Talk:1966 Palomares B-52 crash

message: The quote in the Aftermath section includes the phrase "...exposure to ionizing radiation [VA] has denied ore will deny." The word "ore" is clearly a typo but, since no citation is given, there's no way to know whether it should simply be corrected to "or," or should instead be marked [sic] to indicate the original source also contained the typo. If anyone finds and adds the reference, recommend a quick cross-check to address this as well. Alsd2 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Source of Typo?

message: Where in Spain is Palomares? Dan100 (Talk) 10:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the stub, Andalucia. Rich257 12:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: So, why didn't you just change the article? Pjbflynn 04:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: October 2006

message: This is a silly title. All capital letters. The colloquial "H-Bomb". How about something more like "1966 Palomares hydrogen bomb accident" or something along those lines. --24.147.86.187 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The title sucks

message: The empty casings of two of the bombs are on display at the National Atomic Museum in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I have pictures I took on a visit there a few years back, and would be happy to add them if folks would like.Plumbob78 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fantastic. Thanks, --Asteriontalk 18:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I put the information on the museum display under it's own heading. I aslo found an article to use as a reference, so the info wouldn't be OR, though the only reputable ones I could find in my search talked about the "fourth bomb" being in a museum. The museum has the casings of both bombs that didn't detonate, however. Plumbob78 20:11, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Pictures?

message: It says that "two detonated on land near the small fishing village of Palomares,". I think two thermonuclear detonations would level a good deal of southern Spain. Should that be disintigrated? Kiwinanday (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It says that the conventional explosives detonated, i.e. non-nuclear. I have edited to make this clearer. Pjbflynn (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Implosion-type nuclear weapons require the precisely-timed (down to nanoseconds) detonation of shaped high explosives. While these high explosives may detonate in an accident like this one, they cannot trigger the nuclear chain-reaction, but would disperse the nuclear material they surround.Pjbflynn (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

text: Yes, but in this case it does seem that the chemical explosives detonated first. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 13:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Detonation?

message: Quoting: "Four days after the accident, the Spanish government stated that "the Palomares incident was evidence of the dangers created by [NATO's] use of the Gibraltar airstrip",   Was this a serious comment?  Surely if either a laden B-52 or KC-135 had tried to take off from Gib, it would have just nosed into the sea a few yards from the end of the (5000') runway?. 160.84.253.241 (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Laden or not, a B-52 would not have operated from a 5,000' runway.  Fighters and lighter bombers carried nukes as well, so the comment was probably related to their operation. Shawn D. (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, both nuclear-armed Shackletons and Buccaneers were operated from Gibraltar, the former carrying nuclear depth bombs, the latter carrying tactical Red Beards, although this would all have been secret at the time. The airfield would have been RAF Gibraltar. IIARC, larger aircraft such as the Vulcan could have got into Gib, but the runway wasn't long enough to fly out again afterwards.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.78.10 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibraltar 

message: Today (April 10th 2008) Spanish press has more news on this subject. The CIEMAT, which is in charge of investigating the site for contaminated remains, has found two trenches dug out in 1.966 which contain contaminated earth. Since the U.S. government agreed in 2006 to pay for the cleaning expenses, they are expected to take care of the removal and transportaion expenses.
I've added this information to the "Recent Events" section, but since I'm useless when it comes to major editing, I've left out the source. Here it is:
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/Espana/halla/zanjas/radiactivas/EE/UU/oculto/Palomares/elpepusoc/20080410elpepisoc_2/Tes  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.128.59.30 (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Events 

message: This article seems to do a good job of covering the accident and the long-term consequences. What I'd say it probably still needs is some coverage of the immediate responses of the U.S. and Spanish governments to the incident (and possibly the Warsaw pact), as well as press coverage and the public response. A few of the details of the decontamination procedure might also be of interest. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on additions 

message: The article implys that the bombs were to be flown from North Carolina, across the atlantic, over europe, past russia, and "back home". So what exactly was the point of the mission? TheHYPO (talk) 01:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Within the historical framework of the Cold War, the constant readiness of nuclear weapons was a form of deterrence. See also Mutual assured destruction. Pjbflynn (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See Operation Chrome Dome Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: I suggest that this article be renamed in accordance with WikiProject Aviation's naming standards to "1966 Palomares B-52 crash".  Socrates2008 (Talk) 05:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. That would be in keeping with the other articles under :Category:Military nuclear incidents.—RJH (talk) 18:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Article name

message: in the article there is a questionmark about when the bobo's swam there for publicity reasons, i actually wonder if it is not fairer to point out that swimming there proofs exactly nothing. It doesn't even matter when after the accident, in fact it is more dangerous to swim there now then shortly after the accident probably (radioactive dust may have reached the sea). 
The breathing might still have been slightly dangerous tho.
What would have proven something if they had taken their diet from palomares for even a month, the place is probably more radioactive then hiroshima, and the contaminants more dangerous, i suspect it were still better to turn it into a ghosttown.24.132.170.97 (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Be that as it may, the article exists to document the actual events, not speculation on their significance. Pjbflynn (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  This 2002 report indicates there was no significant exposure among the residents. I'd be interested to find out if there were any studies made of livestock in the area, since they would tend to concentrate the radioactive materials that made it into the food supply.—RJH (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  swimming 

message: I was stationed at moron air base at the time this happened.i was a fireman.and told to take a water tanker to the crash site.we spent many hours spraying water on hot spots, i can recall spraying homes in the villiage.i wonder about the health of all thoes exposed to the radiation,all we wore was surgical mask.when i left the site they took my docimeter and i never heard from them.i was discharged in december of 1966.would like to hear from anyone that was there at that time,especially about your health.saltcreek1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.185.40 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  HEALTH ISSUES? 

message: I do not have this information firsthand, but I understand from some English people living in Mojácar that the road from Mojácar to Carbonares was constructed by the US (by a large contingent of GIS) because this was necessary to recover the nuclear materials. If true, this could add to this posting. Such information may well be available to US residents under the Freedom of Information Act.  77.208.75.179 (talk) 05:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Road

message: La dehesa nuclear:
:Una infeliz coincidencia, el accidente de Palomares, forzará una paradójica carambola, entre la chatarra nuclear de las bombas de hidrógeno, los técnicos españoles encontrarán los detonadores necesarios.
--Error (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish atomic bomb 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://petra2.ciemat.es/interno/noticias/20041122/00011958.tif
** In 1966 Palomares B-52 crash on 2011-05-25 03:56:12, 404 Not Found
** In 1966 Palomares B-52 crash on 2011-06-06 13:24:25, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/2004/2/2004_2_28.shtml
** In 1966 Palomares B-52 crash on 2011-05-25 03:56:16, 404 Not Found
** In 1966 Palomares B-52 crash on 2011-06-06 13:25:11, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 13:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 2 

message: The article does not make clear whether the B52 was on the outward leg travelling east or on the return leg, travelling west.  The map shows the refuelling areas were over sea but the article says they refuelled over land and, in fact, the collision happened over land with the wreckage and bombs falling to land and only one bomb was carried by the wind out to sea because its parachute deployed. This seems to show the map is in error. GS3 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location, travel direction, map 

message: I notice that epidemiological studies are referred to in the Spanish article on this subject, albeit without references. i would be very interested to know if anyone can find references for such studies. I have searched on PubMed but without any luck.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epidemiological studies 

message: El americans es varen cobrir de glòria perdent una bomba termonuclear sobre la darrera dictadura feixista d'Europa. Potser alguns dels que hi varem estar exposats a l'explosió d'aquest artefacte nuclear no hi teníem res a veure amb el feixisme.  80.24.186.207 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This article from Spanish Wikipedia may shed some light about the text above: Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is disputing (that I'm aware of) that there was a public relations campaign on the part of the United States and the Franco government to reassure residents of their safety. It appears to me that you wish to give this, particularly the Spanish government's efforts, an inappropriately high prominence in the article.  Can you explain why the Franco regime's response (nobody here is likely to argue that they were especially nice or honest) deserves extensive discussion in this article, which is really about an American screw-up? It appears to me that your main intention is to publish your conclusions on a Spanish government conspiracy, rather than appropriately-sourced information that is of direct relevance to the article. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Not neutral article

message: :This article from Spanish Wikipedia may shed some light about the text above: Luisa Isabel Álvarez de Toledo Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is disputing (that I'm aware of) that there was a public relations campaign on the part of the United States and the Franco government to reassure residents of their safety. It appears to me that you wish to give this, particularly the Spanish government's efforts, an inappropriately high prominence in the article.  Can you explain why the Franco regime's response (nobody here is likely to argue that they were especially nice or honest) deserves extensive discussion in this article, which is really about an American screw-up? It appears to me that your main intention is to publish your conclusions on a Spanish government conspiracy, rather than appropriately-sourced information that is of direct relevance to the article. Acroterion (talk) 14:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: The article seems very vague when it comes to the collision itself. The B-52 captain appears to blame the boom operator for not waving him off; the article itself implies that he was going too fast; the boom operator is of course dead; there's nothing about a court of enquiry or any investigation into the crash itself. What caused it? Pilot error, mechanical failure, operational inadequacies, bad luck, poor weather? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC
*Not only that but 
  "The planes collided, with the nozzle of the refueling boom striking the top of the B-52 fuselage, breaking a longeron and snapping off the left wing,[5][6] which resulted in an explosion that was witnessed by a second B-52 about a mile away.[7] All four men on the KC-135 and three of the seven men on the bomber were killed"?
So the refuelling boom struck the top of the B-52s fuselage, which broke a longeron and snapped a wing spar...causing the TANKER to explode? The longeron and spar of which plane? It appears to refer to the B-52 but the explosion took the KC-135. If it was the bomber, then what ignited the fuel? The broken boom leaking? I would also like to know more about the incident. The pilot must have looked away, or there is no way he wouldn't have realized they were on a collision course even without the wave off.
64.222.108.200 (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Collision 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 1966 Palomares B-52 crash. 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/20080226223704/http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04102006-115019/unrestricted/jmm_thesis.pdf to http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-04102006-115019/unrestricted/jmm_thesis.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supsalv.org/pdf/FACEPLATESept06.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hamptonroads.com/node/130671
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091109110145/http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/box7_3.aspx to http://www.brookings.edu/projects/archive/nucweapons/box7_3.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 1966 Palomares B-52 crash. 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://www.webcitation.org/5gX4KoF7z?url=http://www.supsalv.org/pdf/FACEPLATESept06.pdf to http://www.supsalv.org/pdf/FACEPLATESept06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717180344/http://www.usscharlesrwaredd865.com/dd865history.htm to http://www.usscharlesrwaredd865.com/dd865history.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081031001648/http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/jcws.2006.8.1..pdf to http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~hpcws/jcws.2006.8.1..pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:38, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In response to this edit, the original Air Force photo has been moved to this URL, but here's another photo of the same airman, Ben Davis, showing he's prone.  Davemck (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  KC-135 photo 

message: I've changed the article description from B28RI to B28FI. The statement is based on a Wired article, is uncited in the article and contradicts the images shown of the weapons recovered. If you wish to comapre them yourself you can take a look at one of the sources on the B28 nuclear bomb page titled "History of the Mk28". The B28RI has a short blunt nose while the B28FI has a long rounded nose. Kylesenior (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  B28RI to B28FI 

message: From the Weapons recovery section: 
While Jon Lindbergh's entry cites various contemporary publications describing his role in the search effort, none of those sources mention Robert Ballard. I find it unlikely Ballard was involved in any way as he was currently working on his PHD at USC and wouldn't enter active duty until 1967. Unfortunately much of the biographical information in Ballard's entry lacks verifiable sources. 
I think it's likely he was listed here as a result of his strong association with the Alvin submersible later in its service. 
In short: there are no sources cited mentioning Ballard, and the timeline is highly suspect. I'm removing mention of Ballard from this article but leaving Lindbergh.  Michael.j.champlin (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robert Ballard 

message: All measurements are indicated in USC measures first (and Metric in parentheses). That is not how the world works. Why should an article about something that happened in Spain give priority to measurements that no one uses there? SoulWanderer (talk) 09:35, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why do US Customary measures have priority?