Talk:Enewetak Atoll

message: I'm quite astonished at the amount of impressive technical expertise that has been rendered in the article directly solely to examination of the minutiae of nuclear blasts, and secondarily, the recapitulation of historical data of WWII and the testing era. However, both in the article and in TALK, the issue of climate change and rising seas has been totally ignored to date. Effects of global warming on oceans. Isn't it about time that the science turns its attention to the what the annual .3 mm/yr annual rise in sea levels might predict for the future of Enewetak? Will the billions spent on restoration of the islands' environment so that parts might become somewhat habitable, sink slowly beneath the waves? Activist (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Climate change and effects on the atoll

message: Eniwetok is the name under which Wikipedia readers will be looking for this article. --Wetman 08:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: "Technically a Spanish colony, Enewetak was not known to Europeans until visited in 1794 by the British merchant sloop Walpole...."
This statement makes no sense. If it was a Spanish colony, it was known to Europeans. If it was not known to Europeans, how could it be a Spanish colony? Perhaps the intention was, "...was not known to *other* Europeans..."? When and how did it become a Spanish colony? 
What was the population when it was evacuated for nuclear testing?
Could someone with a reference please clarify this?
I can Clarify to you, The name of this is "black legend" some people, even today, want to manipulate history when involves Spain. Just study a bit and you will realize what the real true is. Did you notice that in "Columbus day" there are only italian flags and not one from the country that discover America? And how important is to prove that Columbus is italian, but not so important that was a spanish expedition? It´s jus a small example.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.236.60 (talk) 02:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand 

message: I have uploaded the following additional imagery, in addition to what is in use for this article.
All of this is NASA imagery.  EO-1 imagery presents the best quality and has the least cloud cover, however the image size is such that two images had to be stitched together which is not ideal.
Additionally, we have some Landsat 7 imagery, which does capture everything in a single frame.  However, despite being the single-best Landsat image of Enewetak Atoll without scanline artifacts in the entire archive (yes, I looked at them all), the cloud cover was still quite significant.
The final consideration lies in false-color IR vs. visible spectrum.  I went with false-color IR to very clearly show the distinction between the islands and the nearby atoll that is underwater.
Overall I thought that the EO-1 image, despite the annoying stitching, was the best choice, but if anyone disagrees the alternatives are shown here for your consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Разрывные (talk • contribs) 05:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imagery 

message: Much of the text regarding "Cactus dome" in version 520769465 of this article was closely paraphrased from the book Terror Within by Roger W. Marshall (p. 61). That text has been removed and replaced with new text and better citations. - Tim1965 (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cactus Dome 

message: The Lat/Lon given in the article is incorrect (it is apparently for Bikini). It should be:  Latitude 11D 28min, Longitude 162D 15min  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedcampbell (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latitude/Longitude  

message: The Lat/Lon given in the article is incorrect (it is apparently for Bikini). It should be:  Latitude 11D 28min, Longitude 162D 15min
- Ted A. Campbell 
Tedcampbell (talk) 12:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latitude/Longitude  

message: I think I understand what the summary table is trying to say, but the "Total Yield" column is inconsistent and may confuse readers. If I've got it right, the entries for each series of tests give the total yield for that series, whether or not they were conducted in or near Enewetak (e.g. 48 megatons for the Castle series.) But the final entry, with the total over all the test series gives 31.8 megatons. So that's clearly excluding tests which weren't conducted near Enewetak. In contrast, in the "Count" column the numbers for each series do add up to the figure given in the final (total) row. It would be clearer if the numbers were revised or some clarifying text were added, but I'd prefer to leave that to someone more familiar with those series of tests. If I did it myself, I'd probably make a mistake; I'm not even sure what "near" the atoll means in this context. Fcrary (talk) 00:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent inconsistency in List of nuclear tests at Eniwetok section 

message: The two large craters on the north reef are Mike and Hardtack Koa not Castle Nectar which was shot in Mike crater 65.102.101.3 (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mike Crater is joined by Koa