if such an underwater nuclear detonation occured, then trinitite might not be found [based on other underwater nuclear tests done later after the end of WWII], but that significant radioactive/fission byproduct isotopes, from simple gathered underwater soil samples, would be still detectable or showing radioactive/fission residual. If such is accurate, then why has not anyone, namely ikluft, been there to get such a sample? And incidently, having read Vogel's online work and checked other sources, and google, there is no mention of wind direction that day, if any at all. That is another crucial piece to this puzzle and for obvious reasons, along with obtaining soil samples from the possible location(s) of the alleged/speculated/suggested/theorized nuclear detonation.


Furthermore, according to the dating on ikluft's site, radioactive levels were detected in 2004, with an update in 2005, correct? [Please correct me if I am wrong here, k? Thank you.] Because if such is true, Port Chicago/Concord Naval Weapons Station houses/stores or used to house/store nuclear weapons. Grizzly Island was also near where some ships which were used in Operation Crossroads nuclear/atomic testings were towed and docked [after the tests for a second set of decontamination procedures or for scrapping or future munitions testing sinkings]. The link provided mentions "to San Francisco," which would be one of two possible direct references for Port Chicago or Mare Island. Both the above mentions would indicate a chance for or possibility of finding traces of detectable radiation residual being left behind, which may or may not have been possible for ikluft to have found/detected in 2004. Simple possibility and worth the mention, anyhow.
Also, some of ikluft's detected readings are of no significance, being simply explained away as attributed to natural occurances or soil geology.


For me, again, too many improbabilities, as some sources indicate, as well.






seekerof

[edit on 31-8-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 09:14 PM
link   
"Again, why did they detonate a nuke in an American harbour? I know there is no point in my asking as you and Pete will never answer this and jsut tell us 'to read the pdf's'."

If you did read the pdf's, you wouldn't need to ask your question. However,
the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons was expected to be proved by the anticipated successful detonation of Mark II at Port Chicago.

The U.S. military considered that a successful field scale proof of the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons should be known to as few persons as possible, and especially that Germany, Japan, nor Russia would know that theory was proved by field scale detonation of the Mark II.

It was therefore necessary to obscure the successful proof of Mark II from all persons except those few in the military and Manhattan Project who were cognizant of the development of Mark II.

The most effective way to obscure that successful proof of the Mark II was to mask the anticipated successful detonation of Mark II within the anticipated much larger sympathetic detonation of 1,750 tons TNT and torpex charge weight of convention munitions aboard E. A. Bryan and emplaced upon the Port Chicago ship loading pier.

Only the observed, distinctive, typical nuclear fission fireball produced by the detonation of Mark II at Port Chicago permitted Los Alamos scientists to know, in fact, that Mark II had successfully detonated.

Thereby the first successful field scale proof of large scale nuclear fission weapons was known only to those persons who recognized that distinctive, typical ball of fire manifestation of a nuclear fission explosion at Port Chicago.

I'll interject now that the scientists working at Los Alamos at that time knew very well that detonation of the Mark II would produce negligble prompt radiations in the immediate area, 1000 feet from the shoreline, because of the shielding effect of the ship E. A. Bryan's hull and mass, and because the bomb was detonated below waterline. Because of the upward funneling effect created by the disintegrating ship's hull and water mass surface relection, most radioactive debris would be mounted essentially vertically. Ian Kluft's radiation findings are completely in line with the then unpopulated downwind area in which the nearest fallout was expected to deposit.

Moreover, the scientists at Los Alamos, including Navy Captain William Parsons, very conscientiously planned detonation of the Mark II at the peak of that evening's flood tide.

Immediately following detonation of the Mark II the tide turned and the released high-tide pent flow of the Sacramento River promptly flushed any radioatively contaminated Suisun Bay water into Upper San Francisco Bay, where that contaminated water was rapidly diluted. The plans for detonation of the Mark II at Port Chicago were the plans of genius.

So why proof fire Mark II at an active military facility, as the Port Chicago Naval Magazine was, rather than in some isolated locale ?

First, of course, to conceal that proof in such circumstances that would deny detection of that proof to all but those cognizant of the weapon and its military potential.

But not less important, because the Port Chicago Naval Magazine was a location where, by military mandate, every physical effect of the detonation of that tactical weapon could be precisely measured and documented with the purpose to establish by demonstration the potential combat effects of that tactical weapon. Detonation of an atomic bomb in an enemy port or harbor was then one of only a few feasible methods to deliver that weapon in combat application; in the case of an enemy port or harbor, delivery by Trojan Horse ship or submarine.

As the book pdf's show, the effects of no explosion above 1 kt (except in some particulars Halifax) had been sufficiently well documented to permit Los Alamos scientists to verify the cube root law of explosions, which the Port Chicago explosion, at 1.75-2 kt, did verify. That is, that above 1 kt the radius of destructive effects of an explosion augment differently than for explosions below 1 kt. Above 1 kt, the radius of destructive effects augments only by the cube root of an explosive charge weight. The destructive effects, indeed all effects, of a 10,000 ton explosion do not augment by a factor of ten, but by a factor of four.

Given the proof of the cube root law that was demonstrated by the artifacts of the Port Chicago explosion -- that is, Mark II at 200-300 tons, plus the essentially simultaneous detonation of the conventional 1,750 tons TNT and torpex -- Los Alamos could then accurately calculate the explosive energy of large scale nuclear fission weapons necessary to produce strategic rather than tactical military effects.

Successful proof detonation of the Mark II in an isolated area would have proven the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons, yes; but the distinctive nature of that explosion would have been manifest to any perceptive observer, first hand or by report. Successful proof detonation of the Mark II in an isolate area would not have permitted detailed observation, measurement and analysis of the military effects of that tactical weapon in an enemy port or harbor, and would not have permitted extrapolation of those effects to accurate forecast of the effects of strategic nuclear fission weapons that would produce a yield above 1 kt.

Anyone who doubts that these considerations were sufficient and imperative to the military decision to proof fire the Mark II in the circumstances of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine, even with all the resultant consequences, has my sympathy in their innocence but no sound basis to argue human reality and military reality since, at least, Alexander the Great.



posted on Sep, 1 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Yes, let's blow up a MAJOR weapons depot, in the middle of a war when we NEED those supplies as a TEST?! I don't think that even the Los Alamos scientists were THAT far out of the real world. Those were badly needed supplies that HAD to get to our troops fighting the war. And again, it's miraculous that NOBODY got sick, including people AT GROUND ZERO, but this magic bomb that was supposed to have less radiation than a normal nuke SOMEHOW managed to kick the background up higher several miles away, SIXTY YEARS LATER.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peter Vogel
"Again, why did they detonate a nuke in an American harbour? I know there is no point in my asking as you and Pete will never answer this and jsut tell us 'to read the pdf's'."

If you did read the pdf's, you wouldn't need to ask your question. However,
the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons was expected to be proved by the anticipated successful detonation of Mark II at Port Chicago.

The U.S. military considered that a successful field scale proof of the theory of large scale nuclear fission weapons should be known to as few persons as possible, and especially that Germany, Japan, nor Russia would know that theory was proved by field scale detonation of the Mark II.

It was therefore necessary to obscure the successful proof of Mark II from all persons except those few in the military and Manhattan Project who were cognizant of the development of Mark II.

The most effective way to obscure that successful proof of the Mark II was to mask the anticipated successful detonation of Mark II within the anticipated much larger sympathetic detonation of 1,750 tons TNT and torpex charge weight of convention munitions aboard E. A. Bryan and emplaced upon the Port Chicago ship loading pier.


Why not just blow up a munitions train somewhere in the dustbowl, midwest or desert? Why have it so public, where EVERYBODY can see your secret test? Oh, wait, then we wouldn't have a whole group of pesky negroes hanging around to get theirs...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join