Talk:Nuclear testing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force

}}

Nuclear testing has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Proposed changes 2 "Dry-nuclear" testing 3 Fixing up this article 4 History section 5 Enviromental Impact 6 images of nuclear tests taken from space? 7 Why United States didn't test their atomic weapons in Africa in the 1950s and early 1960s?

[edit] Proposed changes

Perhaps we should create a separate article for List of nuclear tests for all of the test-series designations, and the individual sections for each country on this page should be a better description of the history of the country's testing (i.e. a longer version of "The US tested its first bomb in 1945, then there was Crossroads with its implications, then lots of testing in Nevada, then the hydrogen bombs at Eniwetok, then more Nevada testing, then underground testing as a result of fallout concerns, then no testing after end of Cold War." for the USA section). Lacking from this page is any discussion of the concerns of fallout from atmospheric testing, which seems almost criminal in an article on nuclear testing. I think its "list-like" quality should be discouraged. I think a well-done article on the history and issues related to nuclear testing could easily be brought up to Featured Status, whereas the present article has little room for improvement (and is not all that useful in my opinion). Any objections to the proposed changes? I'll wait a week or so... --Fastfission 02:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed the recently inserted list of all nuclear tests. This page is enough of a list as it is (which I'm planning to change) without needing a thousand individual tests pasted into it. If anyone wants that information, they can get it from the links at the bottom of the page. Someplace like Wikisource is the location for that form of information, anyway -- it is not the content of an encyclopedia article. --00:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Dry-nuclear" testing

The article for Moronvilliers (a village in France) mentions that it was the site of "dry-nuclear" testing, with a link that points here. Does anyone have any info on what "dry-nuclear" testing means? -- 17:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I Googled "nuclear" and "Moronvilliers" and got this page which seems to indicate it was used for non-fissioning nuclear tests (i.e. just testing the high explosives, without fissile material inserted). I've never seen it called "dry-nuclear" testing before, I imagine it is a translation error of some sort. Usually one just says that the facilities were used to fire "test assemblies" and indicate that no fission was occurring. It sounds like they did similar things there like they did at Site 300 near Livermore. --Fastfission 19:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fixing up this article

This current article is still a complete mess. I think a real encyclopedia article on nuclear testing would also include sections on: 1. types of nuclear testing and the types of information one can get from a test, 2. environmental effects of nuclear tests, 3. a brief history of controversies over nuclear testing worldwide. If anyone has the time to add them, this is pretty straightforward stuff... --Fastfission 15:28, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey FF. I hadn't noticed that you had incorporated test sites into the test country table (sorry, bud). But still: how about a table or list with flag icons that gives the reader an overview of which countries and dependencies have test sites? Neither France nor the United Kingdom contain such sites. //Big Adamsky 15:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking that the best way to do it might be a map, but I haven't gotten around to making it yet. That way you could list not only where the tests had been, but how many in each place. --Fastfission 15:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan (I am actually the one who posted the map request thing up at the top a while back...). Each test site could then be marked with a dot whose size (diameter) would be indicative of the number of tests. =J //Big Adamsky 15:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I might have messed up it a little bit more by adding a link: What About Radiation on Bikini Atoll? --> if somebody with more reliable sources could make a section from environmental effects of nuclear testing.

[edit] History section

I added a little history section. It is very schematic but I tried to touch on the major issues. Hopefully someone can look it over and see if I left out anything major, I wrote it pretty much off of the top of my head (the references listed should, if I recall correctly, have all of the added information in them in one place or another. I'm happy to cite any more specific things if anybody wants them.) A specific section on the environmental and personal effects from the tests (i.e. both the total fallout issue as well as the local fallout issue) would still be nice. --Fastfission 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

• OK -- I implemented some more changes, shuttling almost all descriptions of individuals tests off to the separate list page and concentrating on making the article a general overview of nuclear weapons testing. Let me know if there are any concerns. --Fastfission 23:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enviromental Impact

Does anyone know anything about the enviromental impact of nuclear tests. I think it would make a good addition to this article stargate70

• I agree completely. It is one of the important issues around nuclear testing that much light has been shed on in recent years. --Fastfission 21:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

• • If you want to read about the long term impact then the best thing to read are the IAEA reports on placeswhich have been used in the past to test bombs. I have seen a report on the island that the French used.Cadmium

i agree too we should have environmental impacts of nuclear testing

[edit] images of nuclear tests taken from space?

I don't suppose there are any images of nuclear explosions taken from space, are there? TerraFrost 05:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why United States didn't test their atomic weapons in Africa in the 1950s and early 1960s?

United States was powerful and they could test their bombs anywhere they wanted in the West in the early years. Why did United States test their atomic weapons on their land and in the Pacific Ocean, and not in Africa? 216.13.88.86 22:48, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Security was considered important. For an interesting discussion about the selection of sites for testing, see especially pages 34 and 37 onwards in this document. Jakew 10:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)