Talk:Project 4.1

POV problems
This article seems based around a somewhat sensationalistic and journalistic account of this. It needs more insight from more sober, scholarly, and straightforward accounts. I'll try to incorporate some of the material from Barton C. Hacker, Elements of controversy: the Atomic Energy Commission and radiation safety in nuclear weapons testing, 1947-1974 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994). --Fastfission 17:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, the first source listed, Holly M. Barker's Bravo for the Marshallese: Regaining Control in a Post-Nuclear, Post-Colonial World is rather one sided and does not mention the error made by Los Alamos scientist on the higher-than-expected yield, which significantly affected the area and "dirtyness" of the fallout.

Contradiction
The current article says that Project 4.1 was added before the Bravo test. However according to the "Chronology" link given on this page it was not added until March 14—almost two weeks after the Bravo test. It cites this letter as a source. The Marshall Islands Embassy says it was March 7—still after the Bravo test. Do we have real documentary evidence to imply that it was before the Bravo test? All I see pointing to such a conclusion linked to from this page is the statement of a Marshall Islander mayor, and he seems to only have insinuations, none of which are very compelling (i.e. "Could this project have been put in place in a matter of two weeks without requisite technical and logistical planning?" "If Project 4.1 was not a study why were there “control groups”?"). --Fastfission 02:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. I've done some signficant rewriting to try and even out the POV and be more useful all around. --Fastfission 16:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)