Talk:List of military nuclear accidents

message: 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.https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1706/ML17061A327.pdf#page=190 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.'https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1706/ML17061A327.pdf#page=190 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)
thread_title:  Pawling, NY incident not military 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Dummy warheads

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

message: In case anyone wants to put together a list of minor incidents in the future,  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."  notes none have ever been lost. Shimgray | talk | 14:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor incidents, UK 

message: :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)
thread_title:  contradictory one 

message: 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  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)
thread_title: Leipzig L-IV atomic pile accident

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  1950s events that don't belong in the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Format proposal 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is included now... Enemenemu (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost hydrogen bomb May 22, 1957 in Albuquerque, NM  

message: Can someone find a more NPOV source, rather than quoting a Holocaust denial website?--Lastexpofan (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was refering to link #1 (the fpp site.)--Lastexpofan (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust denial website 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nevada Test Site accidents 

message: 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)
replies: text: That incident is already on the list. Nailedtooth (talk) 02:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Palomares incident 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1985 and 2008 UK coolant water leaks 

message: Stop adding entries that involve no verified radioactive contamination. Jtrainor (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attention editors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Add K-129 to the list? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Leipzig, 1942

message: Why no mention of the 1997 and 1963 incerdents at Arzamas-16?
*http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1997RUS1.html
*http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1963USSR1.html
©Geni 23:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Arzamas-16

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nothing since 2003? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chernobyl dual purpose 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removed items 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of military nuclear accidents. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090512111428/http://www.dailycamera.com:80/news/2009/may/10/rocky-flats-1969-fire-plutonium-denver-boulder/ to http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/may/10/rocky-flats-1969-fire-plutonium-denver-boulder/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120929074854/http://www.unm.edu/~bgreen/ME360/Rocky%20Flats%20Colorado.pdf to http://www.unm.edu/~bgreen/ME360/Rocky%20Flats%20Colorado.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080821113933/http://www.rmpjc.org/system/files/RF+case+to+jury_Moore+1-06.pdf to http://www.rmpjc.org/system/files/RF+case+to+jury_Moore+1-06.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080914002703/http://iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/europe/journal.php to http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/09/11/europe/journal.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bellona.org/english_import_area/international/russia/civilian_nuclear_vessels/icebreakers/30131
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/may/10/rocky-flats-1969-fire-plutonium-denver-boulder/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.unm.edu/~bgreen/ME360/Rocky%20Flats%20Colorado.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rmpjc.org/system/files/RF%2Bcase%2Bto%2Bjury_Moore%2B1-06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051222173316/http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1 to http://www.billingsgazette.com/index.php?id=1&display=rednews%2F2005%2F06%2F03%2Fbuild%2Fnation%2F94-contamination.inc
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thememoryhole.org/nukes/mod-nuke-accidents.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060222055940/http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/neap1.htm to http://www.world-nuclear.org/education/ne/neap1.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdi.org/Issues/NukeAccidents/accidents.htm
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) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added  tag to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/nh4_1.gif
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100528154819/http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/21.pdf to http://www.dod.gov/pubs/foi/reading_room/21.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) 12:10, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lost B-36 on February 13, 1950 

message: 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)
thread_title:  P5M loss in September 1959 

message: Please add this Soviet submarine K-320--SXe 92 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet submarine K-320 1970 

message: 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)
thread_title:  K-129