Talk:The Manhattan Project (film)

message: :Image:TheManhattanProjectFilm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:TheManhattanProjectFilm.jpg

message: I removed an entire section (Technical errors).  It was completely uncited and seems in all probability to consist entirely of original research.  I have copied the deleted contents below in italics, in case any of it can be salvaged and reinstated with good references.
:Dr. Mathewson claims that the device would produce a "50-kiloton blast." This is not nearly strong enough to do the kind of damage described. Some of the strategic nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal are capable of yields of up to 475 kilotons, and past warheads were capable of yields exceeding 3000 kilotons. For comparison, the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only a 13- to 16-kiloton weapon.
:Plant life is resilient to the effects of radiation. To find a patch of five leaf clovers, which had presumably been mutated by radioisotopes released during reprocessing, would have been evidence of a catastrophic containment failure. A radiation leak of that magnitude would have been lethal for workers within the facility as well as civilians within the local community.
:Plutonium-239 does not release strong radiation without undergoing fission. The half-life of Pu-239 is  years. Therefore the timer on the device could not have been negatively affected by the release of radiation.
:The Plutonium alloy depicted in the film is 99.997% pure which means the remainder is 0.003% Plutonium-240. Weapons-grade plutonium has around 7% Pu-240 contaminant and can be handled safely with thick gloves, GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-10-4.but in the film this ultra-grade plutonium which contains far less Pu-240 is considered extremely "hot" and unsafe.
:Paul refers to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as a nuclear bomb factory. Although ORNL is a United States Department of Energy laboratory, and one of the original Manhattan Project sites, it is not focused on nuclear weapons research or manufacturing. The Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, however, would have been a more accurate choice.
Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I removed the trivia section in its entirity. It was mostly uncited and consisted larely of observations of "interesting" aspects of the film. Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: and at the end when Lithgow says "Too many secrets...too many secrets", I was reminded of that same line's use as a catch phrase in Sneakers, when they'd solved the "Setec Astronomy" anagram. Sometime when I get the time, I'm going to have to look at IMDB and see if any of the same writers were involved. That will keep me from adding any original research or trivia.67.142.130.45 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was just watching it again... 

message: I believe that the 'flash' going off at the end doesn't mean it would have failed if they hadn't cut the lines.  The lines were from the flash to the detonators.  That was the whole reason they did it.  Updating that section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flash at end