Talk:Nuclear weapons testing

message: "United States: As of March 2009, the U.S. is the only nation that compensates nuclear test victims."
Not true; Australia's paid out compensation to victims of the Maralinga tests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_tests_at_Maralinga#Cleanup_and_effects
http://web.archive.org/web/20080719004540/http://www.radioactivewaste.gov.au/Rehabilitation_former_test_sites.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McClelland_Royal_Commission  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.207.176 (talk) 00:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Compensation

message: Might the following be useful? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LLCF7vPanrY
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)
thread_title: Proposed changes

message: Isnt Chernobyl a milestone nuclear explosion, as being the only accidental nuclear explosion? It was the result of a test too, even though it wasnt a weapon Ottawakismet (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It was a steam explosion that happened to occur inside a nuclear reactor, not a nuclear explosion. SkoreKeep (talk) 08:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Milestone Nuclear Explosions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Nothing on the testing done in North/South Dakota prior to Trinity test? Or was this just "dry testing?" 216.215.40.65 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, the Dakotas had nothing to do with the Manhattan Project - no testing, no role in manufacturing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkoreKeep (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Dry-nuclear" testing 

message: 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)
thread_title: History section

message: 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)
thread_title: Enviromental Impact

message: I don't suppose there are any images of nuclear explosions taken from space, are there? TerraFrost 05:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Satellites didn't exist or were extremely primitive when the vast majority of atmospheric tests were carried out in the late 1950's and early '60's. However, there was the Vela Incident, which didn't involve an image, but is intriguing. See also Smiling Buddha, the 1974 Indian test, but it came as a surprise to nearly everybody.Acroterion (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  images of nuclear tests taken from space? 

message: there should definitely be a video of a nuke explosion on this page... can someone help???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.171.103 (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Video???

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: US could not test "anywhere they wanted to in the West". They had no territories or possessions in Africa. They did in the Pacific. If the US had access to the Sahara for testing, maybe they would have, like France. But they didn't. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why United States didn't test their atomic weapons in Africa in the 1950s and early 1960s? 

message: Why on earth is iran showing off its nuclear power by the several "tests"? Is this just an to show the US?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.82.166 (talk) 15:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  And why is Iran butting in? 

message: I don't know what the policy is for a movie as a first image but I think it is a bad idea:
#. It's really not that attractive 
#. It doesn't convey ANY information unless you are willing to sit through the entire thing
#. This particular movie is not representative of nuclear testing at all. It is from one of the rare times that the US really did dedicated effects/civil defense related testing. 
I think a better image ought to be chosen. Put the video of the test somewhere in the article body if it must be displayed. But don't just pick a video for its own sake—pick the best image. Pick something that is instantly striking and conveys a lot of information specifically related to the topic. Pick something that doesn't require people clicking any buttons or waiting for anything to load to get something out of it.
As it currently stands this makes the article look really amateurish.  --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movie as first image 

message: Where is the Exoatmospheric section?? The picture describes 4 types of tests, and the section only talks about 3 of them, with no mention of exoatmospheric tests. Kevinmon (talk) 15:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exoatmospheric 

message: I recently added a section on Nuclear Testing Treaties, as it was missing from the article. Please leave feedback, and add anything.
Fludd12 (talk) 00:12, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Added list of international treaties that I researched. Additions/edits welcome, as always. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuclear Testing Treaties 

message: I don't like editing articles, but maybe someone who knows what they're doing can do it, or find some info.  New Zealand pays a pension to those involved in testing who had symptoms, and deaths associated.  I can't backup my claims with a link, only that my step fathers mother gets payments for it, as his father died of a brain tumour associated with the testing.  He was a navy man.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.209.25 (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  NZ Compensation 

message: In the British testing section the article refers testing at Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean. This is incorrect. There were never any tests at this island. The British tests at Christmas Island were at the other Christmas Island in the Pacific Ocean, the one now belonging to Kiribati, and now spelled Kiritimati. I have amended this in the article. Ptilinopus (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas Island incorrectly identified 

message: Subcritical testing is not even nuclear testing in the sense meant by this article, and yet it takes up several screen lengths with a list of some US subcritical tests. These should be moved to another page, and this section should certainly not be *above* the discussions of actual nuclear testing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.109.33.28 (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subcritical testing list too long 

message: Comes Ar2332 adding in a study that claims that up to 460,000 Americans have died prematurely as a result of atomic testing.  I've read a part of the referenced article but at this point it is Mr. Meyers own unreviewed opinion.  The paper is done partially under NSF funding, but apparently is largely Mr. Meyers own work, not reviewed and published in the literature, and as stated on the front page, his "current version".  There are no other authors.  Mr. Meyers is a doctoral candidate in economics at U of Arizona. I believe we need this paper to be vetted by others in the field before such a conclusion can be dropped into this Wikipedia page.  SkoreKeep (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreliable source in its current form. Binksternet (talk) 20:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing killed 400,000 Americans? 

message: The largest nuclear weapon ever tested was the "Tsar Bomba" of the Soviet Union at Novaya Zemlya on October 30, 1961...</br>
Why is the American date format used? Is this a case of Russophobic racism? The article is on an international topic, not a domestic American one.</br>
Also, could the number of Soviet atmospheric/underground/space tests be specified?--Adûnâi (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Being just a little paranoid, aren't you?  Go ahead and edit it to what a Real Russian (or whatever an internationalist would use, whoever he is) would expect if you find it alarming; that's what Wikipedia is for.  I personally don't know what specific format the Russian (or this international) language would use since I use a military format. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Best not to change one instance of the date format.  The whole article uses the U.S. date convention.  Hard to see this as a real issue. NPguy (talk) 17:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Soviet Union - the date format and the number of atmospheric tests 

message: The article says "It was therefore decided that one kiloton would be equivalent to 10×10^12 calories..."
This appears to be both incorrect (cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_equivalent#Kiloton_and_megaton) and a misquote of the supplied reference - should be 1.0×10^12 cal.
I haven't had much luck in editing entries directly, so if this correction is itself correct, perhaps someone more capable could help.
Cteno (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yield section: order-of-magnitude error? 

message: Both the US and Russia have now withdrawn from the Open Skies Treaty, but the list of treaties on the page still shows it as in effect.  Is it still considered to be in effect when the two most consequential signatories are no longer?  Maybe add a note or something indicating what happened.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labtec901 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treaty on Open Skies - Might need to be updated 

message: — Assignment last updated by SapientiaMundus (talk) 14:52, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

message: I believe the table at Alternatives to full-scale testing is missing a U.S. test, possibly containing no plutonium, that was conducted on or about October 18 . It's notable as it's characterized as a nuclear test by Russian deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov . ☆ Bri (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't believe everything the Russians say!  This was a chemical explosive test. NPguy (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that too. But that doesn't make it less true that the Russian foreign minister spoke about it. Also, other reports said something about "radioisotopes"  (radiological tracers maybe, or material related to boosted nuclear fission), which challenges the statement that there was purely HE involved. ☆ Bri (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That helped me find the official statement about this test.  This statement makes clear that it was not a test of nuclear weapons technology, but of technology to detect nuclear explosive tests.  Which would mean that it doesn't fit into that "alternatives" section.  Might be worth a mention somewhere, particularly given the coincidence in timing with Russia's withdrawal of ratification. NPguy (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2023 test