Port Chicago - America's First Atomic Test

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Frosty

Ah yes, 'it was the power of god' excuse. Because you fail to document why those at ground zero did not die or contract radiation.


What don't you understand ? It's there in Black and White, LOL. Sorry if it contradicts your inept knowledge. I think your last post goes to show you hvae no understanding of the subject matter being discussed.
Well, at least now I don't have to worry about responding to you,as facts don't seem to figure in your reasoning. Shame.


Go on go on...tell me why those at ground zero did not contract fatal or near fatal doses of radiation? I'm still listening.




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Go on go on...tell me why those at ground zero did not contract fatal or near fatal doses of radiation? I'm still listening.


The uranium hydride bomb was twice experimentallydetonated at the Nevada Proving Ground in 1953. Shot Ruth (Hydride I; 31 March) and shot Ray (Hydride II; 11 April) of the Upshot-Knothole series were designed and proof fired under the direction of Edward Teller and Ernest O. Lawrence of the University of California Radiation Laboratory at Livermore.Ruth and Ray were essentially replications of the uraniumhydride Mark II proof fired at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine, 17 July 1944. Review of the reported ionizing radiation consequences of shots Ruth and Ray provides sufficient data to conclude that no person suffered ionizing radiation consequences from the proof detonation of the Mark II at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine.

You'll hvae to read the book for more information. It isn't my job to research it for you - just read the book.

[edit on 30-8-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
Those two bombs have off yields at around 1 kt combined, you say Port of Chicago bomb was 5 kt, there is a slight difference here.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Those two bombs have off yields at around 1 kt combined, you say Port of Chicago bomb was 5 kt, there is a slight difference here.


The design tield of the Mark II was several kilotons. the 1953 tests were fizzles. This does not mean that the 1944 proof test was as well.

There is also another interesting blurb in P Vogels book, where he alleges a test of another mark II type device was conduted in the desert in 1943.

There are, however, several evidences made available to me since 1982
which raise the possibility that a nuclear fission detonation of energy
yield in the range of 50-100 tons TNT equivalent was achieved by a
hydride gun assembly, probably using a modified 3”/50 Navy antiaircraft
gun equipped with an unrifled tube, at 21:00 hours on 26
December 1943 at the Alamogordo Bombing Range in New Mexico,
on a playa in the vicinity of Oscuro Peak. Physical evidence of that test,
if it occurred, is recognized in aerial photographs, seismic records, and
Landsat thermal images of that area in which a circular scar of high
thermal index may represent the area of thermally-fused sand which
would have been the consequence of that detonation. Two Army
veterans told the National Association of Atomic Veterans in 1982, or
earlier, that 100 U.S. Army volunteers had been proximate to that
detonation in slit trenches and in the open.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
May I please ask a very stupid question, perhaps because I was a lawyer in a former incarnation? And please excuse me for not wading through all the evidence online. I have seen a TV documentary about the mutiny and the consequences thereof. However, what I cannot get my teeth round is whether there is any proof that the vessels did not explode independently of any dockside nuclear device, so my query is whether the suggestion is that the alleged nuclear explosion caused the vessels and their munitions to explode or whether it was all arranged conveniently? As a subsidiary, why pick Port Chicago whose facilities if deliberately destroyed would cause huge logistical problems?

You might be interested to know of another, earlier, disaster in Liverpool:




S.S. Malakand, a steamer belonging to the Brocklebank line, she was berthed at the Huskisson No-2 dock with over 1000 tons of shells and bombs destined for the Middle-east.
No one Knows how, but a deflated barrage balloon slipped free of its moorings and became tangled with the ships rigging, fell onto the deck and immediately burst into flames, the crew managed to extinguish the fire, however while they were occupied with this particular fire a shower of incendiaries and high-explosive bombs had ignited some neighbouring sheds, and the flames from these soon enveloped the stricken ship. Though the crew fought valiantly to save the ship it was to no avail and the captain ordered the crew to abandon the Malakand. Desperately and with disregard for their own safety Captain Kinley and his crew along with A.F.S. personnel led by Officer John Lappin, tried to scuttle the ship and prevent a terrible explosion. Despite all their efforts a few hours after the all clear Merseyside shook with one of the greatest explosions of the entire Blitz.
The whole dock was destroyed, the Overhead Railway line was badly damaged, with some of the ships plates being blown some two and a half miles away. Though the explosion was one of the biggest during the Blitz, only four people were killed, two of the party who had tried so valiantly to scuttle the Malakand, and a newly married couple who were on their way home along the Dock road, when a huge fragment of the ship landed directly on their car killing them outright.



This is what the Huskisson Dock looked like afterwards:




Please excuse my query and thank you for putting forward your suggestion, and also to those whom have responded with very plausible counters.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
That was obviously a nuclear test, because blowing up our own ports and killing our own people in WWII was the best way to test our nuclear devices. It was the Magic Bomb that didn't leave nearly as much radiation as the later copies of the same device did, and worked perfectly on the first try, despite the fact that the later tests were fizzles.


Yes, for the humor impared, that was slightly sarcastic.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That was obviously a nuclear test, because blowing up our own ports and killing our own people in WWII was the best way to test our nuclear devices. It was the Magic Bomb that didn't leave nearly as much radiation as the later copies of the same device did, and worked perfectly on the first try, despite the fact that the later tests were fizzles.


Yes, for the humor impared, that was slightly sarcastic.


Well it has happened before, one small thing can be changed in a bomb leading to a fizzle. Also in that time period nuclear weapons designs were using less and less fissile material to see what the limits of super criticality were, leading to more than a few fizzles.
So there you go, start informing yourself.



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:34 PM
link   
The most laughable thing with your theory is WHY we would blow up our OWN port to test a nuclear device, when we could set it off in the desert, where no one would get hurt, and we wouldn't lose any material. We were in the middle of a world war for gods sake! WHY would we blow up our own warfighting supplies, and personnel???



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
Those interested in the question of radiation at Port Chicago, see Ian Kluft's, "Background Radiation Measurements near Port Chicago": ian.kluft.com...

MARK II NEUTRON ENERGY MODERATOR, not heavy water -- deuterium and boron. Read the PDF files.



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Pete, your links say it is a hydride bomb meaning hydrogen and deuterium (that is heavy water).

Please answer the most asked question: Why would the US government set off a nuke in a US port during war time?



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Here's another one. How is it that NOT ONE PERSON even showed signs of radiation sickness after the blast, but several miles away there is supposedly higher than normal background radiation from the blast, SIXTY YEARS LATER?



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 12:31 PM
link   
Well, first of all, very well written post mad scientist.


I wouldn't know much on the subject, wasn't alive ten and haven't followed WWII, but that sounds very interesting.


--Kit.



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
An accident nothing more. A bad one but, why would the US destory a major arms depot as a test? And one in close proximity to several major metropolitan areas.


Why would they risk losing the entire war with American companies arming Germany? I suggest you start with these article's and then do some random browsing to find out just how much there it to be said on this topic. I am not sure if this was really the result of a nuclear weapon test but i can assure you that the people in charge were easily capable of such atrocity.

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

Chemical Cartels

The Corpocracy Uncovered


Where are the reports of radiation or cancer clusters in the area? The background radiation at the Trinity site is still the equivilent of 3 chest xrays.


Radiation poisoning ( and all the other fallout and exposure health riskes) is a rather poorly understood issue even today. In my opinion the risks are very much overblown even even if they are obviously severe in specific instances.

The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts

More on request.

Stellar

[edit on 9-1-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
(1) the US would NOT intentionally blow up its own ship, carrying vitally important ammunition, in its own shipyard, during a war!! I mean WTF? People actually took the working for victory thing seriously because it was not at all clear then the US would win.


Pearl harbour? Check out the links i just posted in previous post for more reason why this is no argument against the nuclear weapon test theory.


(2) would it somehow pack the only nuclear weapon ever in existence, made in a project so secret that few even in the military knew about its existence, into an ordinary freighter being loaded by hundreds of ordinary enlisted grunts, most of whom were black?


Black people don't know how to load ships? We really have no idea how many nuclear weapons they had at this time or a year later for that matter. All we have is what they tell us wich may even resemble the truth in some way.


(3) they barely got enough fissile material in time in mid-late 1945.


So they tell us. We are still told that diamonds are as rare as they say they are. Now the diamond thing is a rather obvious lie and yet how many people are aware of it?


(4) now known facts about the capacities and capabilities of the enrichment plants make it impossible for a weapon to be developed in 1944.


You mean to say no evidence you are aware of suggests such capabilities?


(5) the description of the nuclear weapons effects in that document? Note T-7. The "T" means theoretical division. At that time, it meant a whole lot of extremely smart people figuring out things all on their own from the laws of physics.


The laws of physics! You might be surprised to know how much those laws have changed over the last century or for that matter the last year. I do not think it's wise to try reinforce your point of view with appeals to scientific impossibility. It rarely holds up in retrospect or even in casual investigation of the subject matter at hand.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
I am not sure if this was really the result of a nuclear weapon test but i can assure you that the people in charge were easily capable of such atrocity.


Yes, perhaps, but again I repeat, why detonate a nuclear device so close to major industrial (shipping, ports etc) and population cneters. If Indeed this was a giant Bush / Nazi cabal (You can also throw in the Kennedy clan as well) what purpose does it serve? While its fun and easy to throw out grandiose schemes people ALWAYS have a reson for doing something like this. What purpose was served here?



Radiation poisoning ( and all the other fallout and exposure health riskes) is a rather poorly understood issue even today.


Seems pretty clear cut to me as well as groups like the CDC, OSHA et al. The simple fact remains Port Chicago is located in a major urban area. While in 1944 it may not have been as big as it was now, the site of a ground burst nuclear weapon WOULD leave fall out and background radiation that at the very least would be spread over a pretty good size area. Radiation is a causitive factor in cancer. one only has to look to the statistics compiled after the Hiroshima blasts that can be found here:

www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp...

Now to be fair, I did come across this website that purports to have taken neasurments in the area around Port Chicago. It did notice a few areas with higher than average radiation levels, but please note that the naval shipyard there did store nuclear weapons during the cold war and Mare Island was the home to many nuclear submarines.
ian.kluft.com...





[edit on 1/9/06 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Not just any naval base, but a major amunition shipping point also. A valuable link in the supply chain across the Pacific.


I think Pearl harbour and the pacific fleet were kind of important yet look what happened to it?


There were numerous survivors within a few hundred yard of the explosion. I've yet to hear of anyone that close to a nke and living to tell about it.



InNagasaki, some people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero (the point directly below the explosion). This was true even though these long, large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside the zone within which all buildings were destroyed. (People far inside long, large, open shelters are better protected than are those inside small, open shelters.)

www.oism.org...


Stellar



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 02:56 PM
link   


For background. As you can see the site of the explosion is a pretty dense packed urban environment, however, it was also populated at the time fo the explosion as well. San Francisco is roughly south south west from this location about 30-40 miles away.

One other tidbit I learned from one fo the website's linked above. Travis AFB in Fairfield (look North on the above map) was the site of a crash of a B-29 carrying a nuclear weapon. The trigger was out, but the exposive core detonated killing a number of ground personel.

[edit on 1/9/06 by FredT]



posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Yes, perhaps, but again I repeat, why detonate a nuclear device so close to major industrial (shipping, ports etc) and population cneters. If Indeed this was a giant Bush / Nazi cabal (You can also throw in the Kennedy clan as well) what purpose does it serve? While its fun and easy to throw out grandiose schemes people ALWAYS have a reson for doing something like this. What purpose was served here?


I would have to do far more reading on this just to establish what in fact happened. What i posted was just in reference to claims that this could not be done because it would set back the war effort or that the men in charge were not capable. It is not fun and easy to talk about these things and i do not propose that i know the exact reasoning beyind planting a nuclear weapon in a harbour. As you say people do things for a reason and i would have to read more to come up with a opinion on why they might have wanted to do this.


Seems pretty clear cut to me as well as groups like the CDC, OSHA et al.


You can go look for the official UNSCEAR report but these make for better and easier reading. The original reads like all other UN( bureaucratic) reports but i can find it for you ( It's somewhere on my pc
) if your interested.

The Truth About Chernobyl Is Told

THE MYTHS OF CHERNOBYL

The UNSCEAR 2000 Report


The simple fact remains Port Chicago is located in a major urban area. While in 1944 it may not have been as big as it was now, the site of a ground burst nuclear weapon WOULD leave fall out and background radiation that at the very least would be spread over a pretty good size area.


Well just how fast does it in fact wash away due to environmental effects?



Radiation is a causitive factor in cancer. one only has to look to the statistics compiled after the Hiroshima blasts that can be found here:
www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp...



Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation doses are not too large. As will be explained in Appendix B, a person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being incapacitated.


Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.

www.oism.org...


Dont think it may be wise to look at the site it comes from again! Does not look as objective as it could be in my opinion. No insult intended!


Now to be fair, I did come across this website that purports to have taken neasurments in the area around Port Chicago. It did notice a few areas with higher than average radiation levels, but please note that the naval shipyard there did store nuclear weapons during the cold war and Mare Island was the home to many nuclear submarines.
ian.kluft.com...


Well if your going to be policing your own mind ( as we all should) all i have to do is show you what i have found so far. I am sure you will deduce just about the same i did so enjoy the reading.

Stellar



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Here's another one. How is it that NOT ONE PERSON even showed signs of radiation sickness after the blast, but several miles away there is supposedly higher than normal background radiation from the blast, SIXTY YEARS LATER?


Hmm, well higher than normal background radiation does not mean it's enough to make you sick. Also if anyone died in the 50's, 60's, 70' or 80's of cancer, they most likely would hvae atributed it to natural causes.

Why test it at teh Port Chicago Magazine ? To see what effects the weapon would have on a semi built up area.

Did it affect the US War effirt ? Hardly as can be seen from history - this port and ships hardly made a dent in the US supply train.



posted on Mar, 26 2011 @ 02:30 AM
link   
UPDATE : Was going through old threads and here is a link to the new site of Vogel's Port Chicago research.

www.petervogel.us...



new topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join