Slashdot Mirror


Radioactive Snails Crawl Up From Beneath

slidersv writes "Reuters is reporting discovery of radioactive snails in the area where three hydrogen bombs were lost by US in the 1966. The radioactive creatures crawl up from underground, where authorities suspect deposits of uranium and plutonium may be located."

86 of 397 comments (clear)

  1. Radio-Cochlear Overlords by P(0)(!P(k)+P(k+1)) · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Jokes about radio-cochlear overlords aside, two things come to mind:

    • If we don't survive nuclear holocaust: what creatures, more robust than we, will? (Reminds me of the thriving Chernobylian fauna.)
    • What ungodly mutations must an organism undergo to thrive therein?
    If the future is bleak for humanity, it may be less so for simpler, more robust organisms.
    1. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by TapeCutter · · Score: 5, Funny

      "If the future is bleak for humanity, it may be less so for simpler, more robust organisms."

      As George Carlin once said: "It's not the planet that needs saving, it's us!"

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by RsG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, IIRC, humans have a very low radiation tolerance. Some of the characteristics that serve us well in other areas are counterproductive for surviving radiation.

      For example, we hit reproductive maturity late. This means that the time period in which we might be subject to radiation damage, but can't start breeding yet, is longer. Say hello to sterility and genetic damage! We're omnivores at the top of the food chain, so irradiation of plant and animal life can work it's way up to us more easily, either by subjecting us to contaminated food, or to starvation if food sources die out. We're social animals, so we do not do as well when our numbers take a hit - individual humans can't survive alone as well as other animals. Our life expectancy is fairly long, so the likelyhood of getting cancer is higher in humans than in most other species, since cancer takes time to develop.

      All of the above means that biologically we're particularly vulnerable to fallout. Culturally we're also reluctant to subject ourselves to risk - a 1 in 100 rate of radiation damage would be too high for humans to consider safe, and too small to affect most other species. Most animals in the wild don't live long enough to have to worry about cancer, and it takes an awful lot more radiation in the short term to aflict them with radiation poisoning or sterility.

      In fact, in the case of the Chernobyl life, we evacuated low radiation areas where the lack of human presense is doing more good than the radiation is doing harm - either the animals are more resistant than us, or they are suffering losses to radiation that we would consider dangerous, but that local life doesn't especially notice.

      Basically what it boils down to is that nuclear accidents and nuclear weapons are a larger problem for mankind than for the rest of the planet. I've always thought of radiation as more of a safety hazard than an environmental one.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    3. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by Loconut1389 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While not about radioactivity, this is related.

      Funny enough, I was microwaving a bowl of soup yesterday and some sort of gnat-like bug flew in as I was shutting the door and I didn't notice until I saw it flying around while the microwave was running. For several minutes it just kept buzzing around like nothing bothered it at all. My only other experience with microwaved creatures was when I was young and a rather large spider (tarantula size) that had had me hunting my room for hours was finally caught- suffice it to say, he didn't fare nearly as well in the microwave. For the record I've not nuked anything else (poodles for instance) since. Anyway, as this little gnat buzzed around, I wondered how he could possibly survive in that environment.

      Sometimes, against all odds, things survive where they shouldn't, and for no apparent reason. The miracle of life?

    4. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by cyclomedia · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another thing to add to the factors you mention is that when humans' offspring are not quite, shall we say, perfect. We do our damndest to save them, be it an emergency cesarean to save mother and baby both or via ongoing operations and treatments afterwards. The reason that so many seemingly health animals are seen hopping around Chernobyl could well be down to survival-of-the-fittest, radio-mutant embryos having been quickly aborted and another mating attempt made.

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
    5. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by ozmanjusri · · Score: 2, Informative
      The miracle of life?

      The physics of microwaves.

      The wavelength of your average microwave oven is about 1.2mm, so anything smaller than that can stay cool. Microwaves area also unevenly spread throughout the oven so there are areas where your gnat could have flown and not been affected.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    6. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by M1FCJ · · Score: 3, Informative

      Typical microwave oven wavelength is about 12.2cm. You are two orders of magnitudes wrong. A typical microwave owen operates around 2.45GHz. Handy calculator for such stuff and more info at wikipedia. Last time I looked at my microwaveable pop-corn, the corns were definitely smaller than 12cm.

    7. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by rtyall · · Score: 5, Funny

      Lets hope noone gets bitten by one of these suckers, then we'll have to put up with "Snailman" who can do anything that a snail can.
      Cue very slow W 0 0 T.

    8. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's not survival of the fittest..

      The animals that survived clearly did so because they were more intelligently designed.

      (Apologies to the person who made this comment last time around)

    9. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If god made humans in his image, does that mean he is also a weakling?

    10. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He had a bad mirror.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    11. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The reason is that the ratio of surface area to volume for a small insect is very high, so they lose heat very quickly to the surrounding air (which, of course, the microwave doesn't heat).

    12. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe the planet just wants plastic all to itself?

      --
      Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    13. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually we're a lot more resistant that is commonly believed.

      In the 60's they worked out how much radiation damage was caused by things like hiroshima and basically worked out our tolerance by drawing a straight line on a graph.

      The problem is chernobyl has shown that it isn't a straight line at all - at low-medium radiation exposure we are quite hardy - just as resistant as the animals around us (as you would expect - there's nothing 'special' about humans that would make us especially vulnerable). Predicted mutations/cancers for those who live in the affected areas isn't anywhere near what the simplistic graph would predict... in fact it's barely above the background.

    14. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by famebait · · Score: 5, Interesting
      If we don't survive nuclear holocaust: what creatures, more robust than we, will

      Or more importantly, in a fight, who would win:
      • Radiocative snails
      • Sharks with frickin lasers on their heads
      Mod "Interesting" for snails, "Informative" for sharks.
      --
      sudo ergo sum
    15. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by RsG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IIRC, what you're talking about is the theory that low levels of radiation are dealt with fully by cellular repair mechanisms up to a certain threshold, which makes perfect sense if you think about it. The older linear model of radiation exposure assumes that nothing can repair the damage caused by exposure, which ignores the fact we've been dealing with low levels of background radiation for all of our evolutionary history.

      But that isn't restricted to humans. Background radiation is pervasive, and every form of life would have to develop some mechanism to deal with it. People are still more vulnerable than average for the reasons I listed in the GP; it just turns out we're probably able to tolerate low levels better than we used to believe.

      The basic point I was trying to make was that a major nuclear accident, or war, would have far worse implications for humans (and other long lived apex predators) than for the rest of life on earth. What would be a disasterous level of fallout for us would be far less serious for animals that breed faster, or live shorter lives, or are otherwise in a good position to deal with the aftermath.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    16. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by Gulthek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No matter how many times I repeat this, there are always more of you that don't "get it".

      Evolution is NOT thwarted by allowing "weak" individuals to live. Evolution takes place when those better fit for reproducing reproduce *more* over the long term.

      Evolution is not a progression towards a perfect being, it is a reaction to changing environmental stresses. You cannot stop it, it's not a Plan, it's just the mathematics of breeding played out over millennia.

      Evolution depends on a varied gene pool to be able to pull new traits from. Removing any genes, even "bad" genes, from that tool box LIMITS the capability of our species to evolve. Taking your example to the extreme: kill off all genetic strains of humanity until you are left with a single "strongest" line. Now severely change the environment. The "strongest" is suddenly at a big disadvantage and our species, lacking any other lines to draw from, quickly becomes extinct.

      How can so many of you people get this stuff so wrong? It's not like what I'm describing is a deep arcane mystery. It's obvious to anyone who spends more than two minutes considering how evolution works.

    17. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by EQ · · Score: 2, Informative

      Answer to you question: Nothing.

      DU isnt regular uranium, learn the science, not the hype. There has been a study done on the effects of DU ammunition. The UNEP report concluded in 2001 and found that the hazards are minimal. The most significant hazard seems to be that someone will pick up a round and keep it in close proximity of their person for an extended period of time.

      The interesting thing about the DU 'debate' is that most of the people who have done scientific studies on the DU will say 'it's not particularly dangerous, but there are so many factors involved, we can't be 100% sure' while the anti-DU activists always seem to have absolute certainty about their data despite it being based on shoddy papers by undergrads in unralted fields (geology instead of physics, for instance).

      Bottom line is that DU is DEPLETED, and is about as radioactive as common dirt and as hazardous as any other heavy metal, like lead. You wouldn't want to make pipes or plates or silverware out of it, but other than that its simply not as "radioactive" as you make it out to be.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo! http://goo.gl/J9bkO
    18. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by RsG · · Score: 5, Informative

      Eh, I wouldn't worry about DU's radioactivity. I'd worry about its toxicity.

      After all, the stuff barely gives off radiation, and what it does emit is alpha particles, so what you really have to worry about is getting it into your system (it can't irradiate you through your skin). And if you do ingest/inhale it, you've got far worse things to worry about than radiation damage - heavy metal poisoning is far more likely.

      What I don't get is why DU gets all the bad press, and white phosphorous, lead and napalm don't. Hell, if you want to look at the really nasty stuff left over after a war ends, landmines beat all of the above. Why does it only become "nasty" when it's got the slightest hint of radioactivity? Oh right, because it's that evil nucular stuff, so it must be worse... somehow.

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    19. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by zimus · · Score: 3, Funny
      There has been a study done on the effects of DU ammunition. The UNEP report concluded in 2001 and found that the hazards are minimal.
      Actually DU shells are quite hazardous when they are flying through the air on their towards your person and/or vehicle. But aside from that, they're perfectly safe.
      --
      Is your terror cell living in terror? Is your safe-house not so safe? If so, read the New York Times, the jihad journal.
    20. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mod the parent post as "troll" if you think cockroaches will win, possibly with radioactivity and/or cranial mounted laser beams.

    21. Re:Radio-Cochlear Overlords by pluther · · Score: 3, Informative
      "Learn the science not the hype" is always good advice.

      But it implies learning the science, rather than just believing what you've been told by a different source that the science is.

      Depleted Uranium is certainly more radioactive than common dirt. According to the UNEP report which you referenced, and of which a summary can be found on the WHO web site Depleted Uranium "is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass." It's no use in current reactors, though we've been stockpiling it since the 50's for use in some future reactors which could make use of it. So far, none have, but it's still theoretically possible.

      According to a pamphlet the US Army published for its troops back in the early 90's, DU can be relatively safe to handle, if all proper precautions are taken.

      Unfortunately, I can't find the pamphlet right now, but, some of the interesting bits from it:

      DU radiation is almost completely Alpha, with very little Beta, and no Gamma radiation. What this means is that it's very easy to block the radiation. A good lead-based paint (such as those used over the DU tank armor) is 100% effective. If the paint gets scratched (as tanks tend to do), covering the exposed area with duct tape will be safe enough.

      It also recommends treatment for DU wounds, including making sure the wound is completely cleaned, and passing a geiger counter over the area to make sure everything was taken out.

      The radiation in this case makes it actually safer, as it makes it easier to find, including areas sprayed with microscopic bits, as it has a tendency to powder if it passes through, say, steel.

      The dusting is what makes it particularly dangerous to civilians: it passes through tanks on the battlefield, gets powdered, dissolves in rain, sinks into the ground, contaminates crops, and never goes away.

      Uranium, whether depleted or not, is also highly toxic, on the level of arsenic, so it's not good to get into the bloodstream. (Of course, being shot with DU bullets will probably kill you long before you have to worry about it's poisonous effects.)

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
  2. Oh no by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine all the stupid giant mutant nuke-spewing snail movies this will inspire. Bruce Willis versus ..... slime?

    1. Re:Oh no by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny
      I'm sure the Sci-Fi Original Movie is already in production.

      Snails on a Plane?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    2. Re:Oh no by Ridcully · · Score: 5, Funny

      The movie will be like "Them!" only much, much slower...

  3. *Must* *resist*.... by EachLennyAPenny · · Score: 2, Funny

    I for one welcome our radioactive overlords... Sorry, i tried.

    1. Re:*Must* *resist*.... by aalu.paneer · · Score: 5, Funny
      "...Crawl Up From Beneath"

      Shouldn't this now be 'our radioactive underlords'

      --
      where did my sig go? where's my sig at?
    2. Re:*Must* *resist*.... by alienmole · · Score: 2, Funny
      Damn. Wanted to say the same thing... which led me to thinking: How long is this joke going to be stretched, and how long will it still be funny?
      I, for one, welcome our overlord-joke-stretching overlords.
  4. The French.... by Revenge_of_Solver_Ta · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...are gonna git them some good eatin' now... Escarglow!

    1. Re:The French.... by gardyloo · · Score: 2, Funny

      J'accuse! I surrender to your wit.

  5. Lame and overused joke extravaganza by Redlazer · · Score: 3, Funny
    I, for one, welcome our radioactive snail overloads.

    Clearly, they are in cahoots with the giant bug that was found on Google Maps, not too long ago.

    Also, I understand they are radioactive...

    But do they run Linux?

    On a more serious note, I find this fascinating - radioactivity is one of the least understood and possibly most useful sciences in the world.

    -Red

    --
    Guns don't kill people, "with glowing hearts" kills people.
  6. It eats you, starting with your bottom by Kris_J · · Score: 2

    Isn't this not so much a non-story, as a story fragement, or story-ette, that's too small (or too specfic) to expect anyone to make comments other movie and TV references? Sounds like Quickie-fodder to me.

  7. Re:Holy fucking shit by EachLennyAPenny · · Score: 5, Funny

    > How the fuck do you lose a goddamn hydrogen bomb?
    Maybe it was packed into the same box as the moon landing videos.

  8. Re:Holy --deleted-- by robbak · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sigh. From the article:
    three U.S. hydrogen bombs fell by accident 40 years ago may trigger a new joint U.S.-Spanish clean-up operation, officials said on Wednesday.

    The hydrogen bombs fell near the fishing village of Palomares in 1966 after a mid-air collision between a bomber and a refuelling craft, in which seven of 11 crewmen died.

    --
    Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
  9. Just one little word of advice by grcumb · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you're in Tokyo right now...

    RUN FOR YOUR LIFE!!

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    1. Re:Just one little word of advice by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Funny

      It should take the snails about 2000 years to reach Tokyo. Unless they hitch a ride on a plane or something ("Snakes on a plane 2: Snails on a plane". You heard it here first!). So there's no rush. Yet. Assuming that the radioactivity didn't mutate them so that they can reach slithering-speeds of up to 200mph

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
  10. And what about Thule? by jginspace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I thought the TFA might be talking about the crash of the B52 in Thule. This incident refers to a 1966 crash in Spain whereas the Thule incident happened in 1968.

    Perhaps scientists should check out the Thule site for similar happenings? More here: http://www.semp.us/biots/biot.php?biotID=5 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/low/dates/stories/ january/28/newsid_2506000/2506207.stm

  11. Re:Holy fucking shit by ricardo_nz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not so much 'lost' as misplaced: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palomares

  12. I for one by JanneM · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one will be happy to welcome our radioactive slime-spouting overlords.

    In, oh, just over twenty years, which is the time it'll take for the snails to crawl from Spain to menace Tokyo (which, as we all know, is the ultimate goal of everything radioactive, oversize or alien in this world).

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
    1. Re:I for one by Chaffar · · Score: 4, Funny
      In, oh, just over twenty years, which is the time it'll take for the snails to crawl from Spain to menace Tokyo
      The distance between Spain and Japan is 10705.50 km. Knowing that a garden snail moves at around 0.013 m/s, this would mean that it would take him 823 500 000 seconds to cover, or around 9531 days (26+ years). So we can see that your initial projection of just over twenty years was bang-on ! I can't wait for 2032 :D
    2. Re:I for one by ronaldb64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      How about Escargodzilla?

      --
      There's no place like 127.0.0.1
  13. Re:Holy fucking shit by the.Ceph · · Score: 4, Informative

    It ends up they basically found them after and detonated them which spread uranium and plutonium in the soil hence radioactive snails. But the summary definetly made it sound like the snails were the least of our problems.

  14. My Favorite TV Show by JimZim · · Score: 3, Funny

    Teenage Mutant Ninja...Snails?

  15. Snail Jokes by ExploHD · · Score: 5, Funny

    If anyone post anymore snail jokes, they will be slugged.

    1. Re:Snail Jokes by hcdejong · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was going to say that, but you beat me to it. I'm feeling a little sluggish today.

  16. Re:Holy fucking shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    "How the fuck do you lose a goddamn hydrogen bomb?"

    Uh, you crash a plane containing hydrogen bombs.

    Technically, none of the bombs were "lost". The B-52 that crashed (due to a collision with a mid-air refueling tanker) carried 4 B28 1.1 megaton thermonuclear bombs. One of the bombs landed intact in the ocean, another landed intact on land, both were recovered. The parachutes on the other two bombs failed to deploy and their conventional high explosive charges went off when they hit the ground. Thankfully, the safety systems of the bombs prevented a nuclear explosion, but the conventional explosions nevertheless distributed a large quantity of radioactive bomb guts over a wide area (thus the contamination problems mentioned).

    P.S. RTFA. UTFI (Use The F'ing Internet).

  17. Abdication of responsibility? by Travoltus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why should Spain pay for part of the clean-up? It was our mess. We should be cleaning it up. Either the military goes in and fixes it, or we taxpayers foot it.

    When I was a kid, I was raised to clean up the mess I made, not entangle everyone else (financially) into the task. I broke a window, I worked it off.

    It's all about responsibility...

    --
    --- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
    1. Re:Abdication of responsibility? by Barnoid · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why should Spain pay for part of the clean-up? It was our mess. We should be cleaning it up. Either the military goes in and fixes it, or we taxpayers foot it.


      From TFA: The governments have yet to agree on who would pay for a clean up, according to a U.S. embassy spokesman in Spain.
      ...

      Since 1966, the United States has helped pay for Palomares residents to be checked for signs of radiation poisoning.


      Well, at least they are still talking about it. Even though I generally disagree with US foreign policy, in this case, it seems that there's not (yet) much to complain about.
    2. Re:Abdication of responsibility? by RealGrouchy · · Score: 2
      Either the military goes in and fixes it, or we taxpayers foot it.


      Psst: the military is paid for by taxes.

      Just thought you'd like to know that.

      - RG>
      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    3. Re:Abdication of responsibility? by cocotoni · · Score: 2, Informative

      Bzzzzzt!

      Spain was not member of NATO in '66. Spain only joined NATO after democratization in '82.

      It's like people that think that Hawaii was part of US in time of Pearl Harbor.

    4. Re:Abdication of responsibility? by tgv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As stated before, Spain was not in NATO at that time. And NATO does not have any control over nuclear weapons: the US has it.

      If some oil carrier spilled a large part of its cargo somewhere, say Alaska, would you say that the people living there should pay for the cleaning? After all, it was there for the good of these people as well and they knew the risks living near the coast...

  18. Why were they flying nuclear bombs around in 1966? by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'm not really good at history, so I'm wondering if someone could explain why in 1966 the Americans had B-52 bombers flying over Spain carrying 4 nuclear bombs.

    Was this some kind of pre-emptive strike plan?

    We're ICBMs not so good back then?

    It seems to me that if you could damage and capture one of these planes, you could lay your hands on 4 nuclear bombs. Something that would be a bit of a security risk.

    --
    Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
  19. Re:Why were they flying nuclear bombs around in 19 by Spookticus · · Score: 4, Funny

    They were trying to get rid of the spanish inquisition before monty python showed up

  20. Re:Holy fucking shit by melchoir55 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This situation is the result of what is now popularly known as a "broken arrow". A nuclear weapons accident that does not produce the risk of nuclear war. The weapon (a missing weapon on the nuclear scale)would actually be known as an "empty quiver".

    As reported by wikipedia, there are currently 11 such weapons known to be missing from the United States arsenal. It should be noted that these weapons are not the pitiful 1-5 kiloton weapons that Korea is detonating. It is likely they are 10+ megaton city-killers.

    All that being said, I wouldn't worry too much about the situation. Anyone (or anything) with the capability to decipher how to actually set one of these missing weapons off is most likely nothing short of a country. Countries with nuclear weapons aren't something terribly dangerous, due to nuclear deterrance (MAD).
    Add to that the fact that the US is unable to find these weapons (Some are presumed destroyed or at least damaged beyond repair)and I find it much less likely these will be a threat than, say, the car that passes by me when I walk to school.

  21. Re:Why were they flying nuclear bombs around in 19 by RsG · · Score: 3, Informative
    It seems to me that if you could damage and capture one of these planes, you could lay your hands on 4 nuclear bombs. Something that would be a bit of a security risk.
    Who'd want to? In 1966 the bad guys were the USSR, and they didn't need another piddling 4 nukes when they already had thousands. Plus downing a nuclear-armed bomber without anyone noticing or retaliating would have been difficult.

    As for why it was there, the US had plenty of nukes in western Europe, with the idea that if a war broke out, those bombs would be headed into Russia. Where this particular plane was going I do not know, but it wasn't alone or out of place over Spain.
    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  22. Who lost them? by Solo-Malee · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess the same guy lost these that lost the Apollo Moon landing tapes

    --
    "If it's lost, it'll turn up. Things always do" "I love it when a plan comes together"
  23. "I feel like I could... like I could..." by Stilte · · Score: 2, Funny

    TAKE ON THE WORLD! The Day of the Tentacle is upon us. :P

  24. Re:Why were they flying nuclear bombs around in 19 by aadvancedGIR · · Score: 3, Informative

    ICBM is one thing, but both sides also had some nuclear bombers waiting near the ennemy borders 24*7 to either back up a first strike ICBM launch or retaliate if the homeland was destroyed. I don't have the details, but I think Spain was just on their route from an US base to the waiting point when they had that accident.

    Have you ever seen Dr Strangelove? Of course, it is a comedy, but it is based on a real situation: during cold war, there were constantly dozens of nuclear warheads flying around with the risk of something going wrong. That accident was fortunately in the lower range of possible consequences.

  25. Re: Holy fucking shit by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny

    > This situation is the result of what is now popularly known as a "broken arrow". A nuclear weapons accident that does not produce the risk of nuclear war. The weapon (a missing weapon on the nuclear scale)would actually be known as an "empty quiver".

    Wonder what Freud would have said about that jargon...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  26. Re:Holy fucking shit by jginspace · · Score: 4, Informative

    "How the fuck do you lose a goddamn hydrogen bomb?"
    "Uh, you crash a plane containing hydrogen bombs."

    More here: http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm

    The B-52 was returning to Seymour Johnson Air Force Base at Goldsboro, North Carolina, after flying the southern route of the SAC air alert missions (code named "Chrome Dome"). It was attempting its third refueling of the mission with a KC-135 tanker from the American base at Moron, southwestern Spain, near Sevilla. Although the official report of the cause of the accident was not released to the public, it is believed that while attempting to dock at 30,000 ft above the Spanish coast, the nozzle of the tanker's boom, which was supposed to hook up with the B-52's orifice, struck the bomber, ripping open the B-52 along its spine and causing aerodynamic stress which snapped the bomber into pieces. Flames spurted through both planes and the KC-135s 40,000 gallons of jet fuel ignited, killing its four crew members almost immediately. Four of the seven crew members of the B-52 managed to eject and parachute to safety.

    From the above source: "[the second most serious nuclear weapons accident on record - MILNET]" (it also goes on to describe a similar accident at Thule).

  27. wikipedia is your friend by bananaendian · · Score: 5, Informative
    I'm not really good at history, so I'm wondering if someone could explain why in 1966 the Americans had B-52 bombers flying over Spain carrying 4 nuclear bombs.

    The B-52s were performing Airborne Nuclear Alert duty under the code-name "Chrome Dome" where bombers would loiter near points outside of the Soviet Union (see Dr. Strangelove).

    During this program a mid-air collision between a B-52 and a KC-135 tanker aircraft occurred during aerial refueling over Palomares, Spain on the 17th of January, 1966.

    Four megaton-range hydrogen bombs were lost. Two were recovered eventually fairly intact while the other two underwent a minor detonation of the conventional explosives that were an integral part of them. The safety fuses in them prevented a disastrous nuclear detonation. However dispersion of both plutonium and uranium material over several hundred hectares resulted in thousands of tons of contaminated radioactive soil having to be sent back to the USA. The USAF decided this was too expensive to risk again, and it ended that part of the airborne alert program.

    There have been several reports of contamination remaining in the area in recent years and currently U.S and Spanish governments have agreed to investigate the need for further clean up, this time sharing the costs.

    Interestingly the search efford for the missing bomb out at sea was performed using the Bayesian search theory. Eventually the bomb was recoved with the help of a local fisherman, who then claimed salvage rights from it under the high seas (usually a reward of a few percent of the actual value). But not before U.S. Defense Secretary Robert McNamara had publicly stated a value of no less than two billion U.S. dollars for it. The Air Force settled out of court.

    --
    www.tribalnetworks.org - helping tribal people around the world to own their own means of high-tech communications
  28. I, for one... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 3, Funny

    They were trying to get rid of the spanish inquisition before monty python showed up

    I, for one, didn't expect that.

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    1. Re:I, for one... by CortoMaltese · · Score: 2, Funny
      I, for one, didn't expect that.
      Nobody expects the Spanish inquisition!

      (It just had to be said.)

  29. There's also a bomb off the coast of Georgia by maetenloch · · Score: 3, Informative

    Don't forget about the Tybee hydrogen bomb, lost in 1958 during a collision between two planes. The Air Force has never located it, and it's presumed to still be buried in mud just off the coast of Savannah, GA. Supposedly it didn't have the plutonium core installed, but did have enriched uranium and high explosives.

  30. Re:Holy fucking shit by nametaken · · Score: 2, Interesting


    So I'm reading the wikipedia article you listed there, and I learn that they searched for one of the bombs using something called, "Bayesian search theory".

    Who would have thought nuclear weaponry and anti-spam technology would be somehow related? :)

  31. I'm sitting here on the outskirts of Tokyo... by achurch · · Score: 3, Funny

    And now I have to worry about not just nuclear excitement to the northwest, but also radioactive snails??

    Well, I guess I can at least give a play-by-play when they---holy shit WHAT'S THAT?! NO NO NOT WITH THE TAIL NOOOOOOOO

    NO CARRIER

  32. Kosher food by iendedi · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's interesting to think about what kinds of food would be safe to eat after a large scale nuclear war. You certainly couldn't eat shellfish or snails, because they soak up toxins very readily. Also, you should probably avoid pigs, because they eat everything. And, if you eat meat, it would be advisable to bleed it first because toxins build up in the blood.

    Makes you wonder about the real history of Kosher laws in Judaism.

    --

    It is your personal duty to fight for what is right on a daily basis. Ignoring injustice is identical to approving
    1. Re:Kosher food by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Makes you wonder about the real history of Kosher laws in Judaism.

      Indeed. I imagine the radioactive exhaust of the flying saucer that parted the Red Sea contaminated some of the food supply for at least the next 40 years. Coincidence?

    2. Re:Kosher food by Pasquina · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does a radioactive cat have 18 half-lives?

    3. Re:Kosher food by AJWM · · Score: 2, Funny

      We won't know for sure until we open the box.

      --
      -- Alastair
  33. This is mere ONE of about 14 other nuke accidents! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    USA NUCLEAR WEAPONS LOST or MISSING

    March 10, 1956, Over the Mediterranean Sea
    July 28, 1957, Over the Atlantic Ocean
    February 5, 1958, Savannah River, Georgia
    February 12, 1958 Savannah, Georgia
    September 25, 1959, Off Whidbey Island, Washington
    January 24, 1961, Goldsboro, North Carolina
    December 5, 1965, Aboard the USS Ticonderoga (CVA-14) in the Pacific Ocean
    Spring 1968, Aboard the USS Scorpion (SSN-589) in the Atlantic Ocean

    List does not include the much larger list of fully recovered and contained accidental weapons drops.

    Some diverted material (noit in weapons) was CIA swapped to israel some think.

    Enough weapons grade plutonium was mysteriously stolen from the US gov over the decades, according to accurate reports, to build over 20 H bombs.

  34. no, no, no... by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Imagine, reading Beowulf by the light of a cluster of these snails..."

    Much better.

  35. Ah the snail... by chowdy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Immune to radioactivity, yet incredibly susceptible to salt. Nature sure had fun making you.

  36. Re:Holy --deleted-- by clickclickdrone · · Score: 4, Funny

    >The hydrogen bombs fell near the fishing village
    Such simple times when you could have a crash, lose 3 nukes then shrug and say 'ah well, never mind'.
    These days every ounce of anything remotely useful for bomb making needs to be accounted for just in case some nasty terrorist gets their hands on it. What went wrong? I want the good old days back when you could casually leave weapons of mass destruction lying around near fishing villages ('if they trawl one up they'll probably just throw it back, right?) and not worry about it.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
  37. Re:Ooops we dropped the nuke... by Ihlosi · · Score: 2, Informative
    I have always wondered what sort of chance there was of a nuclear detonation when it impacted the ocean bottom



    Pretty slim, I'd say. The fission reaction will only be started correctly if everything is working right inside the bomb, i.e. it is armed and detonated intentionally. Otherwise, you'll just wind up with an imprompty dirty bomb.



    and what effect it would have had... a tsunami perhaps?



    Not likely. The energy required to power this event dwarfs even the most powerful nuclear weapon. Maybe if you stick the bomb inside a fault line. But that's a big maybe.

  38. Re:Ooops we dropped the nuke... by technos · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have always wondered what sort of chance there was of a nuclear detonation when it impacted the ocean bottom and what effect it would have had...

    Almost no chance of nuclear explosion. There simply isn't enough fissionable in a bomb to go up unless you set it off in one specific way, requiring timers to set off a series of chain detonators at exactly the right time, sensors to tell the timers when that time is, an altimiter to determine the bomb is at target height and charged batteries to power the whole rig.

    Sure, they'll blow up. But we're talking 300lbs of TNT boom, spraying radioactive all over the place.

    But say a warhead did go off. We're talking something on the order of a megaton. Odds are there would have been a small surface swell, the wreckage at the bottom would have been blown to pieces, but I doubt that the ship at the surface would have even been damaged by the event. The US did undersea tests to figure out how to use nukes against boats and subs; The effective range wasn't all that great.

    --
    .sig: Now legally binding!
  39. Re:Holy fucking shit by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 3, Funny
    Look here, the solution to the problem is simple and lucrative.

    1) The French eat snails.

    2) The French eat anything with garlic on it.

    3) You takes your basic radioactive snails and then you puts your garlic on them nice and even like. Then you can em and sell em in France

    4) Profit!!!

    And it's only Frenchmen, so who cares what this does to their DNA. Maybe you'll get a glow-in-the-dark superpowered French mime. And he can fly, if he falls off the Eiffel Tower.

  40. No wonder it's snails by cheros · · Score: 2, Funny

    I mean, with a half life of several centuries, where's the rush? :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  41. Re:Holy fucking shit by Hawkxor · · Score: 2, Informative

    the term bayes just means that conditional probabilities are being used..

  42. Cognitive dissonance by Si · · Score: 2, Funny

    the safety systems of the bombs

    Whuh? Does that mean someone can hand over a bomb to his adversary (under duress, perhaps), but neglect to tell him the safety's on? The first guy then pulls his reserve bomb out of his ankle holster and *blam* blows away the bad guy!

    --


    Why is it that many people who claim to support standards have such atrocious spelling and grammar?
  43. Re:Holy fucking shit by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 3, Informative

    It should be noted that these weapons are not the pitiful 1-5 kiloton weapons that Korea is detonating. It is likely they are 10+ megaton city-killers.

    It should also be noted that the thing that separates a 1-5 kiloton weapon from a 10+ megaton city killer is tritium which has a relatively short half-life of ~12 yrs thus after 40 yrs approx. 12.5% of the original tritium is around to create that megaton nuclear event. Thus these bombs are no longer "city-killers". Though the uranium and plutonium primaries should still be usable.

    --
    I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
  44. They have their own theme song! by davidwr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Immature Radioactive Samurai Slugs theme song

                    We're Immature Radioactive Samurai Slugs
                    We love to thrash criminals and slice 'n' dice thugs!
                    We're totally radical, gnarly dudes,
                    Cowabunga homeboys with nothin' to lose ...

                    Our arch-enemies want us iodized
                    But they can't beat us 'cause we're merchandised!

                    (Iodizer: "DESTROY THEM!!")

                    Count off!

                          Picasso!
                          Warhol!
                          Rockwell!
                          Grandma Moses!

                    So kick back, dweebs, it's the end of our rhyme,
                    The show's gonna start and it's time to slime!

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  45. Beetle-mania by hey! · · Score: 5, Funny

    If god made humans in his image, does that mean he is also a weakling?

    Nah, we just tell ourselves that to cover for the undeniable fact that we were scraped together at the end of the Creation project. And at that, using leftovers after the main project deliverable: implementing every imaginable variation on the the concept of "beetle".

    And if that weren't enough to kick us in the anthropocentric nutes, it's clear we aren't even in the same league as termites, as measured by biomass or biodiversity. This caused some severe editing of the Creation story, particularly Genesis 1:25 - 1:31, which originally went something like this:

    25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

    26 And God said, We have checked our deliverables and Creation is complete; so let there be Slack; and God saw the Slack, that it was good, and God separated the productive phase of the Project from the mindless consumption of excess Resources.

    27 And the Slack was fruitful of all manner of Diversions of surplus Resources; so God said, Let Us celebrate; and the Celebration begat the Kegger, and the Kegger begat Beer, and Beer begat all manner of amusing indiscretions. And God saw that these where more or less Harmless.

    28 Then God noticed that the Project had this left-over mud, and this He fashioned into a Man; but there was not enough fuel left over to fire the clay, so when Man was half-baked, He breathed upon Man and brought him to life.

    29 Then Man opened his eyes, and looking on God asked, are You Me? And God said no. Then looking around, Man asked, Is all this for Me? And God said, No, you are only the half-baked leftovers, but if you study Creation perhaps you can become full-baked. And Man thought that this was Bad, and set out to Improve on Matters.

    30 So Man said,let there be Self-Serving Sophistry, and let there be Willful Ignorance; and these were fruitful beyond all Measure, and so begat Religion, Conformism, Bigotry and every manner of Officious Narrow-Mindedness. And Man thought these were Good, and he wrote his version of Events down so that none would ever challenge Conformity without Fear.

    31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good, except for the bits that came after the Beer which in retrospect looked somewhat Doubtful. And God, seeing that Slack had used up the Resources He needed to Fix the Problem, said, Let there be Muddling Through; Let there be Counting On Things Working Out in the End. And seeing that these were not Satisfactory and He was over budget anyway, God said, Let there be Hope. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Beetle-mania by hey! · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, I wrote it, which may not be the same thing as "original".

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  46. Re: Holy fucking shit by freeweed · · Score: 2, Funny

    Insert "what would ICBMs look like if women ran the Pentagon" joke here...

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  47. Re:This is mere ONE of about 14 other nuke acciden by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That plutonium might not be "missing". I heard a talk from one of the chemists working on remediation at Hanford, who said that at Oak Ridge they'd discovered a significant portion of the "missing" plutonium hanging out as drifts of barely sub-critical plutonium dust in the ventilation system. Not 'explode' subcritical, mind you, but 'a little more accumulation, and we'll have a real radiation event' subcritical.

    So, rather than having been repurposed as weapons, it could still be polluting the facilities where it was used.

    --
    the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken