Slashdot Mirror


US Will Clean Area In Spain Where Hydrogen Bombs Fell (nytimes.com)

HughPickens.com writes: Rafael Minder writes in the NY Times that almost 50 years after coming close to possibly provoking a nuclear disaster, Secretary of State John Kerry, following years of wrangling between Spain and the U.S., signed an agreement to remove contaminated soil from an area in southern Spain where an American warplane accidentally dropped hydrogen bombs. In 1966 a bomber collided with a refueling tanker in midair and dropped four hydrogen bombs, two of which released plutonium into the atmosphere. No warheads detonated, narrowly averting what could have been an explosion more powerful than the atomic strikes against Japan at the end of World War II. Four days after the accident, the Spanish government stated that "the Palomares incident was evidence of the dangers created by NATO's use of the Gibraltar airstrip," announcing that NATO aircraft would no longer be permitted to fly over Spanish territory either to or from Gibraltar. The U.S. later announced that it would no longer fly over Spain with nuclear weapons, and the Spanish government formally banned U.S. flights over its territory that carried such weapons.

Neither Kerry nor Spanish Foreign Minister García-Margallo said exactly how much contaminated soil would be sent back, where it would be stored in the United States, or who would pay for the cleanup — some of the issues that have held up a deal until now. Spain has insisted that any contaminated soil be sent to the United States, because Spain does not have plants to store it. Concern over the site was reawakened in the 1990s when tests revealed high levels of americium, an isotope of plutonium, and further tests showed that 50,000 cubic meters of earth were still contaminated. The Spanish government appropriated the land in 2003 to prevent it being used.

49 of 216 comments (clear)

  1. Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium, it is a decay product of Uranium/Plutonium, specifically

    see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americium#Isotope_nucleosyntheses

    Jack ass

    1. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Americium, Fuck Yeah!

    2. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

      and while you are at it, plutonium 239 is not "highly radioactive" as claimed in TFA. They might be thinking of pu-238 used in RTGs, or just have no idea what they are talking about. Plutonium 239 is an alpha emitter, so very dangerous if inhaled - a risk after the explosion 50 years ago, but not now that it is bound up in the soil and water. You could safely grown vegetables in the soil and eat them. Just don't grow tobacco - getting pu239 traces in your lungs could give you cancer.

    3. Re:Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Americium is NOT an isotope of plutonium, it is a decay product of Uranium/Plutonium, specifically

      That was the first thing that struck me when I read OP.

      And I think it's probably fair to say that the fact that they didn't blow up was far from an accident; they were designed that way.

  2. Sell it all to FirstAlert by Overzeetop · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'll turn all that Americium into smoke detectors and we'll all get to listen to that fucking beep in the middle of the night because nobody can seem to make a detector that has a light sensor on it.

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Sell it all to FirstAlert by sims+2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Either way would it kill them to have the low battery chirp start in the day time? instead of at 3-5am every time?

      I had a CO gas detector go to chirping (one of three) at 3am earlier this year the battery cover was screwed on so outside it went. It's still outside I think. Now I use the 10 year battery models exclusively.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  3. Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by dunkindave · · Score: 3, Informative

    I know the poster pulled it from the article, but Americium is a by-product from the radioactive decay of Plutonium, not an isotope of Plutonium. Isotopes have the same number of protons, and Pu has 94 while Am has 95. Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.

    1. Re:Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Plutonium converts to Americium via a beta decay, which causes a neutron to turn into a proton.

      After a couple neutrons are captured. Am-241 is the most common isotope (half life of 400-odd years). Pu-239 captures two neutrons (rarely), then undergoes beta decay to become Am-241.

      Since this normally requires a specially designed reactor to produce, the amount produced casually by four bombs will have been minuscule.

      Which is not to say it shouldn't be cleaned up. Just that the urgency of the cleanup is pretty much consistent with taking 50 years to get around to it.

      Note the amount of material being discussed (50000 m^3 of dirt). Cleanup can be done with one of those big earth movers used when strip mining in a few months, tops....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Americium is a byproduct, not an isotope of Pu by bobbied · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yea it won't take much to clean this up, that's for sure...

      One thing, I'm guessing the Am-241 was in the original fission material of the bomb and not really from Pu-239 decay, but either way, there is going to be so very little of it. Given it's spread out over about 500 acres by the conventional explosives, I'm wondering why Spain is still pushing to get this clean up done. It's been over 50 years now and all a huge excavation project will really accomplish is to make a mess.

      Well, if it pumps some dollars into the local Spanish economy it might be worth the trouble... But really, what's the big deal at this point? Couldn't we just pay them for the land, put up a fence with "keep out for 3,000 years" signs and be done with this? Or is having this material so dangerous to Spain that it's worth taking a few million cubic meters of dirt and dumping it in the ocean?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  4. "No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Of course there wasn't. This isn't nitroglycerin, and there are SO MANY layers of safety devices on these bombs this just not a possibility. The bomb has to be employed intentionally.

    1. Re: "No Explosion" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They actually might be, because they are the only things designed by man that NEEDS to work as intended.

    2. Re:"No Explosion" by Beck_Neard · · Score: 4, Informative

      While it's true that nuclear weapons usually have to be detonated in a very precise manner to create a full yield explosion, it's not true that accidental detonation is not a possibility. Depending on the weapon design, accidental detonation can actually be quite likely (a few percent of all hypothetical impact/fire scenarios). The details of this can get very technical, but the gist of it is that due to various size constraints many weapons were designed with two-point detonation systems ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ) and these are very prone to accidental nuclear detonation. It was partly as a response to this that insensitive high explosive detonators were developed. Labs like DART have the responsibility of thoroughly testing nuclear weapons primaries to make sure that (1) they will explode when required and (2) will not explode when not required.

      'Safety devices' are a completely different issue and they prevent an unauthorized person from activating the device's detonator.

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    3. Re:"No Explosion" by turbidostato · · Score: 2

      "Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula"

      Are you aware who were firsts entering Paris for its liberation? Please read about Amado Granell and "La Nueve".

    4. Re:"No Explosion" by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      Isn't it wonderful that Spain appreciates that we kept a certain person from waltzing through France and down the Iberian peninsula

      Spain was an ally of the Nazis. The Nazis helped Franco win the Spanish Civil War. Spain sent more than 45,000 troops to fight with the Germans on the Eastern Front. Hitler pressured Franco to attack the British and drive them out of Gibraltar, but the British made it clear that if Gibraltar was attacked, they would immediately seize the Canary Islands.

    5. Re:"No Explosion" by bobbied · · Score: 4, Informative

      This bomb design actually was a bit dangerous because the conventional explosives where a bit unstable during aircraft crash events. This crash and another one two years later caused a number of changes to nuclear bomb design after the Mk28.

      Where I don't think "narrowly avoided a nuclear explosion" is anywhere near accurate, these bombs did explode conventionally and spread their radioactive content around and there is a *remote* possibility that these devices when flying in the "Chrome Dome" operation could have accidently caused a nuclear explosion during a crash because they would have been fully armed physically. I hear that the Mk28 had a number of fail physical and electrical fail safe systems that made it nearly impossible to explode in a nuclear way, but it's not impossible to have these systems disabled/defeated during an accident. If it could go nuclear on command, it's remotely possible to do it on accident.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:"No Explosion" by Eythian · · Score: 4, Informative

      You should read "Command and Control." It's a very good book, but you come away with the feeling that it was more good luck than good management that there were no accidental nuclear detonations. And then you consider that the Soviet side was probably at least as bad, if not worse, and you're surprised there's still a planet here at all.

  5. Re:wait a second by sexconker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I know I shat on your carpet while running through your house uninvited, but why should I have to clean it up?

  6. That's not what "narrow" means by chispito · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Sorry, but that's not what "narrow" means, because that's not how nuclear weapons are detonated. If there was a remote chance of setting off a hydrogen bomb simply by dropping it, I don't think even the craziest hawk would have been putting the things in planes to begin with.

    No warheads detonated, narrowly averting what could have been an explosion more powerful than the atomic strikes against Japan at the end of World War II.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by tnk1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because nuclear weapons tend to require carefully timed simultaneous detonations of explosives in a controlled manner in order to compress the fission core to a supercritical mass, it is unlikely that simply dropping the bomb (unarmed) or even having some of the explosives used for core compression go off will create an actual nuclear scale detonation.

      However, the explosives for the explosive lens can go off and distribute radioactive material over a relatively wide area. This was more of a threat in the past, when explosives used in the bombs were somewhat more sensitive. Additionally, some explosives become more sensitive over time, so bombs stored for long periods could have somewhat more sensitive explosives and react badly to an accidental drop or crash.

      All of that being said... an actual accidental nuclear explosion is extremely unlikely, but not entirely impossible in the case of an accident, and it was much, much more likely back when these bombs were dropped in Spain.

      Also, there was one time where a bomb was lost where all but one of the safeties had been deactivated. And that was a mechanical breaker which could well have been flipped. Luckily, that sort of thing was much more common when SAC was actually doing regular strategic deterrent missions and bomb design had not progressed as far as it has today.

    2. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by meerling · · Score: 2

      An improper detonation will not go nuclear, you just end up with a normal explosion scattering radioactive material, aka a dirty explosion. Though with the amount of material spread over the area, individual exposure is more than you'd want, but not actually rated as dangerous.
      What people are talking about is standard hollywood fud & bullshit. It's NOT real people!
      As to the odds of an accident like that actually causing a nuclear detonation, it's somewhere close to the probability of a dissolved sugar cube in your tea or coffee suddenly reforming into a cube in the hot liquid. In other words, slightly less than monkeys flying out your ass.

      I find it rather funny, and incompetent, that the writer didn't know those simple things. I guess they think the movie 'True Lies' was a documentary.

    3. Re:That's not what "narrow" means by esperto · · Score: 2

      I don't know what happened in this accident, but there was another in North Carolina where a B-52 broke up in the air with two H-bombs a 3 of the 4 fail safes failed, furtunately the last one prevented the explosion, but was a very close call.

      In this one it seems to have occured an explosion, which is why Pu was scatered, but it did caused fission or fusion of the materials.

  7. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because when you go to a party, get drunk, and shit yourself on the sofa, you stay behind to help clean up or you never get invited back again.

  8. More research by zlives · · Score: 2

    More research needs to be done on this... Spanish Soil welcome to Idaho

  9. Re:wait a second by AHuxley · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The highly toxic US equipment left scattered over the years can be found and recovered by US crews that are used to dealing with such rather common events.
    The US has mentioned it had a few nuclear related issues due to the huge numbers of nuclear armed flights around the world, crew issues, equipment issues.
    United States military nuclear incident terminology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    List of military nuclear accidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
    has other details over the decades surrounding issues like accidental criticality, non-nuclear detonation of an atomic bomb, partial meltdown, weapons jettisoned and not recovered, fire, release of nuclear materials, nuclear bomb lost...
    Most nations like to be seen to clean up after their own crashes to fully recover secrets, methods, materials and put a good media spin on been nice to nations where they have bases or want to have more bases.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  10. Re:wait a second by willworkforbeer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wells, we did drop four hydrogen bombs during a plane wreck....

    Worst. Pilot. Resume. Ever.

    --
    Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
  11. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    no, it's more like saying your grandfather took a dump on my carpet and the estate has been dodging responsibility ever since.

  12. Re:Long time by lhowaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, we'll all remember your name, A.C.

    So much for accepting responsibility...

  13. Not sure if funny or sad. by sims+2 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So we have agreed to clean it up where are we going to put it?

    The US agreed to store nuclear waste from all of our reactors back in the 1960's they still haven't been able to decide where to put it over 50 years later.

    If they do clean it up and ship it back to the US by boat it will stay on that boat at the dock until the boat rusts out and sinks.

    --
    Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    1. Re:Not sure if funny or sad. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      This stuff? A few million cubic feet of soil? Easy, dump it in the Ocean.

      It's not like this stuff is horribly dangerous or really radio active. Just barge it out to sea where it's really deep and push it over the side. End of problem. Want to keep it tied up a few thousand years? Encase it in concrete and push it over the side one block at a time. Either way, cheap and easy.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  14. Re:In other news, by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

    That's because the Air Force's official story is that there was no nuclear material on that plane, the bomb was filled with a weight to simulate combat conditions, but was not a nuclear weapon. So no great need to find an obsolete broken weight.

  15. Narrowly averted apocalypse my ass by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nukes from day one have been designed to only detonate after a specific series of human and environmental interactions. A non-activated nuke is dirty, but it's never going to explode.

  16. Re:wait a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Are you serious ?
    If it were Spanish H bombs on US soil would you let Spain off the hook for the expensive cleanup ?
    Since you don't believe in responsibility, let's give BP a refund for clearing up their own mess too.

    Fuckwit.

  17. Re:Long time by phayes · · Score: 2

    Sure they will. Right after the mongols apologise for Attila, the Normans for William, the spaniards for Cortez & Pizarro, etc, etc etc.

    --
    Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
  18. Re:In other news, by meerling · · Score: 2

    That could be a cover story, or it could be real. The military does use 'weapon shapes' for training and such. No reason to risk a actual multimillion dollar mushroom farm for training. After all, more you play with it, the more likely it is that someone will break it.

  19. Re:wait a second by bobbied · · Score: 4, Insightful

    i mean it sucks and all, but why should we be on the hook for this???

    Well, let me see. The aircraft that crashed where ours. The bombs where ours. The pilots where ours and we where flying alone. The wreckage from the accident which was totally our fault fell on Spain... Hmmm...I don't know, Maybe we are responsible for the mess and should clean it up?

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
  20. Radioactive or chemical hazard? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Although people associate uranium with radioactivity, it is only very slightly radioactive (half life > 1 billion years), so if you don't assemble a critical mass the danger is actually chemical. (Heavy metals have a strong tendency to be toxic.)

    Other posters have said that here we are dealing with plutonium-239, which has a half life of 24000 years. That is orders of magnitude greater activity (shorter life) than uranium. I've reached the end of my knowledge here - which is worse, is the radioactivity or the chemical toxicity of plutonium-239?

    TFA suggests they are worried about radioactivity: "A main concern has been that the remaining plutonium was being allowed to degenerate into other radioactive components like americium, which emits gamma rays that travel farther and are hard to block" but concern is not always well founded, and reporters don't always get it right.

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  21. read "Command and Control" by decsnake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The posters here with the blase attitudes regarding nuclear weapons accidents ought to consider reading the book "Command and Control" and marvel at the fact we made it thru the cold war at all.

    Regarding clean-up: when accidents happened on US territory we cleaned it up, even at Thule AFB, which is about as close to the end of the earth as you can get. We also contaminated the other end of the earth for good measure (leaky reactor at McMurdo Station Antarctica). In both cases the contaminated soil was 'disposed of' at the Savannah River Plant.

    1. Re:read "Command and Control" by swillden · · Score: 2

      What makes you think that book is valid? Authors have to eat and are well known for their hyperbolic spinning of facts to get dead tree material off shelves.

      How about because many of the key players in the events described have publicly supported the descriptions of the events as written, even though those events don't always paint them in the most positive light?

      Really, there comes a point where cynicism is just another way of fooling yourself into believing comfortable lies.

      "Command and Control" is an excellent book. I highly recommend it. And it makes clear that the notions of safety and control we apply to nuclear weapons today were not applied until well into the 80s, and the military (especially Air Force and Navy) really fought the imposition of safety measures and positive control. It really is pretty amazing that we made it through the Cold War without any unintended nuclear detonations.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  22. They do have light sensors by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Funny

    They'll turn all that Americium into smoke detectors and we'll all get to listen to that fucking beep in the middle of the night because nobody can seem to make a detector that has a light sensor on it.

    Of course they have light sensors in them. That's how they know to wait until the middle of the night before they start beeping.

  23. Not an isotope by jdavidb · · Score: 2

    Americium is not an isotope of Plutonium. It's a separate element. Americium is atomic number 95 and Plutonium is atomic number 94. Isotopes have the same atomic number.

    Surprised there's not a +5 comment explaining this already.

  24. Re:An excuse by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Informative

    "I'm guessing a lot of American dollars will also head that way since Spain is pretty much insolvent"

    Debt-to-GDP ratio:
    USA: 101.33%
    Spain: 97.70%

    If Spain is "pretty much insolvent" what does that make for USA?

  25. Properties of Americium by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Americium: a dangerous, unstable element which decays with a half life of 141 years. On the periodic table exists below the lanthanide europium, with which it shares many similarities. It has a silvery-white metallic lustre when freshly prepared which slowly tarnishes over time. While similar to europium it is much denser partly due to the larger mass of its constituent atoms.

  26. Re:wait a second by readin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because when you go to a party, get drunk, and shit yourself on the sofa, you stay behind to help clean up or you never get invited back again.

    On the other hand if show up and spend 40 years keeping someone from getting killed they might seem a bit ungrateful if they complain about you getting diarrhea while doing so.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  27. Re:wait a second by readin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Are they able to ask us to clean up the mess in fluent Russian? If not then maybe they should be a little more grateful.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  28. Re:wait a second by Your.Master · · Score: 2

    No, it's like saying your dad took a dump on my carpet, so your dad should clean it up; your dad hemmed and hawwed for 50 years before finally paying up, and you are pissed off that this might take the tiniest bite out of your inheritance.

  29. Re:wait a second by mrbester · · Score: 2

    If you mean war debt from WWII, the UK finally paid that off in 1999.

    --
    "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
  30. Re:Long time by KGIII · · Score: 2

    berth defects

    This was a plane crash, not a navel vessel. *nods*

    --
    "So long and thanks for all the fish."
  31. Re:wait a second by silentcoder · · Score: 3

    >They were our nukes. It's not cool to drop nukes on a country you're not at war with.

    To be fair, it's also not cool to drop nukes on a country you ARE at war with... that sort of shit leads to extinction level events.

    --
    Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  32. The real dirt on the radioactive dirt shipment by Joe+Branya · · Score: 2

    Here is what’s really going on.

    For the last fifty years the 6th Fleet has been headquartered near Naples, Italy. There are no shore bases in Italy for the roughly 1,100 Marines assigned to the fleet. The fleet is routinely called the Mediterranean fleet but the area it controls includes most of the eastern Atlantic and south western Indian oceans. (See map at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ). The U.S. has only ten full sized aircraft carriers and none are operating in the Med right now The real action is in the Indian ocean and the western Pacific facing China. http://www.gonavy.jp/CVLocatio....

    For some reason the U.S. government and NATO have decided to move the Naples headquarters to Rota, Spain, which is potentially a much larger facility that Naples, with room for a few thousand Marines on shore.

    Of course Spain wants something in return and we had to get the deal done before the Spanish election, which might bring in a leftist government. The best article on the deal is, as usual, in the British newspaper the Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/wor.... To quote from the article (paragraph brakes removed):

    “The Palomares clean-up deal is seen by many as a sweetener in exchange for Spain agreeing to Washington ramping up its military presence in the country. The number of marine personnel at the base in Morón in southern Spain is to be increased from 850 to 2,200, and to 3,000 in the event of a crisis. Meanwhile, the US navy base at Rota, near Cádiz, is set to become the largest in the Mediterranean. Talks with Spain’s right-wing government over the military build-up have intensified in recent months amid fears that a government less sympathetic to Washington’s strategic aims may be elected in December. Barack Obama said during the King of Spain’s visit to Washington in September that a change of government might harm bilateral relations. Kerry refused to comment on the possible outcome of the election but said that the US supports “a strong and united Spain”, a clear reference to the Catalan region’s aspiration to break away and become independent.”

    So in the end the U.S. gets roughly 50,000 cubic meters of irradiated soil- how irradiated is still unclear. 50,000 meters equals roughly 80,000 tons. If the dirt is packaged first, it will take two-or-three medium-sized shiploads to get it to the U.S. and the equivalent of roughly 1,000 railroad freight cars or 2,000-3,000 forty-foot containers to move the dirt inside the U.S. My guess is railroad cars.

    The present speculation says it will go to Idaho but I’m not sure. There is always the example of the USS Sturgis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... which had a small reactor that suffered damage during storms in the 1960s and 1970s. The ship had not been designed so the interior of the reactor room could be cleaned by water spray. So for 40 years the ship was stored in Quantico and on the James river, too hot to dismantle and yet not really a danger.

    Finally I should say I’m not clear on why the U.S. and NATO have decided to move to Rota although I’ll throw out a few possibilities. First, it may be hard to find places to train in the central Med because