Talk:List of military nuclear accidents

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Pawling, NY incident not military

The facility operated by United Nuclear Corporation (UNC) in Pawling, NY was not a military facility, which can be seen in their original application for a special nuclear material license.[1] There is no evidence that military research was the principal reason for the Pawling site, and according to the documents in the aforementioned application UNC acted only as a sub-contractor for companies that were conducting such research. According to the original license application, UNC at Pawling's purpose was that 'Pu and u235 bearing material will be handled in the 55 general operations of fabrication, characterization, and property measurements.'[2] The work at this facility had to do with the development and processing of reactor fuel and doesn't meet the third criteria for this article:

3. To qualify as "military", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for military purposes.

Therefore, this incident should not be listed here and should be removed.

Aklap (talk) 23:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1706/ML17061A327.pdf#page=190
  2. ^ https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1706/ML17061A327.pdf#page=190

Inaccurate information

From the incident occurring on June 7, 1960

a helium tank exploded

Someone mind explaining this one for me, especially considering helium is not a flammable substance...

Noun: explosion
(1) A violent release of energy (sometimes mechanical, nuclear, or chemical.)
(2) A bursting due to pressure
It doesn't have to be flammable to explode, and helium is often stored in pressurized containers.

Dummy warheads

Re: Feb 13 1950 B-36 incident

"...carrying one weapon containing a dummy warhead. The warhead contained uranium instead of plutonium."

I didn't know replacing the plutonium with uranium in a warhead transformed it into a dummy. But then such mix-ups happen in real life, e.g. some B-52 out of Minot AFB that went flapping round the skies with misloaded nuclear cruise missiles not too long ago. --Arthur Borges 22:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs)

The thing to remember is that there are many different isotopes of plutonium and uranium, and not all of them are useful in nuclear weapons. If a bomb is designed to have a core of plutonium-239 and the core is replaced with one of uranium-238 there is no way it will produce a nuclear explosion. The physics of how plutonium-239 and uranium-238 undergo fission are too different. Cores are often replaced like that because people who have to work with nuclear bombs need experience handling the actual bombs themselves and replacing the core removes all chance of a nuclear detonation. I'm not sure why the core can't just be removed, but it probably has to do with keeping the same weight and/or that the bombs can't be assembled properly without something at the center. Nailedtooth (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Mark 4 weapon was a basic plutonium or uralloy (combination pu and u-235) implosion weapon with an enhanced natural (or depleted) uranium tamper, the first militarized version of the hand-built Mark 3 FatMan. The uranium tamper was used not because it was fissile but because of it's high density and inertia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 08:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Events with no release of radioactivity need not be posted

All the plane crashes and sub collisions and satellites and so forth need to be removed, and if no one else has anything to say about it in a week I'm going to do so. jtrainor

So, why do they need to be removed? --Carnildo 19:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because in a lot of cases there's just stuff like submarines colliding or bombs falling/being lost where no release of radioactivity occured. Heck, there's a number of entries that specifically say no radiological contamination occured. Stuff just plain being lost and accidents that do not involve radiation release do not really warrant being included in the article. Apologies in advance for my crappy formatting, I'm not really good at editing stuff yet so all these entries are just copy/pasted from the main article.

Basically, I want to remove the following entries:

March 10, 1956 – Somewhere en route to a rendezvous with an United States Air Force tanker flying over the Mediterranean Sea, a B-47 from MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa, Florida, disappeared without a trace. The plane was carrying two nuclear capsules at the time of the incident.

October, 1959 – One killed and 3 seriously burned in explosion and fire of prototype reactor for the USS Triton (SSRN/SSN-586) at the United States Navy's training center in West Milton, New York. The Navy stated, "The explosion was completely unrelated to the reactor or any of its principal auxiliary systems," but sources familiar with the operation claim that the high-pressure air flask that exploded was to feed a crucial reactor-problem backup system.

January 24, 1961 – A B-52 bomber suffered a fire caused by a major leak in a wing fuel cell and exploded in mid-air 12 miles (20 km) north of Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, Goldsboro, North Carolina. The incident released the bomber's two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs. Five crewmen parachuted to safety, but three died—two in the aircraft and one on landing. Three of the four arming devices on one of the bombs activated, causing it to carry out many of the steps needed to arm itself, such as the charging of the firing capacitors and critically the deployment of a 100-foot (30 m) diameter retardation parachute. The parachute allowed the bomb to hit the ground with little damage. The fourth arming device — the pilot's safe/arm switch — was not activated and so the weapon did not detonate. The other bomb plunged into a muddy field at around 700 miles per hour (300 m/s) and disintegrated. Its tail was discovered about 20 feet (7 m) down and much of the bomb recovered, including the tritium bottle and the plutonium. However, excavation was abandoned because of uncontrollable flooding by ground water, and most of the thermonuclear stage, containing uranium, was left in situ. It was estimated to lie at around 180 feet (55 m). The Air Force purchased the land and fenced it off to prevent its disturbance, and it is tested regularly for contamination, although none has so far been found. See: [Broken Arrow: Goldsboro, NC http://www.ibiblio.org/bomb/].

April 10, 1963 – The nuclear submarine USS Thresher (SSN-593) sinks east of Boston, Massachusetts, with 129 men onboard. A year earlier, just before the end of its refit interval, the boat had been abused in a munitions test where it literally tried to approach explosions as closely as possible. The boat was refitted afterward, and sank during its sea trials. In a show of poor planning, the sea trial was conducted where the bottom was below the hull's crush depth. In the yard, destructive tests of a few silver-soldered pipe connections had failed. At the time, nondestructive testing was unknown, and no test records were available. The investigators believed that the sinking was caused by the failure of a major through-hull silver-soldered connection, such as a tertiary-loop cooling inlet, and that the reactor and its design were not responsible. The reactor was not recovered.

December 5, 1964 – A Minuteman 1B missile was on strategic alert at Launch Facility (LF) L-02, Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota. Two airmen were dispatched to the LF to repair inner zone (IZ) security system. In the midst of their checkout of the IZ system, one retrorocket in the spacer below the Reentry Vehicle (RV) fired, causing the RV/nuclear warhead to fall about 75 feet (23 m) to the floor of the silo. When the RV/nuclear warhead struck the bottom of the silo, the arming and fusing/altitude control subsystem containing the batteries was torn loose, thus removing all sources of power from the RV/nuclear warhead. The RV structure received considerable damage. All safety devices operated properly in that they did not sense the proper sequence of events to allow arming the warhead. There was no detonation or radioactive contamination.

December 5, 1965 – An A-4E Skyhawk airplane with one B43_nuclear_bomb onboard falls off the USS Ticonderoga into 16,200 feet (4.9 km) of water off the coast of Japan. The ship was traveling from Vietnam to Yokosuka, Japan. The plane, pilot, and weapon are never recovered. There is dispute over exactly where the incident took place—the US Defense Department originally stated it took place 500 miles (800 km) off the coast of Japan, but US Navy documents later show it happened about 80 miles (130 km) from the Ryukyu Islands and 200 miles (320 km) from Okinawa. [18]

April 11, 1968 – A Soviet Golf-class submarine sinks in about 16,000 ft (4900 m) of water, approximately 750 miles (1200 km) northwest of Hawaii's Oahu island. 80 sailors are killed in the incident. Several nuclear torpedoes and three nuclear ballistic missiles were onboard. (Parts of this vessel were later raised by the CIA and Howard Hughes' Glomar Explorer in 1974.) [19]

May 21, 1968 – The USS Scorpion (SSN-589), a nuclear-powered attack submarine carrying two Mark 45 ASTOR torpedoes with nuclear warheads, is lost with 99 sailors onboard. The nuclear material has not been recovered. The submarine has been photographed at the ocean bottom, and the U.S. Navy periodically monitors the location for radioactivity. Supposedly there has been no plutonium leakage to date.

May 16, 1969 – In San Francisco, California, the nuclear submarine USS Guitarro sinks while being fitted because a forward compartment flooded.

November 15 or 16, 1969 – The USS Gato (SSN-615) reportedly collides with a Soviet submarine in the White Sea. A former crewmember later states that the Gato was struck in the protective plating around the vessel's reactor. No serious damage resulted, although the ship went on alert and prepared to arm a nuclear-tipped anti-submarine missile and nuclear torpedoes. [22]

June 20, 1970 – In the northern Pacific Ocean, a Soviet Echo-class submarine collides with the USS Tautog after making a 180° crazy Ivan maneuver. American sailors believe the ship sank after the incident, but Russian Navy officers state in 1992 that the ship did not sink. [24]

1977 – The Soviet K-171 accidentally releases a nuclear warhead while off the coast of Kamchatka. After a frantic search involving dozens of ships and aircraft, the warhead is recovered. [26]

November 2, 1981 – At the US Submarine Pens in Scotland, a fully armed Poseidon missile is accidentally dropped 17 feet (5 m) from a crane while being transferred from a submarine to its tender.

January 3, 1983 – The Russian Kosmos-1402 nuclear-powered spy satellite burns up over the South Atlantic.

October 3, 1986 – 480 miles (770 km) east of Bermuda, a Soviet Yankee I-class submarine experienced an explosion in one of its nuclear missile tubes and at least three crew members were killed. Thirty-four nuclear missiles and two reactors were on board. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev privately communicated news of the disaster to U.S. President Ronald Reagan before publicly acknowledging the incident on October 4. Two days later, on October 6, the ship sank in the Atlantic Ocean while under tow in 18,000 feet (5.5 km) of water. [31]

April 7, 1989 – The Soviet Komsomolets attack submarine catches fire about 300 miles (480 km) off the coast of Norway. 27 crew members escape, but the remaining 42 do not survive as the ship sinks. Two nuclear-armed torpedoes were on-board along with the vessel's nuclear reactor. [33]

February 11, 1992 – The Commonwealth of Independent States Sierra-class attack submarine K-239 (Barracuda) collides with the USS Baton Rouge (SSN-689) in the Barents Sea. No apparent damage results, although the incident causes the Russians to complain that the Baton Rouge was inside CIS territorial waters. American naval officers maintain that the ship was in international waters at the time. [35]

March 20, 1993 – The American submarine USS Grayling (SSN-646) collides with the Novomoskovsk, a Russian Delta III-class submarine, in the Barents Sea, 105 nautical miles (120 miles, 195 km) north of the Kola Peninsula. [36]

November 17, 1996 – The Russian probe Mars 96 fails during launch and crashes back to Earth with an RTG on board. The location of the crash is disputed - either in the Pacific Ocean or in the mountains of Chile.

That's about it. How do I do that signature thing with my username like you do? jtrainor

It seems to me that the Mars-96 and Kosmos-1402 satellite incidents should be kept, since they both resulted in nuclear contamination somewhere. There's also a similar incident where a Soviet spy satellite crashed into Canada, contaminating a few hundred square miles of forest, that I don't see listed.
As for the signature, it's simply a matter of typing "~~~~" at the end of your message. --Carnildo 18:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, at least in the Kosmos-1402 case, the satellite burned up completely-- the radioactive material was reduced to a small amount of vapor at high altitude. Basically not significant. The Mars-96 one can stay, though. Thanks for the tip. Jtrainor 18:20, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I propose applying the same guidelines being used in the civilian nuclear accidents one, wiht a minor word switch at one spot:
In listing military nuclear accidents, the following criteria should be followed:
1. There must be well-attested and substantial health damage, property damage or contamination.
2. The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant.
3. To qualify as "military", the nuclear operation/material must be principally for non-civilian purposes.
For point (1) please clarify what initiated the "accident". The title implies to me that some type of NUCLEAR event initiated the "accident". If this is the case, then and "accident" that does not have a "NUCLEAR" cause should not be here: ie Tybee Island, USS Thresher, etc. If on the other hand, this is about any accident that had any nuclear material that could have been impacted by the accident, then ALL mishaps should be included (including fly arounds because of mechanical or other issues for planes, any scrape, bump, etc for ships, etc.). --dmg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.244.214.59 (talk) 14:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article definitely need a lot of work, perhaps more than the civilian one did. I'll be gradually working my way through this one, much as I did there, adding references, editing and removing out-of-scope entries.--DocS 04:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Might it be worth splitting out a seperate list for nuclear weapons losses? Whilst these aren't actually dangerous accidents by the standards of this list, esp. when it is known no nuclear material was released, "incidences where the military lost a bomb" are reasonably interesting in and of their own right. (Cases such as, say, the first one you mention above, with the B-47) Shimgray | talk | 14:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SL-1

Why is there a picture of SL-1, but NO mention of it in the article? Bayerischermann 01:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because nobody added it. Why didn't you? --Fastfission 18:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor incidents, UK

In case anyone wants to put together a list of minor incidents in the future, [1] is a list of UK nuclear incidents known to the MoD; about twenty, mostly "someone dropped a warhead six inches whilst handling it" or "lorry transporting nuclear weapons rear-ends car, paint scratched". None are significant enough, at a quick look, to be on this list; they explicitly note "There has never been a Category 2 accident involving a British nuclear weapon." [2] notes none have ever been lost. Shimgray | talk | 14:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David Irving

oh my, the paragraph about the leipzig accident links to a book written by the infamous David Irving. We should definitely replace this reference by a more serious one. --thoralf Unsigned edit by 83.221.68.92 23:06, January 22, 2006

contradictory one

The bomb did not contain the core needed for a nuclear explosion, but upon impact the conventional explosives detonated, making a crater 25 feet (7.6 m) wide and 12 feet (3.7 m) deep, and killing a nearby cow. The blast released some plutonium and contaminated the nearby area.

If there was no core, where'd the plutonium come from? It looks to me like someone has gone through a lot of these items and, without citations of course, added a claim that the core wasn't present that was needed for the nuclear explosion. Tempshill 23:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I took a look at it -- seems that only non-reputable sources say anything about plutonium contamination, though all agree the core wasn't aboard. This one specifically says no contamination was found, and I'm more inclined to go with that since the source is generally pretty good and that makes more sense. --Fastfission 02:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've belatedly gotten around to removing a whole bunch of the garbage entries. Jtrainor 19:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leipzig L-IV atomic pile accident

Can someone confirm that Werner Heisenberg and Robert Dopel had an explosion in the Leipzig L-IV atomic pile, which resulted in a major fire? David Irving wrote about it in [3] but is there any other source available? David Irving was indeed sentenced to three years imprisonment in Austria for denying the Holocaust.--Enr-v 17:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation: During a series of experiments two major accidents occurred. The first accident occurred when the master of mechanics Paschen poured the powder of uran using a spoon in the bottleneck of the gadget. This led to a bang and a explosive flame which injured Paschen. The second accident occurred during the L-IV experiment. When opening the rubber-sealed-aluminium-closure a explosive flame appeared. A temporary water cooling was of no use. Attempts of extinction with foam and water remaint unsuccessful. Not until two days later the reactor came to rest. (Translated from the secound link see below) Also uranium gas leaked from the so called "Uranmaschine" which had been on fire due to the melting process. Therefore it is assumed that alpha radiation had to contaminate lungs of people who had been in place, although there were not enough documents left after 1945 to check on this fact. [4] [5] [6] [7]

B-36B 44-92075

Curious why B-36B 44-92075 is not in this list. Pete.Hurd 02:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was not a nuclear accident. This article is not a list of broken arrows. It's a list of military nuclear accidents that actually caused significant damage attributable to nuclear material. --76.224.88.36 20:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking news. A diver allegedly found the lost bomb. --Kissg (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1950s events that don't belong in the article

The event of February 13, 1950, fails the first two points of the "scope of this article" test. Even the link it gives as a citation calls the event a "high explosive detonation with no spread of fissile material".

The event of April 11, 1950, fails the first two points of the "scope of this article" test. Even the link it gives as a citation calls the event an "accident resulting in fatalities not involving fissile material". It was a plane crash in which a disassembled nuclear weapon was on board, which was later recovered.

The event of November 10, 1950, fails the first two points of the "scope of this article" test. The description given is also totally wrong. The weapon was disassembled, and contained only high explosive. And indeed it did explode. There was no DU, there was no uranium at all, only 2,200 kg of chemical charge. The story that the device contained 100 lbs of DU was invented by Greenpeace. Why would there be DU in a nuclear bomb, when it's unsuitable for fission? You will find no US or Canadian government documents that claim any radioactive contamination from this event.

The event of November 29, 1955, fails all three points of the "scope of this article" test. There was no substantial contamination, health or property damage, and the reactor was not "principally for military purposes".

The event of July 27, 1956, fails the first two points of the "scope of this article" test. The event is noteworthy specifically because a nuclear accident was avoided, but that doesn't mean it belongs in this article.

The event of January 31, 1958, fails the first point of the "scope of this article" test. There was no "substantial health damage, property damage or contamination." Contamination of the wreckage itself was high, but that of the surrounding area was low. There were no casualties attributable to nuclear weapons. The description given is also partially wrong. There is no evidence that this event occurred in Morocco, and that is purely a guess on the part of CDI. The military has never identified the location of this event.

The event of February 5, 1958, fails the first two points of the "scope of this article" test. The weapon was disassembled and contained no nuclear material, and never had since its construction.

The event of March 11, 1958, fails the first two points of the "scope of this article" test. The weapon was disassembled, and contained only high explosive. And indeed it did explode. The notion that "radioactive substances were flung across the area" is pure fiction. Six civilians were injured, their house was destroyed, but there was no radioactive exposure.

The event of June 16, 1958, fails the third point of the "scope of this article" test. ORNL was not a military facility in 1958, but rather under the Atomic Energy Commission.

The event of December 30, 1958, fails the third point of the "scope of this article" test. LANL was not a military facility in 1958, but rather under the Atomic Energy Commission.

The even of November 20, 1959, fails all three points of the "scope of this article" test. There was no substantial contamination, health or property damage, and ORNL was not a military facility in 1959. No National Laboratory has been run by the military since the Manhattan Project ended.

--76.224.88.36 20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format proposal

I would like to propose a format change for the entries. I recently reformatted the List of civilian nuclear accidents and I think it works well. Proposed format:

month day, year - location - type of accident
  • Description of the accident and related information. Description of the significant health effects, property damage or contamination that occurred. Description of response to the accident.

Instead of a wall of text the reader sees discreet entries with the most pertinent information presented up front. I am making a identical proposal for the List of civilian radiation accidents since these articles are all on a very similar subject. Nailedtooth 00:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost hydrogen bomb May 22, 1957 in Albuquerque, NM

Just wondering why this isn't included. One can easily find numerous articles about this incident where a B-36 bomber lost it's cargo, a 10 megaton Mark 17, while being on landing approach to Kirtland AF base just about 4 miles south of Kirtland AF base. Fortunately only the conventional explosives detonated when the bomb hit the ground and only part of Plutonium load was spread. Still I think this incident definitely should be listed here. Hadoriel 20:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is included now... Enemenemu (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial website

Can someone find a more NPOV source, rather than quoting a Holocaust denial website?--Lastexpofan (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was refering to link #1 (the fpp site.)--Lastexpofan (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada Test Site accidents

There've been a few Nevada Test Site accidents where radionuclides have been released and carried offsite by the wind. Where would such accidents be listed? Here or at List of civilian nuclear accidents? And what about the non-accidental release of radioactive contaminants such as during an atmospheric bomb test? Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the releases were due to military projects they go here. If they were civilian scientific or commercial they go in the civilian list. Planned releases aren't accidents by definition. Nailedtooth (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palomares incident

maybe add this one also? Palomares_hydrogen_bombs_incident two nuclear bombers crashed on the spanish coast and some radioactive materials were released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.197.84 (talk) 17:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That incident is already on the list. Nailedtooth (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1985 and 2008 UK coolant water leaks

These entries should not be on the list and I would like Eiland to stop readding them. The referenced article mentions specifically that tests found there was no contamination in the 2008 leak, and provides no information on the amount of tritium in the 1985 leak so there's no way to judge if it qualifies as 'significant contamination'. A single molecule of tritium would qualify this water as 'contaminated' even though the level would be far from 'significant' as the criteria requires. We can't add it based purely on speculation and given that the 1985 leak is from the same or similar submarines, the amount of contamination is likely to be similar to the leak in 2008 (that is, none). Nailedtooth (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attention editors

Stop adding entries that involve no verified radioactive contamination. Jtrainor (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thresher

To be included, an entry has to conform to the listed criteria, the USS Thresher slinking fails on criteria 2. To review, the criteria reads "The damage must be related directly to radioactive material, not merely (for example) at a nuclear power plant." What this sentence means is that any health effects, damage or contamination that resulted from the incident must be due to the properties or presence of nuclear material. The health effect, contamination or damage cannot simply happen in close proximity to nuclear material. In the case of the USS Thresher, the sinking was caused by a burst pipe that shorted out electrical systems causing a loss of power. This kind of accident has happened to many other submarines and is not unique to nuclear subs. This means, to put it in similar words to the criteria, that the accident happened merely on a nuclear sub. The reactor was affected by virtue of being connected electrically to the sub, but it responded by functioning as it had been designed to, by shutting down. This means the causality flows in the wrong way for this to be a nuclear accident; along with the crew and rest of the ship, the reactor is a victim of the accident, not the cause. Surveys since the accident have found the reactor to be intact and the ocean floor life unaffected. The Thresher is not a nuclear accident, despite it's notability as being a lost nuclear sub.Nailedtooth (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few Points...
1 There is a nuclear reactor plant on the sea floor, in pieces.
2 If modern procedures were in effect, this would not be the case. The reactor scrammed and could not be restarted due to first procedural and additionally, technical reasons.
3 The conclusion of many observers was that there was at least some responsibility shared by the nuclear establishment (Naval Reactors) to prevent this from happening (although the leak and the SUBSAFE issues were the cause).
4 Going back to #1, the reactor could have leaked radiation, and may still if it hasn't, to the environment. And I think we would all be stupid to think that there was no release, however insignificant, to the environment when the primary coolant piping burst.
User:Uruiamme (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. The nuclear fuel has been found to be intact in all surveys of the Thresher wreckage with no significant leakage of retroactive materials from the fuel. Any damage to the reactor has not resulted in a significant release of radioactive material. Multiple surveys have confirmed this.
(a) All Surveys... conducted by the US Navy. Anyone else?!
(b) So, this is a great resource. Maybe me, you, or the Pyongyang University of Science and Technology can put together the funds to go grab the fuel plates then. Technically, it is an unguarded resource for terrorists because the HEU fuel will be a great place to obtain a quick nuclear capability.
2. Exactly. The problem with the reactor were procedural and technical. Despite the fact that the reactor was loaded with nuclear fuel, the accident was not directly related to radioactive material. The accident is directly related to technical and procedural faults. The nuclear material is only proximal to the accident.
(a) So is the downing of a military satellite with nuclear fuel. In the case of the satellite, the burnup of the plutonium occurred in the upper atmosphere, far away from you or me. In this case, the sinking of the ship has contaminated the sea floor, also far away. It is NIMBY, but it is still notable.
3. Even if the 'nuclear establishment' bears responsibility that doesn't make the sinking of the Thresher directly related to nuclear materials, which criteria 2 requires.
4. The criteria require significant contamination. No significant contamination has been found in multiple surveys of the wreckage. If at some point in time the reactor does begin leaking, then it may qualify for the list. As it stands, it does not.
(a) The amount of the leakage is not the main point. The fact that it is unguarded, not inside a fence, not contained in an acceptable container, not in possession by a nuclear superpower anymore. The reactor was lost and found, but not secured.
The USS Thresher does not qualify as a nuclear accident and must be removed from the list.
Nailedtooth (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is the initial "loss" of the nuclear reactor and its continued unsecured location which are significant to the article. The contamination is not a big deal, which is why the dozens of "whoops we slightly contaminated your port" incidents of the US Navy and other nuclear navies are not mentioned in the article. The article correctly states that the contamination is immaterial but is an issue of concern, because the condition could change at any time.
User:Uruiamme (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only available information about the status of the wreckage comes from the US Navy. Just because you don't like the source and think it's suspect doesn't make it so. Without their surveys we would have no information at all; speculation is WP:OR and not encyclopedic. Leakage is exactly the point. A nuclear accident is when nuclear material escapes containment in a significant way and causes health damage, property damage or contamination. In the case of the Thresher, the fuel elements themselves were designed to be the first layer of containment and even if all the other layers failed the first worked. There has not been a significant leakage of radioactive materials into the environment. All the other 'concerns' you mention are irrelevant and are simply justifications. It seems you want the Thresher to be included just because you say so, not because you can provide a concrete rational.
On individuals points:
  1. "But terrorists might..." is a terrible reason to include anything in any wikipedia article.
  2. In the case of the satellite, the plutonium fuel escaped containment. In the case of the thresher, the uranium fuel remained in the fuel elements, which were designed to be the first layer of containment (this means it worked).
  3. There are millions of unguarded radioactive sources on the planet. They're called smoke detectors and lantern mantles. If you want to see what you can do with these, read the article on David Hahn, aka "The Nuclear Boy Scout".
  4. If the condition does change at any time, then by all means add the entry.
Nailedtooth (talk) 05:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are also pointing out the criteria as a reason to exclude Thresher. Yet this article's statement of criteria doesn't either make a rule or establish anything.
If the article were to follow every criteria to the tee, it would be wrong, which is why I changed (did not "propose" to change) the article to allow certain incidents to apply.
Example. "February 13, 1950 – British Columbia, Canada – Non-nuclear detonation of a simulated atomic bomb" is a description of a bomb core which is merely lost. No radiological significance is noted. Any damage was immaterial to the fact that it was a nuclear bomb, according to your (erroneous) use of the criteria as now set out in the article.
Example. "December 5, 1965 – coast of Japan – Loss of a nuclear bomb" describes an incident where a plane fell into the ocean. Nothing even remotely nuclear about it, except the plane had a nuclear bomb on it. According to your (erroneous) use of the criteria as now set out in the article.
To use an analogy, the bomb on the coast of Japan is still likely intact, sort of like the Thresher's reactor. Even if Thresher has a hundred times more fuel and killed a hundred times more people when it went down, it is sort of like this one. I am not lobbying to remove the coast of Japan section, but to merely highlight your inconsistent thinking, which leads to rule making on your own.
There are over a dozen other examples like this in the article (bombs which merely exploded their high explosives or simply were dropped someplace). Your focus on the Thresher is odd, as it was newsworthy by just the sheer number of men who died. The other ones are so obscure, without Wikipedia I would have never heard of many of these. Yet both Thresher and these bomb incidents rate notice here.
So this is why I corrected the criteria to go with the consensus found in this lengthy list of nuclear accidents, so you won't go and delete the other 20 or so which don't live up to the criteria as written. Common sense tells me to include all of those bomb drop mishaps, all the missile accidents, satellites, and the reactors sitting (unsafely) at the bottom of the ocean.
As a further note about how Thresher is classified as an obvious accident, remember that the reactor compartment and piping systems are certainly crushed at depth, if not the reactor vessel itself. Now look at International Nuclear Event Scale and see that Thresher is likely a Level 3 if not a Level 4 due to the breach of containment barriers and its release of contaminated water when the piping broke.
User:Uruiamme (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the fact that you claim otherwise, I think the problem you just pointed out is that there are a very large number of entries that need to be pruned because they do not fit the criteria. Trying to change the criteria to fit a specific entry you want to include is the wrong way to go about it; all the other nuclear and radiation accident pages have nearly identical criteria. The criteria for these articles is clear and works well. There is no 'consensus' in the article, just mistakenly included entries that need to be removed. The Thresher was obviously an accident, but that's not the question, the question is "is it a nuclear accident?" The answer is no. Nailedtooth (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue you refuse to even mention is the crux of what I keep saying: The Thresher's reactor plant imploded when the ship sank. It spread countless contamination, although apparently no fission products. If someone had been transporting a few thousand gallons of water and radioactive sources, dropped them into the ocean (accidentally), and left a nuclear reactor on the sea floor, you are saying that that is not a nuclear accident? The focus of the US Navy probes is the status of the fuel, which is great, but the incident is more than fuel. Look, the reactor vessel holds a lot of nuclear material, but so does the rest of the plant. The plant's uncounted radioactive materials floated away or sank to the bottom and have polluted the environment. The Navy can't do anything about that obviously, hence their concern for continued environmental effects. The conclusions:
#1, The Thresher was a nuclear accident when it imploded. (3 to 4 on the INES scale)
#2, The Thresher will continue to be an accident waiting to happen as long as the reactor remains where it is. (perhaps 1 to 2 on the INES)
It is, therefore, a past and present danger to the environment. I would suggest you not take any deep sea dives around there or eat fish from that area. Good thing it didn't happen near a coastline!
#3, the dropped and missing bombs have similar, although much lesser, concerns because of their small size.
I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<==Wikipedia is all about official sources. The US Navy is the one source here, and they say it is not a nuclear accident. All the reliable sources quote the Navy in saying that the event was not nuclear in nature. We here can't use logic to overwhelm the sources—we have to report what is found in the literature. If there is some reliable source for listing the submarine, we can put it in. If another organization goes down there to make new tests, and discovers contamination, then we will quote them and return the Thresher to this list. As well, if an organization goes out there and steals the nuclear core, we will list Thresher and cite the news reports. Until then, the nuclear material sitting on the ocean floor is a potential accident, not an actual accident. Binksternet (talk) 17:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add K-129 to the list?

Does the K-129 accident qualify for the list (3 SS-N-5 SERB and several torpedoes with nuclear warheads on board)? Of course, the contamination with Plutonium only occured aboard the Hughes Glomar Explorer after the (partial) recovery, which was a civilian (CIA) operation. Thus it might be more in the December 5, 1965 – coast of Japan – Loss of a nuclear bomb type of category. --Enemenemu (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also was surprised that the loss of the K-129 with its nukes was not here. It seems it is essentially the same kind of incident as the USS Scorpion loss. BeadleB (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leipzig, 1942

The Article says, that there has been an acident in Heisenbergs Laboratory in Leipzig, probably a metall fire. The problem is, that Irving seems to be the only one who has written about this incident. This causes a second problem: Irving is just one of the worst historicans. He has published fairytales about the third reich for many years, this came to an end when a british court allowed calling Irving Nazi, Antisemite or Racist and an austrian court sentenced him for breaking the Verbotsgesetz 1947 which prevents the revival of Nacism. A serious historican would be allowed to enter Autralia, Austria, Canada, Germany, Italy, New Zealand or South Africa. I guess everyone will agree with me about the fact, that Irving is not a serios source at all.

I have found another publication, Der Erste Feuerwehreinsatz an einer Uranmaschine by Reinhard Steffler, a firefighter with the responding Leipzig Fire Department. There is a short Interview with him on Youtube, wich does not really make things clear. In the end of this Interview, he says that all the reports by the fire Departement are lost, which makes it likely, that his source has been Irving although he mentions notes of one of the involved scientists, I will try to find someone who owns this book.

If the book does not contain any other sources than Irving we can estimate, that this story is one of Irvings fairytales about the Wunderwaffen of the Third Reich. --Liberaler Humanist (talk) 20:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Arzamas-16

Why no mention of the 1997 and 1963 incerdents at Arzamas-16?

©Geni 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing since 2003?

Nothing since 2003? Really? I want to say a Soviet nuclear class submarine disappeared (blew up) somewhere in the Pacific and was never found.. but my memory on it is a bit shady... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.0.101.195 (talk) 14:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of the Kursk or K-159. While both were nuclear powered, the presence of nuclear material is only proximal to the accidents. The Kursk was sunk by a malfunctioning torpedo while K-159 sank in rough seas while under tow. Neither accident directly involved the nuclear reactors or nuclear weapons aboard. To put it another way: had both ships been conventionally powered and conventionally armed the accidents in which they were lost would not have been any different. These sinking therefore cannot be counted as nuclear accidents, but merely accidents that happened to occur near to nuclear material. Nailedtooth (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - A new section has just been added to specify that nothing is listed for the current decade. Until such time that something warrants being listed in this new section, specifying that there are none will help to make it clear that the lack of incidents since 2003 is intentional.

This current 14-year span appears to be the longest since the dawning of the nuclear age in the 1940s.--Tdadamemd sioz (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chernobyl dual purpose

Chernobyl was a both a military and a power producing reactor. The RBMK was selected for its ability to produce plutonium and it was administered partly by the Soviet military, not by the ministry that dealt with power plants like coal plants or (principally exclusively) power producing nuclear plants. It should be on both the civilian and military lists. Ottawakismet (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria make it clear that each accident will be classified according to what its principal purpose was. If you want to argue that the Chernobyl plant was principally a military operation then you need to make that argument on the talk page for the list of civilian nuclear accidents, since it would have to be removed from there first.Nailedtooth (talk) 04:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removed items

I removed " *February 13, 1950 – British Columbia, Canada – 1950 British Columbia B-36 crash—non-nuclear detonation of a simulated atomic bomb" as it does not meet the first and second criteria in the scope of this article.Mrs269 (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also "*July, 1959 – Simi Valley, California, USA – Explosion

    • The Sodium Reactor Experiment was a pioneering nuclear power plant built by Atomics International at the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, nearby Simi Valley, California. The reactor operated from 1957 to 1964. In July 1959, the reactor suffered a serious incident in which the reactor core was damaged causing the controlled release of radioactive gas to the atmosphere.<ref name=Ashley>{{cite book | last = Ashley| first = R.L. | coauthors = et. Al | title = . SRE Fuel Element Damage, Final Report of the Atomics International Ad Hoc Committee | publisher = | year =1961 | pages = I–1| url =http://www.etec.energy.gov/Health-and-Safety/Documents/SSFLPanelFiles/NAA-SR-4488-Final.pdf | id = NAA-SR-4488-supl}}</ref>" as it was not meet the requirement of being for military use. Mrs269 (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another military German accident

Copy-pasting my earlier (now corrected) entry now that I've found the appropriate article: There is another case of fatal radiation sickness reported in Rainer Karscht's book, Hitlers Bombe, p. 133-137. According to Karscht, German nuclear scientist and member of the Uranverein, Dr. Walter Trinks was successful in initiating a nuclear chain reaction in an experimental nuclear reactor at the laboratories of de:Heeresversuchsanstalt Kummersdorf near Berlin, in late 1944 or early 1945. As Trinks was not using a moderator, the reactor reached critical mass and exploded within hours after he had left the site, destroying most of Trinks's lab. Master craftsman Willi Hennig came to inspect the ruins immediately after the explosion, and soon showed signs of fatigue and illness and had to be brought home.

In 2005, Karscht interviewed Hennig's daughter and she told him her father had never recovered, remaining bedridden for a year. In early 1946, he asked his wife and daughter to move him to the explosion site on a trolley so he could recover materials. Half a year later, he died on 12 September 1946. Following the interview, Karlsch then had teams of nuclear scientists of the University of Giessen (led by scientist Dirk Schalch), the University of Marburg (led by nuclear chemistry professor Reinhard Brandt) and Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (led by Prof. Dr. Uwe Keyser) take and analyze soil samples at Kummersdorf who found high levels of uranium, plutonium, and cobalt-60 contamination only at the reported explosion site and, while clearly ruling them out to be due to the Chernobyl disaster or a primitive "dirty bomb", the reports of all three teams independently reached the conclusion that a prior nuclear explosion at the site was highly likely. Combining all the aforementioned evidence, Karscht came to the conclusion that Willi Hennig in 1945/46 was probably the first victim of a lethal dose of radiation in the history of the German nuclear project.

Sources (all German, unfortunately):

  • Rainer Karlsch (2005), Hitlers Bombe (mainly posited that the German nuclear scientists up until 1945 had worked not on a large Hiroshima-type fission bomb, but on a tactical, boosted two-stage thermonuclear fusion "mini nuke" design with a shaped charge detonator, as was later tested successfully by the USA as Castle Union during Operation Castle in 1954)
  • Heiko Petermann (2007), Für und Wider 'Hitlers Bombe' - Mininukes, Geheimpatente und Hintergründe in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland – Eine erste Bestandsaufnahme, chronicling the German debate regarding Karlsch's book, how Karlsch had been slandered by large parts of the German press and some of the scientific community by pretending that he had claimed to have found evidence for a large Hiroshima-type fission bomb at the hands of the Nazis, and how, after its initial report by Prof. Dr. Keyser, the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, without any further soil tests, in their final report tried to cover up their member Keyser's findings by outright denying them, as well as not even mentioning Keyser's initial report nor his involvement in the tests at all. Available (though seemingly "temporarily not available") here: [8] (my personal OR on the mudslinging and slandering would be that some people have gotten nervous in reaction to Karlsch's book that word could spread just how terrifyingly easy it is to actually build a nuclear Alarm Clock device)
  • Dirk Seifert (2013, with later updates): Spurensuche: „Hitlers Bombe“ – Nazi-Forschung und Entwicklung an einer militärischen Nutzung der Atomenergie und ein Ausblick auf die Debatte um die Atombewaffnung in der jungen Bundesrepublik Deutschland der 50er Jahre, large summary of the Karlsch debate up until 2013 and later by a German member of environmental advocacy NGO Robin Wood (originally a Greenpeace split). EDIT: What follows below is a ref of another entry on this talkpage that for some technical reason appears at the bottom of the page.) --80.187.106.216 (talk) 09:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few things.
"As Trinks was not using a moderator, the reactor reached critical mass and exploded within hours after he had left the site". The fact of whether a reactor uses fast or thermal neutrons has no bearing on the difference between a subcritical reactor, one operating in the critical margin, and one operating in the prompt-critical mode. Only the latter is out of control and can support an excursion of any kind. A competently designed reactor cannot, by itself, become critical, let alone prompt-critical, and even if it did an explosion would not result, unless the reactor was full of U-235 or plutonium, and all the industrial capability that implies.
"In 2005, Karscht interviewed Hennig's daughter and she told him her father had never recovered, remaining bedridden for a year. In early 1946, he asked his wife and daughter to move him to the explosion site on a trolley so he could recover materials. Half a year later, he died on 12 September 1946." He lingered on for a year and a half before dying of ARS? Seems like a long time for that. Of course, it could have been complications. Was an autopsy done? What was the official cause of death?
"Rainer Karlsch...mainly posited that the German nuclear scientists up until 1945 had worked not on a large Hiroshima-type fission bomb, but on a tactical, boosted two-stage thermonuclear fusion "mini nuke" design with a shaped charge detonator, as was later tested successfully by the USA as Castle Union during Operation Castle in 1954)." Uh, no. No such thing exists. Each and every thermonuke ever tested (emphatically including Castle/Union) or built has a fission stage; no conventional charge, shaped or not, will suffice to provide thermonuclear temperatures/pressures.
"my personal OR on the mudslinging and slandering would be that some people have gotten nervous in reaction to Karlsch's book that word could spread just how terrifyingly easy it is to actually build a nuclear Alarm Clock device" As stated above, no thermonuke is "terrifyingly simple" because it depends necessarily on a fission stage which requires the necessary fissionables. Your reference to "Alarm Clock" doesn't clarify anything: are you speaking of Teller's Alarm Clock, which was a dream, or the Soviet Alarm Clock, which was a preliminary thermonuke design, or is this something else in Karsch's book? SkoreKeep (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on List of military nuclear accidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of military nuclear accidents. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of military nuclear accidents. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

lost B-36 on February 13, 1950

As of 2018-01-28, this section includes, "The weapon's high explosives detonated upon impact with a bright flash visible. ... The Pentagon's summary report does not mention whether the weapon was later recovered." I deleted the last sentence, because if the high explosives detonated in the ocean, it would be next to impossible to recover any fragments. DavidMCEddy (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there are two differing accounts of the B-36 crash in the table - seems there still may be some controversy on the actual account of the incident. Also, the table lists British Columbia as the location. It could clarify that it is British Columbia, Canada, similar to all other location references in the table. SquashEngineer (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P5M loss in September 1959

This entry has the wrong location. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP-50, the loss was not in Puget Sound near Whidbey Island, but in the Pacific Ocean, 110 miles west of "the Washington-Oregon border" (i.e. the Columbia River). The aircraft was only based at Whidbey Island. Another reference is https://www.vpnavy.com/vp50_mishap.html, which includes an undated copy of a news clipping confirming the offshore location. --174.127.176.33 (talk) 01:04, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet submarine K-320 1970

Please add this Soviet submarine K-320--SXe 92 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

K-129

List should include 1968 loss of Soviet sub k-129, which carried ballistic missiles and which led to Project Azorian. 2601:143:C501:F6A0:D1FA:9490:6152:993D (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_nuclear_accidents"