h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's somewhat bigger than I initially thought it would be - but then there was sooo much to say about it

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A675731


It got taken down several times because of some weak links. Hopefully they'll be working now.

* presses thumbs *

I just had a quick scan though your links. I've added one to my link-page (scroll down) http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A519716. Just follow the link and look for Plowshare (34905a.mpg and 34905b.mpg); the avi are without sound....

Tube
off to read the entry properly

>300 MB download... that's pretty much for a 57.6 modem

I collected links to avi/mpg footage too but was unsure whether to include them -- apparently I should

Oh.... 300MB is fair enough when running DSL... And the site is fast, I managed four parallel downloads with 20kB/s each. If you're interested I might go and copy some of that stuff for you for the London meet.

Anyway. Great entry! Can't think of something to be added (just the links; that site features some more material on fallout, a-bombs (incl. the Pascal tests (or similar)) and other propaganda bits and pieces). Footage is always good and the things I linked to have a very nice commentary, full of enthusiasm and euphemisms.


Tube

Hey, this is pretty good.

It made me remember Teller -- he taught my high school physics class for a few weeks -- he was a cross between Yoda and that freaky character in Dr. Strangelove....


Mikey

Hi BSE,

No time now, but will read later.

Seeya
Spiff

Good stuff Bossel. Chilling, but good. What's wrong with these people?

Another great entry, Bossel.

There are some small typos - not time to go through them at present, but one was 'Further six, which should either read 'Six further' or 'A further six'.

Great stuff.

I foudn a fwe tpyos , added links to sites which offer movie coverage for download and took out the 'draft' from the header.

Tube, I'd appreciate if you could manage to copy those big ones!

Interesting article, very informative and largely free of opinion by the researcher (I know it's difficult to write about this sort of thing without expressing personal opinions and/or beliefs). I noted that others' opinions expressed were usually clearly marked as quoted material and used to represent opinions of those at the time in order to present the culture as a matter of historical record.

However, a few statements I think should be re-written:

"More than 12 years years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, officials should have known better about the implications of nuclear explosions. However, they did their best at hiding the full truth."

Without legal proof to back it up, the last statement borders on the slanderous but avoids it by not mentioning any names. However, I find it to be distinctly inappropriate here. The article (and H2G2 in general) is probably not the place for a debate over how much knowledge "officials" had about the effects of the specific nuclear tests that the article is talking about. One can develop the opinion (however useful it is now) that some officials somewhere should have known better. Stating that it was a deliberate act of officials to "hide the truth" is a thin euphamism for accusing someone of deliberate lying and misleading of the public, a crime in most cases. Though you did a good job presenting some information about the statements made by officials to residents, all that they indicated ("indicated" I say, not "prooved") was a lack of appreciation of the hazards *without* any indication of whether or not it was a deliberate act by the officials. So, I suggest re-wording the last phrase I quoted above to read something like, "However, either through ignorance or willfully being closed-minded, the implications were not fully appreciated at the time," and then continue with presenting your evidence that whatever the cause, the effects were under-appreciated and mis-represented to the public, same as you did.

"Both of them were overachievers: Pascal-A yielded 55t instead of 1kg and produced the 'biggest damn Roman candle you ever saw'. Pascal-B yielded 300t and shot a metal shaft seal of several dozen kg high into the atmosphere. Official records list the yield of the Pascal-A and B events as 'slight' - obviously in an attempt to hide the truth."

As the only other instance where opinion is expressed, I suggest re-working this section. I'm not sure you can legitimately express what a non-Government source says about what the intended yield of the experiments was and then turn around and criticize the same entity for saying the yield was "slight." I didn't follow the link to read all of what those "first hand accounts" was about, but I shouldn't have go to an outside H2G2 link to find a source, should I? Perhaps some more on the witnesses and their credentials would help. (Oh, and one small nitpick while I'm reminded: explosive yield is commonly expressed as amount of "TNT equivalent" which is abbreviated like kg-TNT or g-TNT (or even lb-TNT in the US sometimes), or more common for nuclear explosions are ton(ne)s-TNT and 1000s tons-TNT, or "kiloton" as the term has finally been (slightly inappropriately) mutated into - not just "kg" or "t".) Not knowing the expected yield of those experiments (and associated assumptions of margin for error) invalidates the assertion that there was any "attempt to hide the truth." Whether or not you want to believe a Government source is a matter of personal opinion and choice, as is whether or not to believe the source you quoted from. Therefore, being a matter of opinion either way, I suggest re-writing the section to present it as such, mentioning that some believe the yield of the experiments to have been dangerously higher than expected while others reported the effects as "slight." I particularly suggest you remove the "attempt to hide the truth" phrase. That one gets used (and abused) all too often.

It might also be appropriate to clarify the source(s) for your Dr. Edward Teller quotes.

That's about it. Thanks for writing it up! I couldn't agree more that being as knowledgeable about this subject as one can is the only way to "discharge thoughtfully [our] responsibilities as citizens and if [we] are to realize fully the myriad benefits that nuclear energy offer [us]" - great quote from Edward J. Brunenkant.

- JD (not a scientist)

DISCLAIMER: The above text does not necessarily express the views or opinions of the Department of Energy or any of its laboratories, contractors, employees, or of anyone else, other than the guy bumming around here known simply as "JD."

tons and 't' - You're right, I was falling back into the German way of denoting these.


The source of the Teller quotes was already listed as [..] below the source indicated as [6] and has now been numbered [7] and linked to.


Yield values for the 'Pascal' experiments - I know this answer may not be fully sufficient but sometimes I've got a tendency to doubt the credibility of my government.


'They should have known better'
I came to that conclusion after having studied much of the material given as source [5]. This book quotes a huge number of witnesses/participants who were sent out to
[1] clean up the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
[2] watch the weapons tests in the Pacific Ocean from more or less far away
[3] clean battleships of radiation after these tests.

The book goes on to say that
- the soldiers were not issued measurement badges or respirators.
- none of them were given advice to avoid contact with any contaminated surface or material.
- the soldiers tasked with washing the ships had to drink water which was taken right from the place and run through a filter.

Within days (or hours in the latter case) they showed signs of exposure (vomiting, diarrhea, weakness) to radioactivity - be that alpha/beta/gamma or whatever types of hazardous particles that were set free. Any person/agency in command could (should?) have started investigations into the matter. In some cases the soldiers were adressed as being 'guinea-pigs'. However, guinea-pigs get inspected (or dissected) afterwards. The soldiers were not. Decades later, when suffering from cancer, their claims were turned down for lack of proof, and IMHO that was quite easy because (at least in the cases listed in the book) proof was not collected.

The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were available for investigation all the time.

The words
'...once the severely exposed Japanese people recovered from radiation sickness...'

were said around 1959, ie: more than 10 years after the explosions in Japan. Even *if* the victims had ever fully recovered, the temporal damage done to their well-being would be enough reason for a judge to decide for compensation payment (ok, I'm talking of German law here. I'm not at all familiar with US legislation, and it was wartime anyway).

But the point is: The soldiers mentioned above were put into the same situation as the Japanese, and they showed symptoms which *could* (should?) have rung a bell.


Again, I'm not familiar with US legislation - I'll assume that failure to provide hard evidence is enough to be liable for libel. I've changed 'They should have known better' to 'They could have known better'.

'However, they did their best...' - deleted, for the same reason.
'obviously in an attempt...' - deleted according to your suggestion.


Thanks for your comments!


Now, what shall I make out of those clicking noises in my telephone line?

Before I read it let me mention that one of the projects Robert McNamara had to put the kibosh on when he was first in office was a top secret Army project nicknamed the 'Nuclear Handgrenade'. It was a wire guided missile fired from a shoulder launcher. The contractor had never been near any of the 'nuclear' material but was making it to 'spec' just as the Army asked.
A later bunch of idiots on the AEC wanted to blast and alternative to the Panama Canal with a 'controlled' nuke in a friendlier country.

Having said that with no undue influence from the entry or your brilliance, I will know look at it....unless you stop me first.

Shoshone, not Shoshonee...

AEC should be spelled out in the first quote.
Still not clear on the boiling water around the bomb...or the 'Luckily enough' or some such.

You quote Teller and the anonymous scribbler of the propaganda booklet. Were you unable to find any quotes from Oppenheimer or Fermi?

Will look at it again later. Eyes swimming from italics, which look mutilated on my screen.

Would you care for other footage as well? (Operation Cue, Operation Crossroads, Duck and Covr, The House in the Middle) See that archive for further info on the files.

Hi Boss,

This is a highly interesting piece on a subject I knew next to nothing about. Thanks for the info.

You know me, so I am not going to tread too carefully here, but I must admit that I feel I have picked up on quite a few language points. I hope you won't feel bad about that, and anyway, feel free to take or leave as you please.

Ok, here goes:

I agree that you need to write out acronyms in full when you first use them (acronym in brackets straight after); AEC, NTS, maybe

>>test programs thatds were ongoing at the Bikini, - typo

>>in order to ease the production of natural gas

- You might use 'facilitate' or perhaps 'aid' instead of 'ease', here.

>>Breaking ore bodies to ease mining

- likewise, I don't feel 'ease' is the word. Also, 'ore bodies' struck me as odd. 'deposits'?

>>would yield a canal.

- I'm not sure if 'yield is the best word here. Especially given its other use in this piece (On the other hand, perhaps this is a sly gag on your part. ). How about 'produce' or 'provide the basis for'. Not sure, but there are other possibilities.

>>This goal necessitated finding out

- How about: 'To achieve this goal it was necessary to find out'

>>The Sedan explosion in 1962 - Where?

>>but didn't make it into the planning state.

- but never reached the planning phase.

>>It was carried out outside the NTS and was aimed at gaining economical profit.

- Again, where? Also, could 'gaining economical profit' be simply *was intended for commercial gain.* or *aimed to produce a financial gain.* ? Anyway, your phrase grates with me.

>>fractioning rock - is this really the term for what you are describing?

>>The enthusiasm of the project's proponents can't be better described as in the words of Dr. Edward Teller

- 'than' for 'as' (by the way, I love this little illustration! )

>>Further on, the paper continuously states that safety considerations were essential parts of the project, citing estimates and measurement results of radiation exposure levels which were far below their estimated values. The pamphlet shows people entering the Gnome cavity, five months after the explosion, with only a helmet as their protection equipment.<<

- This para seems rather confusing. Could you make it clearer.

- 'continuously' is not the right word here, I don't think.

- I think you can say something like 'were an essential aspect of the project'. In any case, I think if it is only one project and plural safety considerations, they are 'an essential part' of one project. If that makes sense.

- I don't like, 'as their protective equipment.' very much.

>>vivid protest - 'vivid'?

>>in order to track its ways - I don't understand this use of 'ways'

>>fallout raining down on their place

- 'their place is a little casual for this context, I think. It made me think of 'Your place or mine?' - 'Better make it yours, there's nuclear fallout raining down on mine!'

>>'biggest damn Roman candle you ever saw'. - can you attribute this to anyone?

>>are giving a lifely picture - tense = 'give'

>>as reference into the Department of Energy's

- not 'into'. I think you need to slightly re-write this sentence.

I think your table of tests is a good idea but could you say right from the outset that it exists. Since you mention many of these tests by name in previous paras, it would be good to know that this info is available.

>>reagion - typo

>>was only little more than a propaganda effort

- perhaps 'really little more'

>>We are going to have to unite as a people and say no more!

- Even if this is an accurate transcription of this comment, it is ambiguous and at worst misleading. It currently appears that the speaker intends the people never to speak again!

As a general point, I found some of the italicised quotes difficult to distinguish from the body text. I think it works better when you put the quote into a centred section of its own. I know this is not necessarily the case with very short quotes, but you have some longer ones slotted into the text here.

----------------

Wow, I seem to have written a lot there. Much of it is usage, as I said before. I hope some of it at least is useful.

I also said before that this was all news to me, so I can't say whether it is accurate/comprehensive/balanced. I place my trust in you and other researchers to get those right, and I think it is pretty well placed.

Seeya
Spiff

Blast! Their servers have slowed considerably. But the good news is that they now have the .avi (divx) files with sound, so I just go and grab them... unless you can convince me that you *need* the better .mpeg quality.

Tonsil, that nuclear handgrenade must have been the 'Davy Crocket' thing (you can find more about that by searching for 'Operation Sunbeam Davy Crocket').

hmm, I'm sure Oppenheimer and Fermi had their opinions too. I'll have to search for that...


Spiff, thanks very much for taking the time to point out the Denglish all over the piece. Much appreciated I've taken up almost all your suggestions.

I'm not sure whether it's ok to say 'really little more than a propaganda effort'. After all, the project *was* a serious effort.


Tube, Plowshare alone will do nicely. I'll assume that the mushroom clouds will be visible on .avi as well

Oh, I already got some of that stuff on CD (just found out that my Operation Cue & Plowshare II CD doesn't work ), I'll fry some for you