Talk:Castle Bravo/Archive 1

Image
Enhanced the image to remove glare and bring out detail. I think we would all agree it looks much better now.PiccoloNamek 07:15, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * I like the color adjusting but the "detail" is grainy and looks bad and unrealistic (clouds are not grainy). I'll scan a new copy of it out of a book I have and see if I can't bring out the detail and color without it being grainy... --Fastfission 06:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first image on this page is not Castle Bravo, but is the Castle Romeo shot, an 11 megaton detonation a few weeks later. See my comments on the talk page of the photo. The second photo on this page is, however, truly of Castle Bravo. This first photo is properly captioned on the Castle Romeo page, and is also used on the Operation Castle page. - bernie12345 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernie12345 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What about this image? It isn't grainy and I think it really represents the sheer power of Bravo very well. PiccoloNamek 06:05, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally I prefer one of the mushroom cloud rather than the fireball. The reason for this preference is three-fold: I think it gives you a better idea of scale (you can tell you are viewing this thing from pretty far away), it resonates better psychologically (the mushroom cloud is certainly a more poignant cultural image than the fireball), and it connects better with the issue of nuclear fallout (which is one of the main significances of the Bravo incident). I'll try to add a better picture of the mushroom cloud in a few days, I'm sure I've got one around here... --Fastfission 17:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's true... I still like the fireball image more though ;)... I have a lot of good Bravo cloud images here though, I might share some of them. I'm worried they don't have the same sense of scale as the one we have now though.PiccoloNamek 19:29, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

"received 10 R of radiation (equivalent to 10 chest X-rays)"
R is not a unit of radiation nor of human radiation exposure. The former unit is roentgens; the latter is rem (an acronym Roentgen equivalent man). R is ambiguous in this context.

Also, 10 rem of radiation would be equivalent to about 1000 chest X-rays, not 10 chest x-rays. For this reason, I've removed the parenthetical text pending correction. Ikkyu2 23:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is packed with erroneous information
The maximum megatons of above ground nuclear tests was far greater than stated. I believe I remember them being approximately 100 Megaton for the Soviet Union on Novaya Zemlya and possibly as high as 80 megaton for the United States.

No wonder Henry Ford said "History is bunk!", it keeps getting distorted over time.

Drdyer 04:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Drdyer

10 megaton from fission?
First sentence of "Fallout accident":

Of the total 15 megaton yield, 10 megatons were from fission of the natural uranium tamper.....

10 megatons from fission seems a lot, I would expect the vast majority of the yield to be from fusion.


 * Whether it "seems like a lot" or not, the fact remains that 10MT of the yield came from the tamper. I've reverted the change;  please sign your contributions and use (at least) google prior to changing easily confirmed data.  mdf 16:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there does seem to be something wrong with the yields. If the majority of the yield was from the uranium, then how was the yield of "three times what was expected", because of the lithium-7? I also think this "High yield cause" section is a bit mis-leading in that it counts the extra yield twice: "This resultant extra fuel (both lithium-6 and tritium) contributed greatly to the fusion reactions..." - the breakdown of Lithium-6 to tritium was expected, and a necessary precursor to fusion; what was apparently not expected was that Lithium-7 would also create tritium. According to Fusion_power, the lithium7>tritium reaction is endothermic. I haven't made changes to the article since I don't know definitive answers. (Please note I am not the originator of this thread) Loris 18:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The fusion stage produces a heavy neutron flux that initiates the fission of the tamper. See the nuclear weapon design article for details.   mdf 20:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Aah, I see. I was mistaken. Essentially the role of the lithium/deuterium reactions is to provide more neutrons (causing more of the uranium to fission), rather than producing the bulk of the energy released. If I've got this correct could I suggest changing/adding to the section to make this clearer? (The article you point to seems much more clear on the subject) Just to check I've got this right:

7Li+n >> T+4He+n (no net change of neutrons) T+D >> 4He+n (net gain 1 neutron) - profit : 1 neutron Whereas the designers were expecting: 6Li+n >> T+4He (net loss 1 neutron) T+D >> 4He+n (net gain 1 neutron) - no change in neutrons ...presumably with some proportion of D+D >> 3He+n to actually give a net gain of neutrons. Loris 16:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

sorry to insert here but is the term RACER 4 really a bomb type (which is something I haven't heard of although i've read a fair amount on this subjuct) or is it vandalism?
 * It's an actual bomb type, though I don't know if it's an acronym or just a code word. EASports 19:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * RACER IV was supposedly the primary for the Shrimp, i.e., a specially configured fission device. (Although with the caveat that as with all nuclear weapons, exactly what does what is not well known and *facts* are subject to revision when new info is discovered).  Mytg8 13:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Remember, this was a fission/fusion/fission device. Most of the dirty fission yield came from the U238 (normally non-fissionable) casing and tamper, NOT from the initial fission detonator. 147.145.40.44 19:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Lithium-7
Rhodes (Dark Sun) quotes someone (Rosenbluth?) to the effect that the missed reaction was

7Li + n -> 6Li + 2n

In other words, a chain reaction that will convert 7Li into 6Li, plus a fast neutron flux that is available to fission 238U. With multiple reaction paths in play, it's best not to show 'overall' reactions that obscure mechanisms.

"Of the total 15-megaton yield, 10 megatons were from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Thus the direct effect on the yield of the fusion was in this case smaller than the fission's effect of enabling fusion."

Shouldn't that read as follows? "Of the total 15-megaton yield, 10 megatons were from fission of the natural uranium tamper. Thus the direct effect on the yield of the fusion was in this case smaller than the fusion's effect of enabling fission." Tannin 09:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

25,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
"Though some 25,000 times more powerful than the atomic bombs which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II..."

How do you get this? The Hiroshima bomb was about 13 kt, and the Nagasaki bomb about 21 kt. That makes Castle Bravo at 15 Mt about 1,000 times more powerful, not 25,000.

Karn 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone have any more information about the yield being different than 15Mt? For example, Guinness Records for years stated that Bravo had a yield between 18 and 22 megatons--where did they get those numbers?  As far as the *official* 15 Mt, that figure was estimated from cloud dimensions, which are still imprecise at best. The crater volume is at least double that of Ivy Mike which was 10.4 megatons.  I've read internet accounts of up to 45 megatons.Mytg8 04:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

They determined the actual yeild of Bravo by analyzing the chemical and fission byproducts at the blast site and in the fallout. When the reaction blasts the critical mass appart, the fission/fusion conditions cease and the atoms are no longer changing--except by well known decay processes. From the chemical signatures of particular isotopes in the debris, it's possible to determine what the fuel was like the moment the reaction stopped. Since the fuel composition is known both before and after the reaction, it's possible to calculate the amount of energy released (with reasonable accuracy). This is how they know that 10 Mt was from the U238 tamper fission; because the ratio of U238 to U235 was way, way, off.

As far as the yield estimates for Bravo, a lot of the early reports were based upon all manners of indirect measurements such as cloud size, brightness of the early pulse, duration of the late pulse, speed of the blast wave, and so on. Most of the equipment was woefully out of calibration for the actual size of the blast (or outright destroyed), and that led to a lot of misleading early reports...anywhere from 9 Mt to 17 Mt. Also remember that the exact standard for 1 Kt = 1012 calories (and 1 Mt = 1015 calories) wasn't set until sometime well afterwards. That too can make wandering yield estimates since the early kiloton baseline against the damage for an equivelant blast of TNT, not the energy released. The official report from Castle (submitted in the summer of 1954 and declassified in 1983 along with the Castle Series summary) used the chemistry analysis to show a 15 Mt blast and corrected a lot of the earlier estimates in the initial report. As far as I know, that the only factual value for the yeild. Imaginos 02:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Calculating the rough yield of nuclear weapons by chemical and fission byproduct analysis has been in place since Trinity(they got 18.6 kt, while now the yield was believed to be 23 kt). But the Bravo test suffered inconclusive results from the yield determination tests that were compromised by the unexpectedly high yield. For example, the blast wave breached the station 200 bunker at the end of the pipeline on Nam, where many experiments were located.  Scientist Herbert York(later director of UCRL), in his book "The Advisors: Oppenheimer, Teller and the Superbomb" was present and stated that the yield(14.9 Mt, BTW, possibly rounded up to 15 in the DOE/NV-209 document) was estimated from cloud dimensions since the experiments were inconclusive and/or compromised. I assume initial determinations were all over the place because they only had one multi-megaton test to compare with--Ivy Mike.  Yield estimates from cloud dimensions are all over the place for many reasons--one of the most important, meteorological conditions, and have to be considered ball park figures. After the Castle series was completed they were able to get a better number from the instrumented Yankee, Romeo, etc. tests. As for the 10 Mt fission figures, I read the DNA's Castle Series tome and I saw no fission results for each separate test.  They were indirectly deduced by researchers from late 1950's statements to Congress sub-committees covering total fission yields from all tests to date, and are therefore very rough figures.  On the other hand, comparison of the published Ivy Mike and Castle Bravo crater dimensions--the Bravo crater is double and possibly triple the volume, would indicate a similiar multiple of the Mike yield(10.4 Mt) is likely. Therefore more in tune with the Guinness statement of 18-22 Mt.  While hardly a scientific enterprise :), the Record Book is known for astudiously checking their facts. After all, I was just wondering if anyone knew how and where they got that figure.Mytg8 04:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't edit this because my father is no longer among us to back up this statement in any way, and for that matter I have no way of knowing the credibility of his source... but he was an engineer aboard the USS Bairoko at the time of this test and he told me, among other things, that 15 MT was reported rather than a more accurate estimate upwards of 20 MT. Again, I hate to bring up an unverifiable, possibly apochryphal story but it seemed relevant.

third most powerful nuclear explosion?
According to, Russia conducted a test detonation of a 24.2 megaton device after Tsar Bomba. I assume that would make Castle Bravo the third most powerful device ever detonated? If so, what would the third, fourth, fifth, etc, detonations be? A list of detonations sorted by power would be interesting to see, but alas, I don't think such a list exists, yet TerraFrost 06:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One week before Tsar Bomba (23Nov61), the Soviets tested a ~25 megaton weapon. After Tsar Bomba, a ~30 megaton weapon in August of 62. They did three more test between 20 and 25 megatons in September of 1962, then one more the following December at around 20 mt. All of these were air dropped at Novaya Zemlya, but the attention tends to get focused on just Tsar Bomba because it was a political weapon rather than anything that could be effectively used or delivered to a battlefield (it was a terrible waste of fuel and almost completely impractical, but it did get people's attention). Bravo is number 8 on the list, followed by most of the test of the Castle Series with a mix of others.Imaginos 06:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to 26 NOV version
I reverted changes by 128.208.95.16. That JTF-7 proceeded to shoot when they "knew that the change in weather would cause the test to affect areas of ocean that had not been cleared, they decided to proceed with the test" does need a citation because there are great volumes of documentation to the contrary, not the least of which are the communications from JTF-7 and that the winds were within the AEC guidelines established for Castle.Imaginos 20:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A citation would be a good idea. I modified the text slightly to "Although the leaders of the test knew that the change in weather would increase the probability that the test might affect areas of ocean that had not been cleared, they decided to proceed with the test[citation needed]." There IS a good deal of documentation to the effect that the decision makers at Castle thought they'd be within guidelines. I added the following text - "In the de-classified film "Operation Castle", task force commander General Clarkson points to a diagram indicating that the wind shift was still in the range of "acceptable fallout", although just barely." - bernie12345

POV & Accuracy tag
I agree with whoever put the template in the section about the radiation aftereffects of the blast - the section needs work. What's most obvious is that it needs copy editing, but beyond that, the tone isn't neutral and it lacks citations, and frankly it sounds like research. It's true that the blast produced a huge (and unexpected) amount of radiation, but aside from reporting the well-known accidental exposure to military personnel and civilians in the area, I don't think there's much of this section that should remain in the article until it can be rewritten and properly sourced. Joseph N Hall 09:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Audriusa 17:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Shrimp & Runt II
It's been claimed that the Yankee shot device and the Shrimp were similar, especially in regards to the secondary loading of enriched lithium. I'm curious as to why the actual yield of the Shrimp was so much larger than the Yankee Runt II, considering the fact that it was only half the weight. A third stage, perhaps? Mytg8 16:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the date correct?
I have the date as Feb 28, 1954 on page 4 of the Department of Energy Nuclear Tests document. Is that a date line issue? Kea2 (talk) 22:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends on which time zone you go by. As the article says, March 1 was local time. Feb 28 is GMT time. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

distance
Can someone add the distance (camera to detonation) to the pictures' captions? (217.162.207.224 (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC))

Correct dates for Alvin Graves?
This article gives his birth year as 1912; the Wiki article on the man says 1909. Which is correct? Both say he died in 1966. Karn (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Fission yield?
What fraction of the Castle Bravo yield came from fission? For Ivy Mike, a figure of 77% of total yield coming from fast fission of the uranium tamper is widely reported, but I haven't found anything for Castle Bravo. I can see how, despite the unexpectedly large total yield, that a large fraction of that yield might still come from fast fission of the tamper because of the higher than expected production of fast neutrons in the fusion reactions. Karn (talk) 04:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifications
The filling weight cannot be the same as the total weight, and LiH would need to be compressed to a ridiculous level in order for it to weigh that much in a bomb of this size. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 05:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The lithium used in the secondary was a small percentage of the total weight of the device (10.7 tonnes). Most of the weight was in the heavy steel casing and the uranium in the primary and secondary stages. Chasrob (talk) 04:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I know...but LiH is listed as the filling and the weights of the bomb and the filling are equal -- it just can't be. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

copy-editing needed
Re "poisoned the islanders who inhabited the test site"...uhhh, if they really inhabited the island (atoll) they would have been vapourised. copyediting is clearly needed. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 04:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed it to "poisoned the islanders who had previously inhabited the atoll and returned there afterwards" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.206 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Also added paragraph about the contamination with ref —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.96.206 (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Manipulated Picture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Castle_Bravo_Shrimp_device.jpg

Te picture in the Image Box (with the silhouette) labeled "Shrimp" is clearly a fake. Compare to the MANY versions founf on-line, for example here: http://simplethinking.com/home/nuclear_weapons.htm. Wht would Wikipedia allow such an OBVIOUSLY FAKE image? Who knows... =//= Johnny Squeaky 05:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The picture, as best I can tell is not fake. It does not resemble the pictures you pointed to because of the difference of three orders of magnitude difference in explosion energies. Castle Bravo (like many multi-megaton fusion bombs) had a fireball which reached the stratosphere, while small (kiloton) explosions have much smaller fireball. Those smaller fireballs then move upwards causing a draft and producing the characteristic mushroom shape. For examples of various fusion bombs, see (for example) http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Castle.html - Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If the photo with the silhouette, superimposed OVER a background of the device, is not a "photoshop" than *why* are there copies of the exact same photo down to the numerical negative markings WITHOUT the silhouette? To me it seems common sense. One is real, one has been manipulated for effect. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Now I understand what you are talking about. You are referring to the image of "shrimp", 2nd picture down, with a superimposed silhouette of a human being for scale. From your comment, that was not at all clear. As to the issue of fakery, If you'll notice, the title says "The Shrimp device, silhouette added for scale.". It is not faked, it states clearly a silhouette has been superimposed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarlneustaedter (talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh cripes sake! I was talking about something way way different. Now it all makes sense. Wow was I confused! Yes the silhoette was added later,,,clearly. Ignore my other comments--Racerx11 (talk) 20:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I was probably unclear... So my bad as well, I should have been a bit more exact in my words... =//= Johnny Squeaky 21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Johnny, the link you provided shows no pictures of Castle Bravo. The first image is a "typical fission weapon" labeled {Grable, 15KT, 1953) and then there is a photo of Castle Romeo. That's it. There is a link on that page that links to more images but these are of a completely different photographic technique, none of which are of Castle Bravo anyway. I doubt the infobox photo is fake.--Racerx11 (talk) 06:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Scroll down. Halfway down the page is the EXACT photo without the silhouette, down to the numerical negative markings WITHOUT the silhouette? To me it seems common sense. One is real, one has been manipulated for effect. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Besides what Tarl.Neustaedter point out about magnitude, there are several other factors that can effect the appearance of these blasts in photos: The time after detonation the photo was taken, the test conditions themselves, the altitude of the detonation, atmospheric condtions, etc.--Racerx11 (talk) 06:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please see THIS comparison: http://siliconsatan.com/brovo.html

You can clearly see the manipulation. =//= Johnny Squeaky 19:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Jane Dibblin's Book "Day of Two Suns"
I reverted an edit based on material from Jane Dibblin's "Day of Two Suns", since this doesn't seem to be a reliable source. The author is described by Library Journal as "a British journalist with a clear antinuclear agenda", and I don't see her claims supported elsewhere. She doesn't seem to have other publications to her name that could give me a further read on her reliability, and the claim that the radiation contamination was not accidental is a huge claim to make. Other opinions on whether this article should claim doubts on the accidental nature of Castle Bravo's effects? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This reference was included to provide a broader discussion, and leave the option for people to consider the wider issues for themselves. You have removed this option for people by forcing them to consider only one view - and that cannot meet Wikipedia's neutral point of view requirements. Clearly you have not read the book if you refer to the Library Journal as your justification and stating it doesn't "seem" to be a reliable source. I would suggest you read the book first before you censor the inclusion of this reference - it is equally as valid as other 'agenda' driven references used in this article. I don't agree with everything Diddlin she says but there is some very good research in the book, especially the first hand accounts and testimony of surviors. Do you deny their assessment of the fallout? Read the book about the evidence of the fallout potentially being deliberate, or at least very, careless. This is no conspiracy theory. A couple of more recent books back up the possibility of this claim. Should Wikipedia readers not be allowed to consider this option?  Or are you so offended that the USA could have done this? Whatever your reasons, clearly your decision to edit out this content - before any discussion - shows you have an agenda as well. That is concerning to fairness and intent of Wikipedia. Should I reinsert the content of Diddlin's book? Yes, in time, I will. Mari370 (talk) 08:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't have an agenda. The purpose of Wikipedia is to document what is reported by reliable sources, and vague allegations by reporters with a specific bias are explicitly not a reliable source. If you want to cite specific evidence of malfeasance or specific evidence of intentional contamination, feel free. But simply saying doubts have been cast about it being unintentional without any details is not suitable for Wikipedia. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Licking fallout
An IP address has added a sentence about a crewman on the Maru licking fallout (that mention had been there a while back and removed). This struck me as largely irrelevant and I reverted it, but it's been re-added. Does anyone else have an opinion on whether this is relevant to an article about Castle Bravo? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty trivial. It obviously illustrates that the crew had no idea the dust was hazardous, but better to just state this and that they did not shelter-in-place on their ship. VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems rather irrelevant and somewhat weird to me as well. I don't think we need it. --John (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

2.5 Times Greater?
The article has listed the yield as two and a half times "as great as" and two and a half times "greater than" expected. These are NOT, as that recent poster stated, grammatical differences. If the expected yield was one, then the first would be 2.5 and the second would be 3.5. Which was it? The article states that "...a yield of 15 megatons of TNT. That yield, far exceeding the expected yield of 4 to 6 megatons..." Given the range of potential yields this means 2.5 to 3.75 times. Either way the "as great as" is more correct and "greater than" is often used by people who don't understand the difference between the two. Citation anyone? Senor Cuete (talk) 22:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Cause of high yield section also says "...two and a half times as great as..." I think that this should stay. Senor Cuete (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed it should stay this way. A source would be nice, but does not seem to be a hard requirement for arithmetic. I would take the top of the expected range (6 Mt) to be the "as expected" portion. VQuakr (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "...as great as" is awkward English. How about: "With a yield of fifteen megatons, Castel Bravo was between 2.5 to 3.75 times the yield than originally planned."  Dinky town   talk  00:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As great as is NOT awkward English. "...times the yield than originally planned..." is grammatically wrong. It doesn't make sense unless you remove the "than". Edit warring to include factual errors and bad grammar is awkward. Senor Cuete (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems likely we can reach an agreement as to the best phrasing, so let's do that. How about, "The yield of 15 megatons was two and a half times the maximum yield anticipated by the device's designers."? VQuakr (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That would work but I still think that a reliable source for the expected yield is needed. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * This sounds good and balanced. I'll put that in, if it's not there already. A good source to back this up will never hurt... Dinky town  talk  17:21, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * According to this site: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Castle.html "The yield of Bravo dramatically exceeded predictions, being about 2.5 times higher than the best guess and almost double the estimated maximum possible yield (6 Mt predicted, estimated yield range 4-8 Mt)." Once again they mean 2.5 times as high as (6 * 2.5 = 15). Senor Cuete (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2013 (UTC)


 * We can get better sources than that. There are plenty of decent book sources for something as basic as this. --John (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This gives 5 Mt -> 15 Mt. --John (talk) 20:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've amended this. There are other bits and pieces from the book which could go in here. --John (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:TIES vs WP:ALUM
I have been reverted by two different editors when trying to apply WP:ALUM to this article. I am not sure if it is a reading problem or a comprehension problem, or something else, but let's try to discuss here. WP:ALUM aplies to chemistry-related articles. The detailed discussion of different radioisotopes and their chemistry clearly puts this article into that category. Does anyone who has read the article seriously disagree with this? --John (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * This article is written in American English. Wikipedia's policy is to respect varieties of English, see WP:ENGVAR. You have violated Wikipedia's policy on varieties of English three times and this constitutes vandalism and violates the three revert rule. Yes, this is a reading and comprehension problem - your failure to read Wikipedia's policies on regional English as spelled out in WP:ENGVAR and edit warring. Senor Cuete (talk) 13:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:ALUM overrides WP:ENGVAR. Please go and read the two so you know what you are talking about before you embarrass yourself further. Please also read WP:VAND so you know what vandalism means, for the same reason. The only reason you should oppose my edit is if you think this article is not "chemistry-related". If you have actually read it, I think this would be quite a difficult position to take. --John (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I read them all. Nowhere does it say that the IUPAC names trump WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES. This is NOT a chemistry-related article. Wikipedia has a problem with British chauvinist editors that use their accounts only for violating WP:ENGVAR. Yes, technically, deliberately violating WP:ENGVAR is disruptive editing, not vandalism. Wikipedia discourages person attacks like the ones you made above. Sometimes other Wikipedia editors will reject your edits. Get used to it. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Gosh. These international standard spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. A little hard of reading, are we? You may have the last word, Senor Cuete, as I no longer care what you think. --John (talk) 16:27, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I would agree that this article is sufficiently chemistry-related for WP:ALUM to apply. Also,, "British chauvinist editors" is a rampant violation of WP:AGF. VQuakr (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't see anything about chemistry in the article - all of the reactions described are nuclear, not chemical. Senor Cuete (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fallout causes injury via energetic particles breaking molecular bonds (biochemistry). I would say that radiochemistry is sufficiently related to classical chemistry to warrant compliance with what is, overall, a pretty reasonable editing standard. Sophistry aside, this is a pretty stupid argument to have to have. VQuakr (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Radiochemistry is not discussed in the article and this is a far-fetched excuse to say that this is a chemistry-related article. The article is historical.  Senor Cuete (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Historical it may be, but as it includes scientific details WP:ALUM applies and takes precedence over TIES. Sorry Senor, John's right – aluminium it should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing about the chemistry of Aluminum mentioned in the article - the only use is mention as a structural material. There is minimum mention of Cesium as a chemical later on in the article. Calling this a chemical-related article is a very long stretch. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 03:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it very hard to reconcile this with This was found to be due to the presence of radioactive caesium in locally grown coconut milk. Plants and trees absorb potassium as part of the normal biological process, but will also readily absorb caesium if present, being of the same group on the periodic table, and therefore very similar chemically. Islanders consuming contaminated coconut milk were found to have abnormally high concentrations of caesium in their bodies and then had to be evacuated from the atoll a second time. Incidentally we don't capitalise element names either. I agree with VQuakr that this is a silly argument to have. --John (talk) 05:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's a silly argument to be making. Don't make it. This is an article about a nuclear blast and contamination, based on materials published in the U.S. Such articles use american spelling (e.g., most recent such article I read -http://mitnse.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/fukushima-lessons-learned-mit-nsp-025_rev1.pdf, look for cesium). IUPAC allows both Aluminum and Cesium as alternate spellings (the 1990 document specifying a single spelling was obsoleted in 1993). This discussion ran in 2008 in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(chemistry) to no further resolution than you are finding here. It's a clear conflict between MOS:TIES, WP:ENGVAR and WP:ALUM. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * IUPAC does, but Wikipedia doesn't. We don't capitalise element names either. ALUM trumps TIES, as several others have said. --John (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I will be challenging WP:ALUM shortly - it makes no sense. Will you accept perhaps another Wikipedia policy? WP:UCN. A quick check with google finds Aluminum and Aluminium used in roughly equal frequency, but Cesium used three times more frequently than Caesium. In my decades as a subscriber to Nature (a British scientific publication, mind you), I find the use of the two variants equally used. A quick search in Nature's archives shows roughly equal hits for both spellings - and again, that's in British publication. In either case, WP:ALUM does not apply for your changes to Aluminum in this article since there was no chemistry involved there. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If, after reading my post of 05:16 UTC today, you still think there is "no chemistry involved" then there is little point in discussing further with you. --John (talk) 12:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

John is engaged in the same edit war in the Bikini atoll article. The same discussion is relevant there. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The cited discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(chemistry) is very interesting and anyone interested in this discussion should read it. WP:ALUM misrepresents the position of the IUPAC. There is no international standard and the alternate spellings of aluminum, cesium and sulphur are nothing more than Britishisms. So WP:ENGVAR, WP:TIES and WP:UCN are just as good reasons for spelling these words using the mainstream spellings in this HISTORICAL not chemistry-related article. Senor Cuete (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * So you're saying that aluminum and cesium are "Britishisms"? Gosh. No offence, but you don't seem to know that much about the topic. --John (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's what my dictionary says. Quote "Aluminium (pronunciation) n. British variant of ALUMINUM". Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But that isn't what was stated above. If you're going to make a fuss over spelling, you have to know which spelling is which. I'm not confident that either of you do. --John (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * you are parsing Senor Cuete's statement incorrectly. the alternate spellings of aluminum... could be rephrased as the words that are alternate spellings of aluminum... without changing the meaning. In context, this is pretty clearly what he meant (as opposed to aluminum..., which are alternate spellings, are nothing more than...). VQuakr (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I hadn't thought of that. It still doesn't make sense though; "the alternate spellings of aluminum, cesium and sulphur" includes two American spellings and one antiquated British spelling, so whatever way you parse this it still doesn't make sense. --John (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has now migrated to where it belongs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(chemistry)#Element_Names_revisited Senor Cuete (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think this discussion is done, and there doesn't seem to be any appetite to overturn the guideline at the central discussion. Vquakr, Nikkimaria and I consider this to be within the scope of the guideline; is it correct to say that Tarlneustaedter and Senor Cuete consider this to be outside its scope, in spite of the quoted material above? If so, and the two dissidents do not accept the view of the majority, I suppose we could have an RfC. --John (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I've reluctantly accepted your change of Cesium->Caesium. I reverted your change of Aluminium because it doesn't even have a fig leaf of a mention of chemistry. The point of controversy over this is that WP:ALUM says "For articles about chemistry-related topics" (my italics). This article is *NOT* about a chemistry-related topic - it's about a nuclear-weapon test. There was a mention of the chemistry of cesium and you can squint saying that should apply. In no possible way can you claim it applies to the use of aluminum as a structural material. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, well that is progress I suppose. Unfortunately the whole article has to be treated the same way; we can't have the US spelling of one element and the international spellings of others. I'd still argue for following our guideline and using the IUPAC-preferred spellings throughout here. --John (talk) 20:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * If you really want consistency on element names, then we should apply the actual statement of WP:ALUM - "articles about chemistry-related topics". This isn't - it has a brief mention of why the position in the periodic table makes a particular radioactive isotope specifically hazardous. There is no other chemistry interest here, so I've been claiming WP:ENGVAR applies, particularly since the references quoted are all written in American English.
 * The discussion on WP:ALUM provoked no interest - two for, two against. Not at all a consensus, no more has there been here. I'll grant you caesium, it's not a common material. But aluminum *is*, and changing the spelling from how the reference will have it spelled to a British spelling just because somewhere else in the article there was a mention about cesium's position in the periodic table makes no sense. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus here or in the discussions of WP:ALUM. As pointed out in the several discussions of WP:ALUM, the IUPAC standard was deprecated two years later and replaced with a standard that allows either spelling. Senor Cuete (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No consensus at the central discussion to change the guideline, you mean? If you guys are still going to maintain that this article doesn't fall into the remit of chemistry, we would need to have an RfC about it. Is that still the case? Tarl.Neustaedter has (partially) clarified his stance above; what is yours? It's a lot of work to do the RfC and I don't want to further waste my time unless I really have to, especially when it's apparent from the discussion above that you don't actually know one spelling from the other. --John (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Repeating myself: "There's no consensus here or in the discussions of WP:ALUM." I meant what I said and I said what I meant. You have become angry and you aren't reading what I wrote any more. You know very well that I know one spelling from another. This is just another personal attack. "...I don't want to further waste my time unless I really have to..." You've been threatening not to waste any more time and saying that you no longer care what others think since this started. If you don't want to waste any more of your time you could forget about it. But it's obvious, you'll never give up, and you will have the last word. Please, ask for an RfC on this article as a chemistry-related article and on WP:ALUM Senor Cuete (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are repeating yourself. I am not sure this rises to requiring a RfC, as we have three editors who have experience in this area and who understand the guideline saying we should follow the guideline, and we have you two who have demonstrated you do not understand the guideline or even know which spelling is which but seemingly still want to argue the piece anyway. I'm certainly not angry; this isn't all that important to me, but I feel a little sorry for you for caring so much and understanding so little about the topic. If you want to start a RfC then feel free to; please just ping me if you do as I may not watch this talk page any more. One tip; if you are thinking of an RfC, make sure you read and understand the guideline first, and that your notifications are neutrally worded. Cheers, --John (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand the guideline just fine - it applies to "articles about chemistry-related topics" (direct quote). This isn't such an article. This article makes a brief mention about the position in the periodic table for one element much later in the article, but there is no chemistry involved in the reference to aluminum being a structural material. Unless you are taking the position that because everything involves chemistry, thus all articles are chemistry related, that guideline does not apply for aluminum here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're saying that you understand the guideline, but it is clear that you do not. It applies to "articles about chemistry-related topics", as you say, so it has to apply to an article. There is no provision to say it applies to one element but not another, on a given article. As I say, read the guideline, have a think about it once you are sure you actually understand it, and then come back. --John (talk) 17:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I've read the guideline, and understood it just fine. I have held from the beginning that it doesn't apply at all to a nuclear-weapon test article. One mention of the periodic table does not make an article about a chemistry-related topic. It makes it a mention of the periodic table. I was willing to cede on cesium, since as an uncommon material it wasn't going to jar in such a way as to produce edit wars - and a mention of "aluminium" as a structural material in an US english article will. But if you hold it's all-or-nothing, then the cesium should revert too. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Under WP:BRD I've removed the sentence about chemistry of Cesium. That should remove the bone of contention in this article. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Piped links in lead.
Hi there,

The edit to the piped links in the lead is beneficial, because it facilitates reading on tablet/touchscreen devices. Please don't revert it without giving a reason that your way is better.

InternetMeme (talk) 14:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The use of piped names is widespread throughout Wikipedia. Rewriting text to awkwardly deal with grammar issues to accommodate the actual names of articles is not called for. The problem you are chasing sounds like a buggy tablet, not a wikipedia problem. You have already been reverted by two different editors, please don't do this without wider consensus on a wikipedia-wide basis. There are going to be many cases where such changes are flat inappropriate, in particular where disambiguation has lead to article names which are truly inappropriate for text. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I saved the Castle Bravo article as source HTML and looked at the hyperlinks generated by piped links. The hyperlinks are in very basic, standard HTML like you would see on any web page that contains hyperlinked text. When you say that these don't work on tablet/touchscreen devices, you don't say what the problem is. It's probably irrelevant anyway because if whatever device and more likely browser you are using doesn't interpret these correctly it's not Wikipedia's fault. Or you are misinterpreting what's happening when you click on linked text, expecting something different than what's intended. Whatever is happening it looks like a problem with you or your browser, not Wikipedia, so please don't change these links anymore. Senor Cuete (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Removing sourced info on the article
Basically, please don't do it. Notwithstanding the argument about spelling in the section above, removal of sourced information is not the way to solve the problem. The chemistry and biochemistry of fission products is key to this article. Continuing to remove information will be seen as a WP:POINT violation. --John (talk) 21:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Granted. However, when removal of *one* sentence takes out the entire justification for changing the spelling across the entire article, you have to wonder at the rationale. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

The History Channel: 1. If there any single completely unreliable source in the whole world that should absolutely NEVER ever be allowed as a source for Wikipedia articles it's the History Channel. The History Channel is NOT EVER history, it's entertainment. The shows are anything other than reliable sources for anything. For example: the History Channel is about 90% responsible for the creation of the non-existant Maya doomsday hoax. Bigfoot, a UFO crashed in Roswell, New Mexico, aliens built the Egyptian pyramids, Nostradamus and every other half-assed prophet is predicting the end of the world, etc. The History Channel is complete CRAP. 2. Does the cited documentary film actually contain the text you added about the periodic table? I can't find out if it really does but I'd be willing to bet that it doesn't. How can unverifyable information be used as a citation in Wikipedia? Senor Cuete (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I tried to watch the video on the Military History Channel. I can start the film at any time in its TWO PLUS HOURS. It looks like the text about the periodic chart would be at about 2:25 in the film. Their site allows me only to watch about a minute of the film before it stops. Their schedule shows it is aired on cable channels to which I don't have access to and which appear not to be available in the USA. How could a source possibly be any more un-verifyable than this? Senor Cuete (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You're right, it isn't a very good source. Finding a better one took me at least 30 seconds, which I guess was more time than you were prepared to give it. That's sad, because this article honestly isn't nearly as good as it should be, and it needs more good material added to it, not removed on a pretext. Again, please don't do this again. --John (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:VQuakr: How does using an inaccessible reference comply with Wikipedia's rule on verifiable references? You commented when you re-added this reference "not readily available in[sic] the internet != unverifiable". How WOULD you access this source? It looks to me like it's more than "not readily available in[sic] the internet", unless I missed something it's unavailable. Senor Cuete (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You could try writing the tv station, they probably have a policy in place for provision of archived copies of their programs. Are you saying that the program actually never aired? It might help if you could quote the actual portion of WP:V you are referencing when you conclude that this is "unverifiable." VQuakr (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said that it never aired. How does arguing against a straw man further this discussion? It was quoted as including text that I very much doubt that it did and I wanted to verify it which is impossible. On my talk page you accused me of engaging in an edit war and I replied: "No YOU are engaged in a edit war. Reverting an edit and asking an editor to discuss his edit on the article's talk page is the polite way to resolve a dispute. If you read the discussion of this reference as a un-verifiable you would see that I discussed the edit before making it and user:john agreed with me and removed the other citation to the film (which you didn't revert). Yes, wikipedia is not a democracy two to one is not a consensus. Still your suggestion that I write to the network is preposterous and confirms that the source text about the periodic chart can't be verified."  Senor Cuete (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You still seem confused about the the definition of "can't be verified." Please review WP:SOURCEACCESS, which is our actual policy on the matter. VQuakr (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2013 (UTC)


 * FWIW, the reason why there was Li7 in with the Li6 is that, like the uranium isotopes, they cannot be separated chemically; the only method for separation is a difficult/expensive physical method based on their atomic weight differences. The U-238 in reactors, which is usually considered to be inert, is there for the same reason - it is extremely expensive to remove it (providing it's not there to cause plutonium breeding - another story). Now, I'm not sure where exactly you would go to verify that fact in so many words; it essentially comes with the understanding of the underlying atomic physics. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Silly doubts requesting answer
The increased energy in this Castle Bravo H explosion is explained in the Wikipedia article in terms of reactions where Lithium isotopes participated, however, some doubts arise: the 'Tsar' bomb was said in some places having yielded a 200 MegaTon power, not a two digit fugure as pointed in the article, this may mean the strongest USSR device was 10 times more powerful than the biggest USA bomb ever tested. About N Kruschev it was said that when he negotiated with the USA president, the number of nuclear weapons in the USSR was below 100, and never enough to enter in any kind of conflict with the USA, that in every way was impossible, no reason for this type of war, R Nixon was supposedly fired because of considering the use of nuclear weapons in Viet-Nam, H Kissinger supposedly visited the places down in the launch chain to warn them that whoever may give a launch a nuclear attack instruction, never to do it. No way in a nuclear war of not having a: 'Pyrrhic victory', were the winning part suffers almost the same damages as if they were the losers.


 * To the best of my knowledge, the basic energy producing reactions in US and USSR (and all others as well) comes mainly from the fusion of deuterium and tritium, plus the fission in the tampers caused by the huge number of produced neutrons. At this level, all thermonuclear bombs work by the same process - they differ hugely in detail, but there is no secret technology that allows either bloc to outweigh the other in terms of energy produced, as there was at at the end of WWII and lasting until the mid-60s.


 * The Tsar was constucted according to exceedingly conservative engineering to produce a 100 MT explosion. Due to the replacement of the final tamper with lead rather than the designed-for U-238, the bomb was halved in yield.  This was done by the Soviets because of concern for world opinion, the safety of their bomber crew, and very likely some concern for their own people.


 * I know nothing of the allegation about Nixon (can one fire a sitting VP? I doubt it was even tried), Kissinger (Sec State 8 years later than Nixon was VP), and so on. They sound like a stretch even for a CT.  SkoreKeep (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

They say the Hydrogen atoms that fuse are Deuterium, and the Hydrogen isotope that makes more than 99.8% of all water in the world is: 'Protium', not susceptible of fusion, but it seems that with the Lithium in the H bombs, and with other light elements produced during the fusion process, some reactivity of 'Protium' could be possible, this raising the possibility of the output above expectancies of the Castle Bravo experiment coming from the fusion of the Hydrogen in Sea Water under which the device was placed. If this is true, the never done experiment of a nuclear explosion in the deepest ocean fossae may have had a power multiplication effect from the protium Hydrogen of water put in a plasma state, besides the shock wave effect killing sea animals by billions, and the possible Tsunami triggered. Is this a reasonable fear, or definitely Hydrogen from common water will never add to the power of a Fission or Fusion explosive weapon detonated under water? Thanks. Salut +--Jgrosay~enwiki (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Any hydrogen atoms can fuse, but tritium and deuterium do so at what pass for much lower temperatures and pressures than other combinations, by at least one order of magnitude. Sure, "some" normal hydrogen no doubt gets fused in a thermonuke explosion, but it is a vanishingly small amount. Castle/Bravo was not underwater; it was built in a shot cab on a small coral island, only a few feet above high tide level.  The shock wave was no doubt intense near the explosion, but I doubt that it killed fish for more than 20 miles or so away, which effect in the Pacific Ocean is probably equivalent to the kill produced by a gallon of bleach dropped in Crater Lake (compare to the loss from the Exxon Valdez).  The effects were quite thoroughly anticipated; no great excursions were expected, and that is why the 2.5x surprise was so unexpected. It was immediately accounted for in the physics; even there hindsight can be 20-20. You needn't fear for the water of the world; he may catch an asteroid, and that is a real possibility; the other is not. SkoreKeep (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

IP editor edits
An IP editor has made a large number of edits. These are very poorly written in bad English and don't cite any reliable sources. Since he seems to know what he's writing about, I haven't reverted these. Shouldn't these sections be tagged as requiring citations to reliable sources? The article requires proof reading to make it into real English as well. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I second your sentiments. User IP: 83.212.21.58 & IP: 37.32.187.35 both return locations of the Greek Research and Technology Network S.A, Organization: University of Western Macedonia. When sent thru the "Geolocate" function here on wiki. It is too bad we can't contact them to suggest they become a registered user, but I can imagine that if you went and tagged some of the sentences they added as needing more citations, then we may begin to build a rapport with them and improve the article at the same time.
 * 185.51.75.188 (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Ungrammatical
This article is ungrammatical near these two places:


 * "numerical estimate made with ISRINEX"


 * "and at its detonation would yield"

--Mortense (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Tsar Bomba reference
I fail to see how this is relevant to the article. The article is about the U.S. atomic test "Castle Bravo", not the Soviet atomic test "Vanya". Neither is it about which bombs are bigger in comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.210.163 (talk) 03:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Castle Bravo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140310004623/http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SR-12-001-CASTLE-BRAVO.pdf to http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/SR-12-001-CASTLE-BRAVO.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719155737/http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/50.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Bomb Design subheadings
There's a tag saying the bomb design section needs to be broken into sections. I tried to add subheadings. Some of the subheadings stink and I need someone else to suggest better names for the sub sections. (I also moved the section on the primary to the beginning. Do we want to move it back to the bottom?)

How do we make this workable? Can we? (Or we could just ignore it a remove the tag for need to be broken into sections.) RJFJR (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Why do you refer to yourself as "we"? Cutting and pasting the whole text into the talk page is a real problem. Why did you do this? The best way to decide what the headings should be is to read the sections in question. Senor Cuete (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't refer to myself as we. I refer to me, you and all the other editors as we; Wikipedia is a collaborative work.  I copied the modified version here so people could edit the draft and improve it to the point there would be consensus to place it in the article. RJFJR (talk) 14:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the only objection seems (I could be wrong) to be the spelling error, which has been fixed, I've put this change into the article again. Any comments on how to improve what I wrote appreciated.  Does anyone have a suggestion on how to clean up the mess I made of this talk page here by listing the entire proposed change for comment? (I apologize for the mess too.)  RJFJR (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . . . (material removed here, it was long and there was a complaint about the length) RJFJR (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC) diff


 * THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "DEUTRONIUM" WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Senor Cuete (talk) 02:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Spelling error. It's fixed (which you could have done to this draft so we could get it worked on.)  Do you see any other problems? RJFJR (talk) 14:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * . . . (material removed here, it was long and there was a complaint about the length) RJFJR (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC) diff

Capitalizing chemical elements in headings?
Should it be ==Use of Boron== or ==Use of boron==? As far as I can tell boron is not a proper noun, but it would be capitalized if in "title case". But are headings in title case? (Same consideration applies to the heading ==Deuterium and Lithium==.)


 * Wikipedia uses the un-conventional convention of using title case only for the first word of the text of a heading - not the usual Title Case. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I did that to add emphasis. I was unaware of the convention you refer to. If the convention is a rule then, indeed, the lower case for the elements shall be used. If it isn't a rule, is their capitalisation a problem? Dragon Heart String (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:Manual_of_Style. It's worth reading that entire page, but the first bullet item in that paragraph says what you need. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 17:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Got it! Thank you for sharing this! Dragon Heart String (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Shrimp / SHRIMP ?
Is SHRIMP an acronym? I noticed Shrimp (disambiguation) doesn't capitalize it. If it's an acronym what does it stand for and if it isn't then why is it all caps? RJFJR (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I wondered why this was all caps as well. I think it should be in lower case. Senor Cuete (talk) 00:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Well it isn't an acronym. The name of a device (no matter how cryptic it is) most of the time was a reference to a characteristic of that device. For example, MORGENSTERN had a secondary that resembled the spiky ball at the end/tip of the medieval club, SAUSAGE's name referred both to its tubular secondary and to the iterative nature of the (then) new device (you could in theory add as many "stages" as you like, one after the other, much like how sausages are linked together), RUNT's name was a pun to contrast with its voluminous secondary etc. The names of devices, operations, events etc were capitalised as it made the life of the censor easier. An all-caps word stands out from the rest of the text (like being highlighted) and it was helpful to visually scan the document and then sanitise it easier and without leaving sensitive information like weapon names unredacted. I followed Chuck Hansen's lead and "kept" the names capitalised instead of maintaining them in title case. In any case, none of the official documents of the time contained the names of the weapons in lower case (as presented yet again by Chuck Hansen). Title case is a later trend (for example while Richard Rhodes writes the names of the devices in all caps, Gregg Herken uses title case.) So in a sense, the all caps format is more officially (hence historically) accurate. Other than that, my choice doesn't serve any other purpose. If the rest of you think this is unnecessary, it can be changed. Dragon Heart String (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this and am still undecided on a preference. I can't decide whether it is better to follow the early documents or to decide the caps were solely an artifact and they were really interpreted as not-all-caps.  I'll wait until more editors have weighed in.  Thank you for stating why it is as it is. RJFJR (talk) 15:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You're welcome RJFJR! Even though I don't regard the caps format as an artefact, if we have a consensus in favour of the title case version of the names, I will revert them ASAP. Dragon Heart String (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I would follow the historically accurate full-caps myself.
 * Good work Dragon Heart String!
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much Boundarylayer! Dragon Heart String (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bravo crater
Comes Nechemia Iron, removing a line locating the Bravo crater, saying "This uber-accurate info is not in the article, and certainly doesn't belong in the lead.". I disagree. The location is "uber-accurate" for a reason - there are other craters in the close area, and beside, inaccuracy of material is not a principle of Wikipedia; indeed, geographic precision to within a meter, while generally inappropriately precise in a strict sense, is universal today given the state of public mapping applications. The line simply points out the bombs blast point and a nearby artifact. Please explain why that information needs to be repeated in the article, or is inappropriate for the lede. The crater is a visual result of the test which is in itself remarkable and notable, yet not meaty enough to be worthy of its own article. SkoreKeep (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The lead is a summary of the content on the main part of the article. Material not in the article does not normally appear in the lead. If you think this information is useful, then please relocate it to the main part of the article. Nechemia Iron (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't recall any policy saying that information cannot be in the lead if it isn't elsewhere. For a simple statement of fact ("it's here"), there is no reason to repeat the information elsewhere. Normally, the location would be given in the infobox, but in this particular case, given there is complex structure and description (and thus unsuitable for the infobox), the lede seems an appropriate place. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 22:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Rads vs. grays
User:Senor Cuete reverted my edit adding Gray (unit) in addition to Rad (unit) with the message: Grays are a measure of absorbed dose, used in nuclear medicine. I do not disagree with the revert message, but I don't understand how it leads to the conclusion to revert my edit. Rads are a measure of absorbed dose. Grays are a measure of absorbed dose. 1 rad = 0.01 Gy. Why the revert? What's wrong with replacing 250 rads by 250 rad? --Gerrit CUTEDH 21:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * This would not have been a measure of absorbed dose. Absorbed doses would be calculated. More likely it was 250 rem/hr. Reliable citation?Senor Cuete (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The source cited in the article gives 25 Roengens/hour. I've edited it to say this. Senor Cuete (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2018 (UTC)


 * OK - sorry for the confusion I added. I finally added quotes to indicate it is quoted from the source, and "per hour" as Senor Cuete indicates the source says.  SkoreKeep (talk) 22:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Mirror array and vacuum lines to station 1200
User talk:Dragon Heart String Alongside the article recommendation of including the film footage on the mirror array and vacuum lines to station 1200, as found in the declassified footage. I was also wondering, seen as I added this picture to the text I had much earlier penned within the asteroid deflection article, that seen as you contributed a trove of insightful physics material to this article, that you would be the person to ask, if you have ever found much at all on this film footage? As far as I'm aware, actual film footage of the Bravo fireball is not available. Indeed Peter Kuran's documentary falsely IDs the Nectar shot of operation Castle as "bravo". So seen as these stills are rare, do you perhaps know where this footage was taken from? Or what stills collection it derives from?

Boundarylayer (talk) 22:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I have to agree that Peter Kuran has by and large made his worst screw up with the Bravo footage. What he shows actually is a mashup footage of the Nectar, Romeo, Yankee (or probably Navajo), and Bravo events. The cloud formation in many shots and even the shape of atolls do not agree. Yankee and Navajo were fired on the north of Bikini and east of Namu, Nectar at the north of Eniwetok, and Kuran plainly ignores these discrepancies. Maybe he did this to match the pace of footage with Williams' marvellous (IMHO) soundtrack? How knows. But it is really painful to watch it knowing that the scenes correspond to different tests. As a matter of fact, I would recommend you to change the part where the label of "Castle Bravo Detonation USDE.ogg" identifies the shot shown in this video as Nectar. It contains perhaps all of the above mentioned tests; In one case, we can see that from the shape of the atoll in the background, the shot's origin lies close to Yurochi island. Hence, it would be possible to be f.e. Union, or Yankee, or maybe Navajo, but not Bravo or Nectar. The two references I have in hand (if I have even more concrete evidence I'll provide them) and (the latter by the YouTube channel "Atomic Tests Channel", one of the channels which overhauls old footage from nuclear tests) state that this part of the footage in "Castle Bravo Detonation USDE.ogg" is from the early stages of shot Navajo from operation Redwing. I'm not entirely convinced about the veracity of this as Navajo was fired close to a storm cloud tower, but the skies are clear close to this shot. I fear that without Los Alamos publicly associating footage with the individual shots there will always be a level of uncertainty. Nevertheless we know that this early fireball almost halfway through the footage of the .ogg file is not from Bravo, Romeo, or Nectar just by looking at the shape of the atoll, but it is difficult to say which shot is actually shown in this part of the .ogg file exactly. Now, stills like the one from Glasstone's site you provided here and in the asteroid impact article can be found in video format in channels in YouTube similar to the "Atomic Tests Channel"; their concept is the same where people seem to obtain copies of the original footage from Los Alamos and maybe(?) Livermore, and restore the quality as much as it is possible closer to the original. This strip for example can be found in both black and white and in colour in YouTube. Here, in this link from the channel "The Centralnuclear" you can have it in colour. This kind footage was rare, and possibly unavailable to Kuran (I don't know, I just have to find a reasonable excuse for his editorial gaffe), but today there are plenty of footage online. Lawrence Livermore openhandedly released tons of footage from their tests (even from their earliest fizzles, Koon, Ruth, and Ray). I hope we will integrate all these new gems in their respective Wikipedia articles in due time. As a final note, I see you've mistyped '1954' as '1956' in the label of your picture above. I'll leave it to your capable hands to rectify this minor thingy and include which shots are stitched together in the video. But it's very good that you added this information and pointed out by appending the photograph and video that there is so much confusion!


 * Dragon Heart String (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Actual Bravo yield
For many years Guinness Book of World Records stated that Bravo was 18-22 Mt. Where they got this figure from I have no idea and would like to know, but the official yield is 15 Mt. I read where this was calculated from the mushroom cloud--right after the test, which at that time was not a firm theory (14.8 Mt was the actual figure). Could it be that the GBWR quote is correct but was suppressed by the scientists because that made their errors in yield even worse? ;) Any else ever heard of this higher yield figure? Chasrob (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll comment that generally atomic explosion yields are estimated by looking at fallout. You know how much of various fissile elements you started with, you know what products they will produce, and by measuring what proportions of "unburnt" fuel and products exist in the fallout, you can estimate how much reaction took place. That will give you the total energy, which can be converted from joules into tons of TNT. In this case, there would have been substantial contributions by fission of the tamper (yielding standard lower-Z isotopes), as well as fusion of the deuterium/tritium into helium. I assume that's where the official estimates come from, but since I don't have a security clearance, I can't verify it. Estimates based on the size of the mushroom cloud are apt to be less precise, needing more information on topography and weather conditions. Either way, the estimates for the size of the boom translate into "big". Tarl N. ( discuss ) 02:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * After nosing around a little bit on the web, the Air Force rated the Mk 21 at 18 Mt. Since the Mk 21 is the weaponized version of Shrimp, perhaps that's where GBWR got the lower figure. And, since Shrimp was 25% or so larger than the Mk 21 (which was fielded only a year after Bravo), maybe that's where they got the 22 Mt figure by extrapolation. Chasrob (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Figure for Jetter's cycle
Is this figure in the Jetter's cycle section correct? The arrows go in circle, implying (to my chemist eyes, at least) that the products of each step become the reactants of the next, but the equations are not balanced. For example, an alpha particle plus a neutron do not, by themselves, yield a lithium-6 nucleus plus a neutron. Yilloslime (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As it's been a few days and no one has stepped up to defend the figure, I've removed it. Yilloslime (talk) 02:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. The diagram was correct, in that it did not imply the entire side of a transformation proceeded into the next. Each of the two transformations produces a product that gets used in the next step. That is, T+D gives He + n, then that neutron plus Li produces He plus tritium, then that tritium plus deuterium repeats the cycle. It would probably be more correct with in-arrows on the deuterium and lithium indicating new inputs, and out-arrows on both heliums indicating outputs not re-used. For an equation, it would be D+Li -> He + He, with the tritium and neutrons being temporary intermediate products. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I'd argue the figure is misleading and needs to be redone. I'd do if I had the right software, but I don't. Also, the sourcing for the whole section seems dubious (i.e. self-published)....Yilloslime (talk) 17:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * For a reference, how about this (page 10)? As for the diagram, would the following make more sense? Tarl N. ( discuss ) 18:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't doubt that "truthiness" of the information on Jetter's Cycle, but that source looks self-published to me, just like the one currently used. As for a figure, I was thinking something more like figure over at Catalytic cycle, but you'd have D and Li coming in, 2 He and energy coming out, and T and n "inside" the cycle. Does that make sense? Yilloslime (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I added the 2nd diagram before seeing this talk comment. I've added a reference for the Jetter cycle - it uses the first diagram, but the 2nd diagram is just another representation, clearer IMO. - Rod57 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

In Popular Culture: On The Beach by Nevil Shute
I would delete this reference from In Popular Culture of Castle Bravo because the only connection which links the two is fallout. Ruggedrobot (talk) 19:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Rotblat paper... what 'paper'?
"Sir Joseph Rotblat...demonstrated that the contamination caused by the fallout from the test was far greater than that stated officially. Rotblat deduced that the bomb had three stages and showed that the fission phase at the end of the explosion increased the amount of radioactivity a thousandfold. Rotblat's paper..."
 * There's no link to any paper, or even any identifying details. And before you look, none in Rotblat's Wiki bio either, apart from the date of the supposed paper, 1955. JohndanR (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Not the person who added it to the article, but the reference is: J. Rotblat, "The Hydrogen–Uranium Bomb," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11, no. 5 (1955), 171–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00963402.1955.11453597 --NuclearSecrets (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Friedman77.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion to split out Jetter cycle
I've made this suggestion to influence how this subsection might develop. It's not specific to Castle Bravo, and has applications in other bombs, and in fusion power cycles. - Rod57 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)


 * What fusion power cycles? Can you elaborate on that? I'm not doubting that there are some, but I would be interested to hear them described. What are the power inputs, sources? 24.116.235.91 (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That comment is a year and a half old. I don't think you're going to get an answer. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

fallout increase from what?
the article don't explain this at all.

Castle Bravo was a Teller-Ulam design thermonuclear weapon - some extra Li7 boosted more than expected - CB wasn't build as a dirty bomb - so why was the fallout higher?

2-3 times more MT comes with more gamma rays, but those don't count as fallout, if I remember correctly.

Both Li-6,7 and D was engaged - so what - their end products are He4 and neutrons, only the neutrons are dangerous for few minutes. the amount of fission material didn't change, so I can't see how this resulted in a higher fallout - even if the higher count of neutrons induced secondary radiation  in their vincinity (h2o, o2, n2 ...sand? etc), there are all short decay time, even if....hope for insights and improvement of article, thx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genchoo (talk • contribs) 13:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole island was blown up. Fallout came from the irradiated coral, sand and sea water. I don't know what gives you the idea that they all have a short decay time. The chlorine in salt water, for example, is 75% chlorine-35, and irradiation will produce chlorine-36, which has a half life of 30,000 years. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  21:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "the whole island was blown up" - Bikini Atoll is still there. Or do you consider the tiny chunk of land it was on to be "the whole island"?


 * Yes. Bikini is an atoll - a ring of islands and islets surrounded by a coral reef. The main island is called Bikini too, hence the confusion. Castle Bravo was detonated on an artificial islet created for the test on the reef between the islets of Bakenejien and Namu. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, I understand the extra fallout came because of extra neutron radiation from Li-7 causing additional fission in the uranium parts of the weapon, as well as neutron contamination of materials forming the land it was sitting on. Usually most of the fission that triggers the thermonuclear cycle comes from the U-235 fraction of the tamper. In this case, more of the U-238 tamper underwent fission than expected, and generated even more neutrons. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 22:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Because like most weapons, Bravo used a uranium tamper. More than half the weapon's yield came from fast fission of that tamper from the neutrons produced in the D+T reaction.Kylesenior (talk) 12:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ Tarl N.  and @Kylesenior
 * olla seniores
 * I am still not convinced : more fission of that tamperU-238 -  against whole atoms from  tamper of uran U-238
 * fissions products tend to be short living compared to tamper U-238, which is also poisonous as heavy metal.
 * but the section was changed to
 * "The fission reactions of the natural uranium tamper were quite dirty, producing a large amount of fallout"
 * so my section here doesnt matter anymore. Gpmalek76 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't understand your concern: I am still not convinced : more fission of that tamperU-238 - against whole atoms from  tamper of uran U-238 fissions products tend to be short living compared to tamper  U-238, which is also poisonous as heavy metal. Short-lived isotopes (whether from bomb fission or neutron absorption by adjacent material) is exactly what fallout is. Ash which "falls out" of the blast cloud and is so radioactive it can deliver immediate radiation poisoning just by contact. That can be so lethal that the chemical poisoning from uranium is lost in the background. You'd have to absorb about five grams of uranium to reach chemical LD50. That's hard to do in a short time.  Tarl N. ( discuss ) 04:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * you dont need five grams :
 * Uranium emits alpha particles through the process of alpha decay. External exposure has limited effect. Significant internal exposure to tiny particles of uranium or its decay products, such as thorium-230, radium-226 and radon-222 can cause severe health effects, such as cancer of the bone or liver.
 * Uranium is also a toxic chemical, meaning that ingestion of uranium can cause kidney damage from its chemical properties much sooner than its radioactive properties would cause cancers of the bone or liver.
 * Tarl, they removed already that part from castle bravo-main page, I mentioned.
 * But please let me explain my doubts, that (reflecting) tamper u238 is the MOST "dirty" part of that bomb, if as here happened, the tamper was in huge parts affected by li7-reaction (therefor fissioned!), such  bomb cant be more "dirty" as the planned/calculated bomb by the "experts". Gpmalek76 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)


 * By "dirty" is meant the radioactive fission products created by fission of the primary, the sparkplug and the tamper, plus the result of irradiation of surrounding islet and waters. As Tarl N. points out, the few kilos uranium spread about over a large area isn't a major concern. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  23:57, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a place to debate the article's topic. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 23:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Health impacts
Seeing that this section is mared by several "better source needed" tags, I started researching via The Wikipedia Library, and found this: [https://apps.dtic.mil/docs/citations/ADA572278 CASTLE BRAVO: Fifty Years of Legend and Lore. A Guide to Off-Site Radiation Exposures], by the Defense Threat Reduction Information Analysis Center, January 2013, 195 pages.

As I don't have the wherewithal to use this source efficiently, I'll just leave it here, hoping it might be useful. Noliscient (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Castle Bravo Shrimp Device 002 - restoration1.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 1, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-03-01. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)