![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi. I strongly recommend that someone with an account create a redirect from Operation Ploughshare to here it is a very common misspelling. Best. -- 70.48.242.16 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
NO. Other than the spelling errors, as one who worked in the Plowshare Program for 25 years, this story is completely false. Just check the newspapers to look at gas prices for that time. It is true that the Plowshare program looked at the Canadian tarsand deposits as a potential applicaton, but there was never any formal study or project to do any fieldwork or nuclear explosion Mnordyke 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The following questionable paragraphs were inserted by an anon. at the end of the External links section. They obviously don't belong there, but since I'm having a hard time believing all the details, I don't feel I should just move them to a better place, so I reverted them until some reliable source is provided: Nonenmac 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs says
Why was it possible for people to walk around a few months after the explosion? Nordyke said the Plowshare team designed a series of weapons that contained very little fissionable material, which is what makes radioactivity dangerous to humans.
"For excavation, we put a lot of time and effort and money into developing nuclear explosives which had minimal fissionable material so that you could carry out a 100-kiloton cratering explosion and release the radioactivity equivalent to a 20-ton explosive of fissionable material," Nordyke said.
But despite the technical success of the Plowshare program, Nordyke doesn't see nuclear weapons being used for excavation or mining anytime soon because it doesn't seem politically feasible.
"I think its time came and went," he said. "I think reconciling it with the enhanced environmental concerns today and the inherent association with weapons is difficult."
How about adding information on the technology involved, and details of how minimal? -- 98.216.110.149 ( talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "Operation Plowshare" appears in the title of a 25 March 1958 feasability report for digging a canal across the Mexican Isthmus of Tehuantepec by Clifford M. Bacigalupi, Robert A. Miles, and Fred J. Warren (of Livermore Laboratory) at an OSTI web site: "Isthmus of Tehuantepec Investigation for Operation Plowshare". 69.126.127.193 ( talk) 20:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to emphasize the negative aspects of Operation Plowshare, without discussing any possible positives, both in the introduction and within the body of the article. For an example of what seems a more balanced approach, see the article on the Soviet Union's Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgiesler ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with the POV tag, but also partially agree with Johnfos that the environmental & health impacts were obviously negative. In saying that however, The edits by Johnfos do show an underlying over reliance on the anti nuclear advocate Benjamin K. Sovacool.
Off the top of my head there were a number of positive things learned and discovered from Ploughshare, including how to safely conduct Underground nuclear testing, not to mention how to detect foreign countries detonating nuclear weapons by analyzing the seismic data produced.
The PACER concept was only possible with Project Gnome data.
Here's a far more balanced summary of Ploughshare and its fruits- https://www.osti.gov/opennet/reports/plowshar.pdf Isotope recovery; neutron physics experiment; examination of heat recovery; seismic measurements; and explosive development.
& further fruit- http://symposia.obs.carnegiescience.edu/series/symposium4/ms/becker.ps.gz http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/proceedings.html
Test shot Anacostia of Project Ploughshare produced Ivy Mike levels of einsteinium but without the massive 10+ megaton yield requirments, no doubt helping facilitate Chemists decipher this elements chemical properties.
The very neutron-rich isotope 250Cm was also discovered after test shot Anacostia.
And generally speaking Ploughshare helped humanity unlock some of the mysteries of the r-Process of nucleosynthesis on Earth with Thermonuclear Explosions.
So until this data is included, I agree the current article is a POV piece. Boundarylayer ( talk) 03:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Removing old tag which has become a "badge of shame" more than anything else; if Sovacool's work is in question, take it up with him directly at User talk:Bksovacool. Johnfos ( talk) 10:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
prefix:Talk:Operation Plowshare/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnomeCoach ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hi. I strongly recommend that someone with an account create a redirect from Operation Ploughshare to here it is a very common misspelling. Best. -- 70.48.242.16 22:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
NO. Other than the spelling errors, as one who worked in the Plowshare Program for 25 years, this story is completely false. Just check the newspapers to look at gas prices for that time. It is true that the Plowshare program looked at the Canadian tarsand deposits as a potential applicaton, but there was never any formal study or project to do any fieldwork or nuclear explosion Mnordyke 16:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
The following questionable paragraphs were inserted by an anon. at the end of the External links section. They obviously don't belong there, but since I'm having a hard time believing all the details, I don't feel I should just move them to a better place, so I reverted them until some reliable source is provided: Nonenmac 01:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
7 (Crazy) Civilian Uses for Nuclear Bombs says
Why was it possible for people to walk around a few months after the explosion? Nordyke said the Plowshare team designed a series of weapons that contained very little fissionable material, which is what makes radioactivity dangerous to humans.
"For excavation, we put a lot of time and effort and money into developing nuclear explosives which had minimal fissionable material so that you could carry out a 100-kiloton cratering explosion and release the radioactivity equivalent to a 20-ton explosive of fissionable material," Nordyke said.
But despite the technical success of the Plowshare program, Nordyke doesn't see nuclear weapons being used for excavation or mining anytime soon because it doesn't seem politically feasible.
"I think its time came and went," he said. "I think reconciling it with the enhanced environmental concerns today and the inherent association with weapons is difficult."
How about adding information on the technology involved, and details of how minimal? -- 98.216.110.149 ( talk) 19:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
The term "Operation Plowshare" appears in the title of a 25 March 1958 feasability report for digging a canal across the Mexican Isthmus of Tehuantepec by Clifford M. Bacigalupi, Robert A. Miles, and Fred J. Warren (of Livermore Laboratory) at an OSTI web site: "Isthmus of Tehuantepec Investigation for Operation Plowshare". 69.126.127.193 ( talk) 20:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
This article seems to emphasize the negative aspects of Operation Plowshare, without discussing any possible positives, both in the introduction and within the body of the article. For an example of what seems a more balanced approach, see the article on the Soviet Union's Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgiesler ( talk • contribs) 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
I completely agree with the POV tag, but also partially agree with Johnfos that the environmental & health impacts were obviously negative. In saying that however, The edits by Johnfos do show an underlying over reliance on the anti nuclear advocate Benjamin K. Sovacool.
Off the top of my head there were a number of positive things learned and discovered from Ploughshare, including how to safely conduct Underground nuclear testing, not to mention how to detect foreign countries detonating nuclear weapons by analyzing the seismic data produced.
The PACER concept was only possible with Project Gnome data.
Here's a far more balanced summary of Ploughshare and its fruits- https://www.osti.gov/opennet/reports/plowshar.pdf Isotope recovery; neutron physics experiment; examination of heat recovery; seismic measurements; and explosive development.
& further fruit- http://symposia.obs.carnegiescience.edu/series/symposium4/ms/becker.ps.gz http://www.ociw.edu/ociw/symposia/series/symposium4/proceedings.html
Test shot Anacostia of Project Ploughshare produced Ivy Mike levels of einsteinium but without the massive 10+ megaton yield requirments, no doubt helping facilitate Chemists decipher this elements chemical properties.
The very neutron-rich isotope 250Cm was also discovered after test shot Anacostia.
And generally speaking Ploughshare helped humanity unlock some of the mysteries of the r-Process of nucleosynthesis on Earth with Thermonuclear Explosions.
So until this data is included, I agree the current article is a POV piece. Boundarylayer ( talk) 03:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Removing old tag which has become a "badge of shame" more than anything else; if Sovacool's work is in question, take it up with him directly at User talk:Bksovacool. Johnfos ( talk) 10:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
prefix:Talk:Operation Plowshare/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GnomeCoach ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)