Re-examining the Port Chicago Disaster 451
GoneGaryT writes "Say chaps, this might be old hat, but there's a fab site for conspiracy theory aficionados at portchicago.org ; it's a pdf book expounding the theory of Peter Vogel's that the Port Chicago magazine explosion (1944) was a nuclear weapons test. It's actually pretty thorough, like 20 years of research thorough. Would the US really blow up their own people for the sake of global military supremacy? Naaaah..." Chapter 9 of the book has a factual account of the disaster (which I'd never heard of before); if you're not interested in the rest of the theory, at least reading the historical account is informative and will give you an appreciation of the explosive power of several million pounds of military ordnance.
Residual Radiation? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:5, Informative)
Good question. There isn't any. Case closed.
The main supporting inference requires considerable suspension of disbelief, and is presented as nothing more than conjecture. From Chapter 10 [portchicago.org], page 19:
The author thinks the thing was loaded concealed and armed with a 4 atm pressure depth charge fuse? Please.
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:2, Insightful)
There wasn't enough weapon-grade Uranium in the United States in 1944 to make a weapon of this class. What did exist was being used to determine the physical properties of the material for weaponization.
The amount of weapon-grade Uranium from Oak Ridge and Hanford is well documented in histories of the "gadget". And besides, an American test would have taken place not in Chicago but out in the boondocks.
"Uranium resources were very rare so the bomb would have to be simple and guaranteed to work. The luxury of a test model would not be available."
It's repeated over and over by everyone involved and in each and every history of the American and Soviet programs at the beginings.
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:3, Informative)
Not to nitpick but Port Chicago is near San Francisco, its not anywhere near the city of Chicago.
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly 80% of the above-mentioned doses were released within a day, about 10% between days 2 and 5, and the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward." [regarding Hiroshima] [rerf.or.jp]
So it seems residual radiation isn't so hard to hide, after all. Whether the conspiracy theory still holds water, though, is another matter...
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Matter - Energy conversion (Score:2, Informative)
Only one gram of matter was converted to energy when the Hiroshima A-bomb exploded. Its charge was was about the critical mass of uranium (about 50-odd kilograms)
That's not to say the A-bomb had a yeild of only 0.002% of its mass, though.
I'm no expert on atomic physics, but I'd say the mass lost is somewhat like teensy bit of mass lost when two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to form a H2O molecule plus some extra heat energy, except that for a fission reaction, some thingymajig is happening with nuclear particles rather than with 'bond energy'.
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:2)
100% or near that efficiency would have increased the force into the megatons.
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me point out that the large amount of "residual radiation" (fallout) produced by the Hiroshima bomb did not fall near Hiroshima, so there was no residual radiation in Hiroshima itself. The bomb was exploded at altitude and the radioactive components (other than the tiny amount converted to energy) was turned into extremely hot gas. That gas rose into the stratosphere and was distributed, more or less evenly, throughout the northern hemisphere.
In general, air bursts of nuclear weapons do not produce local fallout.
The Port of Chicago explosion, had it been nuclear, would have resulted in the lifting of large amounts of dust and other terrestrial material. This would have formed condensation nuclei for the radioactive material, which would have then fallen back to the ground at and within a few hundred miles of the blast. This is classic nuclear fallout for a ground burst. This would have led to significant injury and death, and the residual radiation would still be detectable (although at low levels today).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:3, Informative)
2. From a NUKE you do not get a lot of residual radiation. The neutrons are under 14KEv so they cause minimal side reactions. So you get radiation from the blast and some from the fallout. But not a lot. An H bomb is an entirely different matter. It will generate a considerable quantity of radioactive isotopes in aything that happens to be close to the epicenter.
3. So 50 years later it will take you using some very serious gear to actually find if a small nuke was blown up.
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Residual Radiation? (Score:2)
Original site does not exist. It all went into the lake. That is besides the fact that the closest you can get to it is quite far away anyway.
So you are not going to get anywhere with a Geiger counter. Mass spectrometer and looking into oddities in isotop distribution - yes. Geiger counter - not really.
That is if it was a nuke of course. I personally doubt it but when dealing with the military you can expect anything.
Yeah, what about residual cancer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are those statistics???
Woudl the US blow up its own people (Score:2)
Re:Woudl the US blow up its own people (Score:2, Interesting)
We do apply a similar rule to other leaders; it is also thought reprehensible that Saddam Hussein used poison gas on "his own people," although I seriously doubt he consider the Kurds his people, or vice versa.
I don't think the U.S. would kill its own people deliberately, as least not often and outside of certain wars, but have noted a willingness to allow some to die by neglect. There's another odd distinction.
It's kind of like the moral repugnancy of someone killing their own family, though many of us are aware family might be the most tempting to kill. Not our families, mind you -- other people killing their own families.
Re:Woudl the US blow up its own people (Score:2, Insightful)
There was also a proven concern that the Japanese would execute their POW's upon an American invasion. Extracting the Allies in Hiroshima would have been tricky one way or the other.
Tragic though that anyone died there. War against civilians is a paticularly filthy business.
There have, to be picky, been instances of the U.S. targeting its own people. Kent State comes to mind, not a whole lot less. It's tough to figure out what to call the Civil War.
Re:Woudl the US blow up its own people (Score:2)
Kent State was a riot-control situation gone awry. "Targeting its own people" implies premeditation, which was not the case.
It's tough to figure out what to call the Civil War.
Not really. I prefer "civil war."
Re:Woudl the US blow up its own people (Score:2)
The Manhatten Project? (Score:3, Funny)
Interesting Story... (Score:3, Interesting)
I always like to read about incidents I've never heard of. This is one of them.
It may not be especially relevant to Slashdot's ostensible mission, but it does make for an interesting read.
Re:Interesting Story... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure it does. Slashdot can't resist a conspiracy theory. If you've never been around a conspiracy nerd, it's quite a sight. They make us computer / scifi / anime / trek nerds look like a bunch of social gadflys. These guys are just sad. Whether it be Kennedy or the moon landing, they can't possibly believe that any event could go by without a Vast Conspiracy behind it and they're quite glad to bend your ear. For hours. Repeatedly.
Theres no conspiracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Must sleep (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Must sleep (Score:3, Interesting)
- Most of the comprehensive data and analyses of those data that are
available in Government Port Chicago explosion records are
extraneous to the purpose of this book and will not be considered.
Sections of available Port Chicago explosion records, for example, that
precisely detail and mathematically dissect the "Percentage of plaster
damage to total houses damaged" and the "Frequency distribution of
number of structural members broken by buildings, area" would be
neither instructive nor interesting to a general readership.
Maybe he should have had such a clue for the rest of the book.Cheap ripoff the Philadelphia Experiment (Score:4, Funny)
Once again, uh-huh (Score:5, Interesting)
One observation is that many people are slow to draw the connection between nuclear and ordinary explosives because today's nuclear yields are so high. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki each had raw explosive power of around 10 kilotons each (the Nagasaki plutonium bomb was a good deal more powerful than the U-235 Hiroshima bomb, but because of inaccurate placement inflicted about half the damage). Nuclear explosions are worse for human life by heat and gamma radiation, but otherwise this tonnage could realistically be delivered by aircraft by conventional explosives or, in equivalent destructive terms, by firebomb bombardment such as had leveled most of Tokyo and Dresden.
So there was some resistance at the time to focusing on the nuclear program when waves of 1,000 B-29's delivering 10 tons each could do the same task with proven technology. In another parallel, some estimates are that the "$3 Billion Dollar Gamble" B-29 may have cost more to develop and build than the bomb!
Also, all large explosions assume the familiar mushroom cloud appearance.
I don't address at all the propriety of dropping "the bomb," just the reasons a conventional explosion might be mistaken for one.
Happened in the Gulf War (Score:5, Insightful)
When the USAF was dropping Daisy Cutters during the Gulf war, a group of Brits thought the conflict had gone nuclear... easy mistake to make if you're close enough. The size of the explosion is pretty much unmatched among conventional ordinance.
15000 lbs of blasting slurry in a big metal barrel... I can see where that might mimic a small nuclear explosion quite nicely.
Daisy Cutters ... 15000 lbs of blasting slurry (Score:2)
IMHO the Nuke is kind of like Space... It's BIG, so BIG that the ordinary human mind just doesn't take it in. Unfortunately the world seems to be losing its fear of nuclear weapons - I guess the memory of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are fading. I suspect someone is going to have to lose another city to re-vaccinate the human race with proper fear of nuclear weapons.
Also IMHO, as bad as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were, in the larger view of history, it may be a good thing that nuclear weapons were used in war when only one side had them, and there was no chance of an escalation. No head of state could have left such a potent weapon unused for so long had it not be demonstrated to be that terrible.
tactical nukes (Score:3, Insightful)
The existence of such low-yield nukes makes the whole issue even more frightening. As long as the yields were up in the kiloton-and-higher range, nukes were a boolean issue. You nuke or you don't nuke, and there's no in-between.
Low-yield tactical nukes and well as high-yield conventional weapons blur the line. Once you cross that line, and now it may be hard to know exactly when that happened, then it may be "easier" to simply escalate the yield than it would have been to begin with a old-fashioned tens-of-kilotons nuclear device.
Re:tactical nukes (Score:3, Interesting)
Tactical nukes were intended for all sorts of uses. For example, the anti-aircraft batteries around the US during the early cold war had nuclear warheads in the missiles. The Navy had nuclear warheads in the anti-aircraft missiles on almost all of their combat ships. I was an aircrewman in a P-3 Orion (submarine hunter) and we carried nuclear depth charges. Submarines carried nuclear torpedos.
I believe the only reason that tactical nukes are not used in the NMD anti-missile systems is political. Although there is one other possibility (exo-atmospheric burst caused EMP), the advantages of nuclear warheads for anti-ballistic missile defense seem immense - the problems of hitting the target go away - you just need to get close. (I would love to hear from anyone who *knows* why these difficult "hit-to-kill" vehicles are being used instead of nukes, if it is not political).
As far as conventional explosives go... I once watched a demonstration (and test) at Sandia Labs (Albuquerque, NM - where they did most nuclear weapons design). They set off around 1 kiloton equivalent of high explosive a few miles from where we were watching at an Armed Forces Day demonstration. It certainly produced a very nice mushroom cloud and a heck of a bang!
As a kid, I set off a small explosive in the back yard (my parents were not amused). It was about an ounce of Sodium Chlorate mixed with Sugar and a little Sulfur, with an electrical detonator (single strand of wire shorting an extension cord). I also made a very small, but distinct, mushroom cloud
For more info on nukes, see This Site [tinyvital.com].
Re:Daisy Cutters ... 15000 lbs of blasting slurry (Score:4, Funny)
mmmmm.....dessert storm. The rain of custard pies made it all worthwhile.
What is the sound of one flamer flaming? (Score:2)
What if I criticize myself pre-emptively by saying "recriticize" isn't a word?
Then am I not myself?
For all the soviet russia posts, I sure don't hear the "what a country!" punchline...
If i may step in on the grammar discussion... (Score:2)
I guess... to put it into one "word"....
STFU.
Global military supremacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead, we were trying to develop a weapon which would obviate the need to land troops in Japan, which would have led to one of the bloodiest invasions ever. (Read about the Japanese preparations for the invasion - the villagers with pikes training to "stave" off armed infantry.)
Even given hindsight, nuclear weapons didn't give us global supremacy. If anything, they allowed third world countries (China, the Soviets, Pakistan) to play hardball politics with the "big boy" Western powers.
Second, as to your (sarcastic) reference to the US killing our own citizens to test a nuke: If we were to do that, we'd pick an uninhabited place, surely! Somewhere we could hush it up better than, say, a couple miles from San Francisco!
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:4, Interesting)
According to John Kenneth Galbraith, who worked on an independent civilian commission appointed by President Roosevelt to study what really happened in the aftermath of WWII, Japan was ready to surrender before the A-Bomb was dropped.:
Taken from "The Good War," [barnesandnoble.com] by Studs TerkelI think the "we had to drop the A-bomb becauase the invasion would have been worse" story is a remarkably well done piece of propaganda which has endured to the point of becoming accepted fact. As Mr. Galbraith points out, the US did not know that Japan was ready to surrender at the time. However, it is wrong to keep using that story now, given that it is probably false. I would rather the US say, OK, we didn't know that Japan was going to surrender, but we wished we did because we wish we didn't drop the bomb on them.
As far as villagers training with pikes, that's probably on the same level as the bomb drills in US schools where everyone hid under their desk -- something to give ordinary citizens some feeling of security, nothing more.
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:2)
From the same book there is the first-hand account by a black navy worker that simply discredits the whole contention that Port Chicago saw a nuclear explosion. There were huge amounts of explosives there, and they were handled carelessly. Also no radiation after effects.
No. As Galbraith himself points, that the Bomb in itself did not end the War was learned afterwards. This was sure the feeling at the time, even if it was based on flawed evidence.
So if there is any propaganda, it lays on saying the invasion would have been worse instead of we thought the invasion would have been worse. It is a distinction that should be done, but we are at the soundbite era.
Not. These civilians were instructed to first resist with spikes, then to commit suicide if failing.
And they really meant it, as the Okinawa suicides during the invasion proved.
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:2)
The only thing that it proves is, that they feared the US soldiers. Unless, you provide some reference for civilians attacking with spikes.
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:2)
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:2, Informative)
The language used in the memo seems to me more equivocal then Galbraith's statments in the interview with Terkel.
Consider: and
and The memo does conclude that surrender was inevitable even without an invasion, and without the use of the atomic bomb. However, it does seem to assume the continued conventional bombing of the Japanese mainland, something Galbraith fails to mention in his comments to Terkel. "Bomber" Harris in the UK and LeMay in the US had long been making optimistic claims about the power of conventional bombing to end the war. Could this memo be part of the the same school?
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:2)
Japan was who eventually got the shaft, but the original intent of the US nuclear weapons program was the Germans. Unfortunately, the development of a working bomb and the production of enough weapons-grade uranium took too long, and Germany had fallen before the bomb was ready to be employed..
Also, modern historians tend to doubt that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did much to end the war with Japan. Japan was already starting to break up and looking for an exit. The Soviets announcing war would have pretty much clinched it.
The most significant benefit that the demonstration of nuclear power likely bought the United States was a trump card for use in post-war negotiations with the USSR.
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
As for dropping it on Japan, I suggest anyone interested in the subject at all check out a book called Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard B Frank. He examines original source material and lets the reader decide whether or not it was good idea.
Some of the interesting things he reveals: the Japanese plan, to fight the US to a bloody standstill on the beaches and then sue for a negotiated peace, would certainly have been bloody. The Japanese were massing *all* their remaining forces exactly where the US was planning to strike.
Certainly there would have been tens if not hundreds of thousands of Allied and Japanese casualties. But, it wouldn't have mattered in the long run, because most of the Japanese population would have starved to death shortly after, anyway.
See, Since the cities were totally bombed out, General LeMay's next targets were the rail-heads. After two weeks of bombing them Japan would have been totally unable to ship food around the counry, resulting in mass starvation, regardless of their surrender. (It's unclear if LeMay knew this would be the result, but since he spent the months before fire-bombing civilian areas, it seems likely that he probably didn't care that much.)
Anyway, it's a pretty fascinating book...
It's really an open question as to what would have happened if we hadn't dropped the bomb -- people in the US were so sick of war Japan may have been able to get a negotiated peace (just before they all starved to death).
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:3, Informative)
>(It's unclear if LeMay knew this would be the
>result, but since he spent the months before
>fire-bombing civilian areas, it seems likely
>that he probably didn't care that much.)
That's a bit disingenuous.
Japanese cities of the time were not nicely, neatly divided into industrial / residential areas, and a lot of Japanese war production was at the cottage level, making that kind of differentiation in targeting well-nigh impossible. Granted, Life magazine said of the Tokyo fire-bombing, ``We have now proven that a Japanese city when properly kindled will burn like autumn leaves.'', but given the behaviour of Japan during World War II such sentiment can be understood in context.
William
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:3, Informative)
In the book referenced above, Franks makes an excellent point, which was that the American people were so sick, by 1944, of the inhumanity of war, that they were willing to tolerate and support any inhumanity, no matter how big, to get it over with faster. Given that, and given the enormous number of US casualties we would have taken to invade Japan, I find it pretty hard to argue with *any* of the US strategy in pressing the war against Japan.
Re:Global military supremacy? (Score:3, Informative)
"One major problem was the consequences of not using the atomic bombs. The earlier scripts implied Japan would have surrendered without an invasion. Dr. Tom Crouch, one of the exhibit's curators explained the evidence for that conclusion:
'(take) The Strategic Bombing Survey team for example. Paul Nitze and John Kenneth Galbraith and the economists who were in Japan in the months immediately after the war to assess the impact of the strategic bombing campaign. They looked at everything I mean at economics, at morale, at what happened to fire departments and particular industries, particular towns. With regard to Japan. Their final comment on the (Atomic) bomb was that their studies indicated had there been no bomb, had there been no invasion, Japan would of surrendered in September-October. Something of that sort. Other Post-War studies said the same thing. I don't think we quote any of the others. Marine Corps and Army immediate Post-War gaming situations in 1946-1947, when they were playing with the political elements suggested essentially the same thing. The collapse was closer than the Japanese themselves realized and would of come at that point. If you see that in the script you're only going to see that as a quote from somebody else. There will be quotes to the contrary.' "
Germans not well on the way (Score:2)
Actually, they weren't. There was research, of course, but they never came very far on the long, complicated way of building a working bomb. First the Nazis were convinced to win the war easily by conventional means (in 1939 and 40 it looked pretty good for them). In 1942, there was a request by the military on a nuclear bomb. The scientists agreed that it could be done, but would need several more years. See this page on the Uran-Projekt [uni-muenster.de] if you can understand German. When the German scientists, already interned after Germany's defeat in May '45, learned about Hiroshima and Nagasaki, they refused to believe it.
Say chap (Score:2, Funny)
Port Chicago (Score:5, Informative)
Whether or not there was a nuclear explosion, I don't think so. However, that area has always played a very important part of the military in the Bay Area.
Sounds like BS (Score:5, Informative)
What I didn't see were comparisons to larger known conventional maritime explosions like in Texas or Halifax.
Just because it was a big blast doesn't mean it was a nuke. As for Teller, it was obvious from the interviews in the Atomic Bomb Movie that Teller is off his rocker.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~gduncan/maritime-2
"British Ministry of War Transport steamship (7,142 tons) loaded with 1,400 tons of munitions and a cargo of 9,000 cotton bales, was berthed in Bombay docks when a fire broke out with such ferocity that it soon reached the ammunition stored in the forward section of the ship. The resulting explosion was almost as great as the blowing up of the ammunition ship Mount Blanc in Halifax Harbour during the First World War. Fires on shore blazed for two days and nights as the flaming bales of cotton were hurled into the air only to drop onto the wooden shacks and shanties of Bombay's slums. In the harbour itself, eighteen merchant ships were either sunk or severely damaged. A total of 336 people died and over 1,000 injured."
"A gigantic explosion occurred at the West Lock Munitions Facility, Pearl Harbor, the cause of which has never been explained. The ammo-loaded ships were spaced in line apart from each other when the first explosion occurred at the dock setting off a series of explosions on the other ships. Some vessels managed to take evasive action thus terminating the domino like chain of explosions. Destroyed were the Landing Ship (Tank) LST-43, LST...69, LST-179, LST-353 and LST-480. Also destroyed were the Landing Craft (Tank) LCT(6)-961, LCT(6)-963 and LCT(6)-983. Bodies were being dragged from the water days after the event. Casualties were said to be over 1,000 killed or wounded."
So the Navy Pier accident isn't unique in violent destructive power.
There are two other explosions I've read about with similarities to the one that is pdf'ed to hell and back.
http://www.region.halifax.ns.ca/community/explo
Stored in the holds, or simply stacked on deck,of the Mont Blanc were 35 tons of benzol, 300 rounds of ammunition, 10 tons of gun cotton, 2,300 tons of picric acid (used in explosives), and 400,000 pounds of TNT.
"The Mont Blanc drifted by a Halifax pier, brushing it and setting it ablaze. Members of the Halifax Fire Department responded quickly, and were positioning their engine up to the nearest hydrant when the Mont Blanc disintegrated in a blinding white flash, creating the biggest man-made explosion before the nuclear age. It was 9:05am.
Over 1,900 people were killed immediately; within a year the figure had climbed well over 2,000. Around 9,000 more were injured, many permanently; 325 acres, almost all of north-end Halifax, were destroyed.
Much of what was not immediately levelled burned to the ground, aided by winter stockpiles of coal in cellars. As for the Mont Blanc, all 3,000 tons of her were shattered into little pieces that were blasted far and wide. The barrel of one of her cannons landed three and a half miles away; part of her anchor shank, weighing over half a ton, flew two miles in the opposite direction. Windows shattered 50 miles away, and the shock wave was even felt in Sydney, Cape Breton, 270 miles to the north-east."
http://sdsd.essortment.com/texascityexplo_rkvi.
http://www.texasoutside.com/galveston/texascity
Re:Sounds like BS (Score:2)
Is that a typo, or did they think 300 rounds was worth mentioning? Did they also list the packet of matches in the captain's shirt pocket?
Or is it like big-ole-country ammunition like for a howitzer or some such?
Re:Sounds like BS (Score:3, Informative)
small correction: picric acid (Score:2)
Picric acid is a yellow crystalline, high explosive bursting charge. It is initiated by lead azide or mercury fulminate. Picric acid has the same effectiveness as TNT. ... Picric acid in contact with lead produces lead picrate, a sensitive and violent explosive.
The idea of 2300 tons of this stuff on any one ship give me the willies. If it all went up at once, which by the descriptions it did, it would be the equivalent of a modern day medium sized tactical nuke.
Good examples BTW. Looks like just another crackpot theory filtering through the memepool. Nothing to see here folks, move along.
EnkiduEOT
Re:small correction: picric acid (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not what should give you willies about this incident.
What should give you willies is that someone's miltary (british to be exact) has had no doubts about bring a ship with this cargo manifest into the middle of a city instead of unloading it offshore.
And methinks that there is a mistake in the reference. It was not benzol. It was nitrobenzol if I recall correctly. Which is also an explosive. All 35 tons of it. In barrels on the deck. They are actually what caught fire after the other ship (forgot the name) collided with the MonBlan. In other words there was not a single item of cargo on the manifest that was not explosive.
And the most interesting of it all. The cretinous idiot in the military who OKed the manifest for loading as well as the cretinous idiot who OKed bringing the ship into harbour were not ever considered at fault. The criminal procedings concentrated on the captain of the ship (who survived the incident by running like hell the moment it went on fire).
Back on the topic. It is possible that it was not a nuke in Chicago. Actually most likely that it was not. But knowing the military it might as well have been. They would have liked it to be. Good test. And good riddance to some pesky loading workers and privates ya know...
Re:small correction: picric acid (Score:4, Insightful)
Your points regarding the criminal incompetence of the persons in charge of shipping are spot on. They should have been taken out, had 2 pounds each of picric acid wrapped around various points of their bodies and had them detonated at suitably random amounts of time.
EnkiduEOT
Re:Sounds like BS (Score:2)
I do have to say one thing, though -- they have a *lot* of filler material and quoted crap.
Conspiracy! (Score:3, Funny)
Cool....second conspiracy theory tonight!..... (Score:4, Funny)
Does Oliver Stone know about this?.....
5 kiloton conventional explosion... (Score:5, Informative)
Being European, I was not familiar with the incident. Running a very quick search [google.com] shows that there was an accident at a port (Port Chicago), when it was used for loading and transporting ammunition during WW2.
Sources say that there was an explosion of approximately 5 thousand tons [portchicagomutiny.com] of conventional explosives, started accidentally. Undoubtedly it was a massive chain reaction and there had apparently been some (certainly understandable) concern over the safety of the facility.
The article source claims it was a nuclear weapon.
The documentary "Trinity and Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie" [imdb.com] (good footage, narrated by William Shatner) contains recently de-classified footage. It shows the US military staging a conventional explosion of the order of a kiloton, designed to help figure out what to expect from a real nuclear explosion. And guess what... it behaved very much like you would expect a nuclear explosion.
The facts are as follows:
(1) There was a big explosion.
(2) A 5-kiloton conventional explosion could at first glance be mistaken for a nuclear explosion. Big explosions look similar, it doesn't matter how they're triggered.
The critical problem with their argument is as follows: The test site of the very first atomic weapon, Trinity, is still noticably radioactive [ed-thelen.org] today, possibly dangerous. Indeed, the fallout effects are still noticable from other sites [google.com] exposed to nuclear weapons - in the environmental and survivor's radiation poisoning.
To those who assert that the Port Chicago explosion was the result of a nuclear explosion - how do you explain a nuclear weapon with no fallout and radioactivity? I vouch that you are trying to manipulate the facts to justify a theory - rather than basing your opinions from facts.
You would have thought that during a "20 year investigation" they would have gone out there with a geiger counter and check out the background radiation. Which would have discounted nuclear weapons very quickly.
Re:5 kiloton conventional explosion... (Score:2)
I do not advocate or support this theory about port chicago being a nuclear explosion at all but what about a Neutron Bomb? [nuclearfiles.org]. Granted they weren't even thought of till 1958 but... Shrug.
Re:5 kiloton conventional explosion... (Score:2)
This is still a nuclear weapon, thus will still spread fission products, nuclear fuel and irradiated bomb components around as fallout.
Re:Hiroshima? (Score:2)
You are correct [rerf.or.jp]: Hiroshima and Nagasaki are no longer noticeably radioactive. The fact that the lifetime and power of a radioisotope are inversely proportional is probably a factor here as well as those cited.
OTOH, it seems unlikely that those around at the time could fail to tell an air-burst explosion from an underground one, so simple Geiger Counter testing of ground samples should quickly settle the Port Chicago issue: some fission products are extremely long-lived, yet powerful enough to be easy to spot.
An enormous grain of salt (Score:5, Interesting)
... is what anyone should take this theory with.
I will openly admit that I did not RTFA, simply because the FA is too F long. I did go to the site and tried to skim the salient points, and I read the historical account (of an event I had never heard of, and I tend to consider myself something of a WW II history buff).
At first glance, this is shaping up to be a case of someone starting from a false premise and building an argument to support it. Several times people have attempted the old "wow this was way too powerful to have been a conventional explosion it must be nuclear" gambit.
I can easily cite an example of another historical event that resulted in a very large conventional explosion that mimicked atomic bomb effects. On December 6, 1917, a French cargo ship carrying a large amount of picric acid, TNT, benzole, and guncotton caught fire and exploded in Halifax harbor. The force of the explosion is estimated to have been in the neighborhood of 3 kilotons. It had all the effects of a atomic blast: fireball, mushroom cloud, shock wave, even a small tidal wave since the explosion was over water, and so on, all but the radiation. However, no one by any conceivable stretch of the imagination can claim that this was an atomic explosion.
In addition, it is my understanding that it took a great deal of time and expense to build first the test device that was exploded in the desert and then the two that were dropped over Japan. That represented the sum total of America's nuclear arsenal at the time. A great deal of care was taken with these devices. It seems very odd to me that there would be some sort of "accident" with a heretofore unknown weapon that America possessed at the time. Atomic weapons just do not simply "go off" unless the bomb were specifically armed, and there would be no reason to keep an armed atomic weapon in the hold of a ship.
As for purposely detonating a device to test its effects on a populated area? Please. I can only stretch my incredulity so far. Yes, the US government has done some terrible things in the past, but it would take a great deal of very compelling evidence to make me believe they would do something that blatant.
Anyone who has read the entire book from beginning to end, feel free to poke holes in my argument. My research into this theory was hampered by the fact that the site did not contain a concise summary of the theory itself. For someone with the time, perhaps this would be a good candidate for applying the Carl Sagan Baloney Detection Kit.
Re:An enormous grain of salt (Score:2)
Read This Link [nuclearfiles.org] for more hair-raising stories.
For a good laugh, search Google for "nuclear bomb silo explosion wrench" and see the helpful ads on the side of the page.
Re:An enormous grain of salt (Score:2)
Not to mention, provoking an exciting visit to your home by some very concerned feds...
Re: An enormous grain of salt (Score:2)
> It had all the effects of a atomic blast: fireball, mushroom cloud, shock wave
When I was a kid, a chemical plant just outside my home town was mixing chemicals in a tank car and it popped. I didn't see the fireball because I was home playing in my yard, but the shock wave made all the neighborhood screen doors open and close, and you could easily see the mushroom cloud over the rooftops.
This kind of stuff really doesn't take all that big an explosion.
Re:An enormous grain of salt (Score:2)
Yes, but not usefully. Unless the pieces are assembled quickly, their proximinity in sub-critical density will release enough heat to vaporize and disperse the uranium before it truly chain-reacts. You get a big, messy, hot puddle of uranium but not a (gigantic) explosion
While obtaining the U235 was the hardest part of the Manhattan Project, it was also considered a major accomplishment to wrangle injection of the critical mass...
not a nuke (Score:2)
The reason they describe the 10,000 ton gadget (first nuke detonated at Los Alamos) mushroom cloud having happened in "typical Port Chicago fashion"? Because Port Chicago was (then) recent and big. Move along people, nothing to see here.
look, burning karma! (Score:5, Funny)
This I Truly Love ... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is very American to stand up and say that you're patriotic especially after September 11th, and then go on and on about how "they" the government are trying to control you "the sheep", or how "they" want to go to war.
Here's a little lesson in how things work for Americans, because obviously some of you just don't get it. American Government is ran by AMERICANS. "they" are "us" and no different except the titles beside their names.
So would "they" set off a nuke on "their" own people?
HELL NO
This was an accident that was covered up because the Armed forces (that ensure our freedom and lifestyles as Americans) made a mistake and like ANY human they didn't want to fess up to it. It's a whole lot easier to pretend something didn't happen or "bend the truth" then to come right out with it. That's the one thing that just doesn't register with me, since when is "the government" some new breed of people in America?
Sometimes it sickens me to see people so proud to be Americans to just turn around and bitch about what they take for granted.
In Soviet Russia, you wouldn't see a book like this.
"I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight to my death for your right to say it" - Voltaire
Americans (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:This I Truly Love ... (Score:2)
No, the Russians could probably handle a book a little bit longer.
Re:This I Truly Love ... (Score:2, Insightful)
1026 changed everything.
I don't believe that Port Chicago was a nuke test, but the vicious stupidity displayed by the passage of the patriot act makes me very afraid of what the US will become.
Re: This I Truly Love ... (Score:2)
> Here's a little lesson in how things work for Americans, because obviously some of you just don't get it. American Government is ran by AMERICANS. "they" are "us" and no different except the titles beside their names.
> So would "they" set off a nuke on "their" own people?
> HELL NO
Just like they wouldn't secretly give their soldiers LSD and watch what happened?
Where did this stupid article come from? (Score:4, Insightful)
The San Francisco area has a number of nuclear embarassments. There are leaky barrels of radioactive material off the Farralones, and ground contamination at Hunter's Point. Ships used near nuclear tests were decontaminated or scrapped there. Mare Island used to be a nuclear weapons storage area. But the SF area's anti-nuclear activists have never brought up Port Chicago, and if there was any evidence of contamination, it would have been noticed by now.
The author's online chapter sections don't even seem to have much relevance to his conspiracy theory.
Blast Statistics (Score:3, Interesting)
From chapter 9:
-
The buildings of the Naval Magazine were damaged extensively; sporadic damage to structural members of buildings was proven up to 13 miles - Suval [railroad] Station, California; plate glass was broken up to 35.5 miles - Petaluma, California; and a legitimate claim for plaster damage was reported at 48 miles - Calistoga, California.
Death count: 320 dead, 81 bodies recovered, of which 30 were positively identified.A pilot flying at 9000 feet saw pieces of white-hot metal rise above his altitude.
I'm impressed...
NOW I remember this one -- and not for the boom (Score:5, Informative)
Port Chicago is known as a tragedy and milestone in race relations in the U.S. military, which was segregated throughout WWII. Here [navy.mil] is the Navy account, not bad in its honesty.
"The explosion at Port Chicago accounted for fifteen percent of all African-American casualties of World War II." Some 320 people were killed instantly, nearly all of them black. The ordnance loaders were a black unit. Hundreds of the survivors refused to return to work after the accident without safety changes. A couple hundred were summarily court-martialed, and 50 more were tried for mutiny [historychannel.com]with a possible death sentence.
The incident drew a great deal of attention, again not for allegedly being nuclear, and mau have factored into President Truman's historic integration of the military.
This may not be a technological angle, but it does emphasize that poor safety practice with conventional explosives caused the disaster, as I suggested in an earlier post.
Mushroom Cloud blast (Score:2, Informative)
Some other kind of bomb? (Score:2)
it doesn't sound like a nuclear device to me. But aren't there bombs that cause damage, but don't leave radioactivity? Neutron bombs? or something?
Forgive me if I'm wrong - the body clock hasn't got used to waking up early after the Xmas holidays/parties/late nights.
Re:Some other kind of bomb? (Score:2)
But the silliest part of the nuke claim is . . . (Score:2)
Oh, give me a break. (Score:5, Informative)
Bruce
Fermilab? (Score:2)
Re:Fermilab? (Score:2)
Nothing at fermi is classified, the closest they come is putting warning stickers up for areas that produce radiation.. which is simply a side effect of high energy physics.
The writing is terrible. (Score:2)
- A.P.
Insulting (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, the belief that the US had the fissionable material to waste in an uncontrolled (and murderous) test is even more absurd. Especially so close to a highly populated area such as San Francisco. Port Chicago is VERY close to SF, especially in terms of a nuclear explosion. It's only something like 30 miles as the crow flies.
This is one of the stupidest and most insulting conspiracy theories I've ever come across. It insults not only the survivors, but our intelligence as well. Right up there with the moonshot conspiracy "theory".
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... (Score:4, Funny)
A strange case of synchonicity.. (Score:2)
I had never heard of Port Chicago before, and here I find it connected like Kevin Bacon to Slashdot.
More information, more succinct argument (Score:5, Informative)
- Just before
10:20 p.m. on July 17th, 1944, the worst home front disaster of WWII, occurred at a Naval pier in the San Francisco Bay Area.
That same site also lists several nuclear-conspiracy pages [k12.ca.us] about Port Chicago, and almost all of them are more succinct than the one listed in the story.Five thousand tons of ammunition in ships being loaded by black sailors exploded, sending a blast more than 12,000 feet into the sky.
The explosion destroyed the pier, a train, and both ships, instantly killing everyone aboard (some 320 men).
This page [sonic.net] in particular is short, and has a quick list of bullet points that try to show that Port Chicago was nuclear. They may all be obviously BS (to someone more versed in its history...?), but they're not simply "the explosion was so big, it HAD to be nuclear!" as others has suggested.
And lastly, when visiting this Amazon.com page [amazon.com] for a Port Chicago book, am I the only one who sees "Customers who wear clothes also shop for: Clean Underwear"?? Maybe I'm delerious from being up in the middle of the night.
Largest WWII conventional explosion... (Score:4, Interesting)
In fact the biggest single conventional explosion of the second world war happened less than 10 miles from where I grew up in Burton-on-Trent, England. Only the Hirmoshima, Nagasaki and New Mexico tests were larger. It was 'common knowlege' at the time locally, and cracks in ceilings were regularly pointed out to me as a kid as having been caused by 'the dump blowing up', but few people outside the area have ever heard of it.
The Fauld dump exploded in November 1944 taking 4,000 tons of bombs with it. There's good pages here (http://www.carolyn.topmum.net/tutbury/fauld/faul
Theres's also a couple of earlier large naval explosion that may be of interest as similar forgotten tragedies. Bothe happened in Sheerness harbour in WWI - the HMS Bulwark and later the Princess Irene. The BBC did an program on these recently - http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/beyond/factsheets/
Easy to tell it was no nuclear explosion... (Score:5, Interesting)
In 1994/95 I lived in Pleasant Hill which is about 10-20 miles from port chicago, and I have personally looked for such evidence when I first heard this silly claim. There is no trace of any such radioactivity in the local geology, land or seabased.
There is an hell of a lot of functional nukes stored out there today, but that is a different issue.
nuclear bomb in 1944 (Score:2, Informative)
umm ... (Score:2)
Would the US really blow up their own people for the sake of global military supremacy? Naaaah...
I hate to contaminate your anti-Americanism with some reality, Michael, but in 1944 the people who were desiring global military supremacy were German and Japanese.
Re:umm ... (Score:2)
yes, of course. it's always those other guys that are evil. we, here in america, are all saints, and are incapable of such mass murder.
Canadian Conspiracy (Score:5, Funny)
Consider the four major disasters:
- SS Fort Stikine, the ship that blew up in Bombay, was Canadian built.
- USS Maine - Maine borders Canada. Was it a message to the US from our northern "friends?"
- Port Chicago - easy access by Canadian saboteurs with limpets, also sends that same "message"
- Halifax - need I say more?
Those dastardly canadians like to blow up ships. Please stay tuned for my 352 page pdf.Mini-nukes are harder to build (Score:2)
5-kiloton or smaller bombs are a lot harder to build. In fact, they are talking about it now, because a bunch of rather moronic US politicians want to use nukes as regular battlefield weapons. They are referred to as mini-nukes [fas.org].
If this explosion was about 2-5 kilotons, I find it hard to believe it was a nuke. That's simply too small.
Oh great...another synopsis for a bad movie (Score:2)
Can't wait to see the monacled German doctor who secretly heads-up the nuclear program.
"I vudent vurry about ze people in Chicago...de test is all dat matterz!"
(yes, that isn't how Germans pronounce English, however Hollywood has convinced itself that Germans do pronounce English exactly like the Dutch)
Re:Maybe an accident? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This makes no sense. (Score:2)
Before or after the blast?
Re:Ggrrrr PDF! (Score:2)