Talk:Operation Buster–Jangle

Able yield

Surely not "less than a kilogram"! Morelikely, "less than a kiloton"...yes?

Basesurge (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Able was a complete fizzle; while it achieved supercriticality and generated a detectable nuclear yield as evidenced by radiation readings, the nuclear yield was less than the yield of the high-explosive trigger; all sources I've seen list it as a yield of "less than two pounds" or "less than one kilogram," citing the official report on the test series, which lists it in metric measure. Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, then cite a source. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about [1], which actually lists it as "<1 lb"? Rdfox 76 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Added citations for facts of events in various lists/reports/compilations, many of which copy each other. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The soldiers

What happened to the soldiers who were exposed to the radiation? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Added reference that answers question. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I've heard it estimated that the average dosage of radiation to the soldiery in Operation Desert Rock I-VIII was a loss of potentially the last three months of their lives due to cancer. Obviously this means some would have an early cancer than would loose them, say, 20-30 years, while about 100 of his companions have no loss at all. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dog

Johnuniq found a typo in the venting from the Dog shot, "3.1MkCi". The correct value is "3.1MCi" which is what he corrected it to, and that value is verified correct at http://www.cancer.gov/i131/fallout/Chapter2.pdf. BTW, I need to add that reference to all the applicable tests; that had been overlooked. It will be done tonight. Thanks, johnuniq. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Sortable table

I investigated why the table does not sort and found that removing the heading styles (for example, delete style="background:#efdead;" |) makes the table sortable. I suggest asking for help at WP:VPT if wanting to fix the tables. Also, see Help:Convert for the use of |sortable=on which would mean that the converts do not need {{sort}} before them. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh. Everything sorts OK for me, the only problem is that the little up/down widgets don't display, and I've got to point to a dead space on the header away from any note hotspot, which is to be expected. I'll see what WP:VPT has to say. Thanks for the tip on sorting; will do it.

Looked at the convert widget, it's nice and nice to know about, but what I'm intending to sort on is the sum of the elevation and the height, so sorting on just one or the other is not quite the same. The number in the sort field is generated by a VBasic program operating over the database of the bomb data, so it is computed by the program, not by fallible old me, so it is automated and as reliable as the data. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I see what you mean. The table does sort, but the up/down arrows in the heading row are not visible, presumably because the background style is higher in z-order than the arrows, although I have no idea what html provides in that area. Someone at WP:VPT would know what to do. Johnuniq (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Venting"

"Venting" is a term commonly used in the context of underground tests such as Beryl or Baneberry, in which the containment failed, and radioactive material escaped via a vent. The literature generally uses language along the lines of "off-site radiation detected" for air or surface bursts. Shouldn't we do the same? Theeurocrat (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The information that I have includes whether there was venting or not, whether the reference is to iodine-131 or to all materials released, whether it was detected on site or offsite, and a computed amount of vented radiation measured in curies. I have attempted to provide all those items in the column. The typical entry on this page looks like "I-131 venting detected, 3.1 MCi (110 PBq)", indicating iodine was the measured radionuclide, there was venting and an estimated 3.1 MCi was observed and computed. Those numbers are, by the way, covered by the reference #4 from the National Cancer Institute. The onsite/offsite is not reported on until Operation Storax, and probably represents some offsite monitoring stations coming on line, yielding more complete data; the NCI gathered the data it presents in the period 1985-1993, 20 years after the events.

If there are discrepancies and you can find more complete data, then by all means jump right in and provide cited corrections. I'd be thrilled to find such, data packrat that I am. SkoreKeep (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Skorekeep! For me the query is not the completeness of the data, which is great, but rather how "venting" can result from a free air drop, in which all radiation escapes almost by definition. I have these for to vent: "To release or discharge (steam, for example) through an opening." "to let out (steam, liquid, etc) through a vent". And from Wikipedia on underground testing: "True underground tests are intended to be fully contained and emit a negligible amount of fallout. Unfortunately these nuclear tests do occasionally "vent" to the surface, producing from nearly none to considerable amounts of radioactive debris as a consequence." Would "emissions to atmosphere" not be a more accurate term for radiation released by atmospheric tests? Theeurocrat (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, it's a rather loose use of the term, but to tell the truth I was looking for something pithy to use as the column header. Probably something like "Radio-emissions" would be better, or perhaps "Fallout". The latter would have the greater impact, and is the real definition of fallout: the radioactive remains of a bomb excepting only the prompt neutrons at the explosion. Thanks for the boot; I needed that! SkoreKeep (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Fallout would be more correct, SkoreKeep. But the tables look great. Theeurocrat (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear that, because that's exactly the word I settled on - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Ekker_series,_French_nuclear_tests, for example. Eventually I'll get around to rebuilding the US tests, and it will happen here as well. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The table on this page is generated by database

The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.

Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice. It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content. He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected. He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.

There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed. Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate. As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter. In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.

I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together. I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.

SkoreKeep (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Exposure Dose and Units of Measure

The article says personnel experienced an average radiation dose of 3 “R”. Is that a lot? It links to the article on that unit of measure, but that article just says the unit R is no longer used. Anyhow does anyone know the appropriate unit to use and what 3R is relative to a normal background dose of radiation? Volivaceus (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)