Talk:Operation Buster–Jangle

message: Surely not "less than a kilogram"!  Morelikely, "less than a kiloton"...yes?
Basesurge (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Able was a complete fizzle; while it achieved supercriticality and generated a detectable nuclear yield as evidenced by radiation readings, the nuclear yield was less than the yield of the high-explosive trigger; all sources I've seen list it as a yield of "less than two pounds" or "less than one kilogram," citing the official report on the test series, which lists it in metric measure.  Rdfox 76 (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, then cite a source. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How about , which actually lists it as "<1 lb"?  Rdfox 76 (talk) 22:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Added citations for facts of events in various lists/reports/compilations, many of which copy each other. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Able yield 

message: What happened to the soldiers who were exposed to the radiation? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Added reference that answers question. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard it estimated that the average dosage of radiation to the soldiery in Operation Desert Rock I-VIII was a loss of potentially the last three months of their lives due to cancer.  Obviously this means some would have an early cancer than would loose them, say, 20-30 years, while about 100 of his companions have no loss at all. SkoreKeep (talk) 06:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The soldiers 

message: Johnuniq found a typo in the venting from the Dog shot, "3.1MkCi".  The correct value is "3.1MCi" which is what he corrected it to, and that value is verified correct at http://www.cancer.gov/i131/fallout/Chapter2.pdf.  BTW, I need to add that reference to all the applicable tests; that had been overlooked.  It will be done tonight.  Thanks, johnuniq.  SkoreKeep (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Dog

message: The table on this page and the contents of any nuclear tests infobox are generated from a database of nuclear testing which I have maintained and researched for a number of years. The table is automatically generated from that database by a Visual Basic script, and then has, periodically, been inserted into the page manually. I began doing this in October of 2013.
Recently a user complained (politely) to me about the practice.  It seems to him that it removes control from all editors besides myself over the content.  He believes it is tantamount to WP:OWNED of the pages affected.  He also points out that there is no public mention of the fact anywhere on wikipedia, and that is true, through my own oversight, until now.
There was no intent that the pages affected should be owned by myself; in fact, one of my reasons for building these pages was to solicit (in the wikipedia way) criticism and corrections to the data, perhaps additional references that I had been unable to locate. I have regenerated the tables twice in the days since they were originally placed.  Each time I did so, I performed a diff between the current version and the version that I put up in the previous cycle; all corrections were then either entered into the database or corrected in the programming, as appropriate.  As may be guessed, the programming corrections were frequent to start out as suggestions about the table formatting were raised, and most incorporated. I have not made judgements on the "usefulness" of corrections; all have been incorporated, or I have communicated directly with the editor to settle the matter.  In fact it was in pursuing such a correction that this matter came up.
I am posting this comment on the Talk page of every page containing content which is so generated. If you would like to comment on this matter, please go to the copy on Talk:List of nuclear tests so the discussion can be kept together.  I will also be placing a maintained template on each Talk page (if anyone would like also to be named as a maintainer on one or all pages, you are welcome). I solicit all comments and suggestions.
SkoreKeep (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: The table on this page is generated by database

message: The article says personnel experienced an average radiation dose of 3 “R”. Is that a lot? It links to the article on that unit of measure, but that article just says the unit R is no longer used. Anyhow does anyone know the appropriate unit to use and what 3R is relative to a normal background dose of radiation? Volivaceus (talk) 00:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exposure Dose and Units of Measure