Talk:Nuclear weapon

Template:Vital article

Edit request from 66.183.228.189, 4 October 2011

Sources need to be verified and some information is a bit bias.

66.183.228.189 (talk) 06:08, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you be specific with the issues? --Jnorton7558 (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

not sure if this is the best location for Saudi Arabia resource

Prince Hints Saudi Arabia May Join Nuclear Arms Race by theAssociated Press published December 6, 2011 New York Times, excerpt ...

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) — A Saudi prince, in a remark designed to send chills through the Obama administration and its allies, suggested that the kingdom might consider producing nuclear weapons if it found itself between atomic arsenals in Iran and Israel. The prince, Turki al-Faisal, who has served as the Saudi intelligence chief and as ambassador to the United States, made the comment on Monday at a Persian Gulf security forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The remark confirmed Western fears about the potential for an arms race in the Middle East if Iran moves to produce a nuclear weapon.

99.181.136.158 (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't really fit here. It also doesn't fit in List of states with nuclear weapons, since that is about countries that actually have/had weapons or weapons programs. Some reference might fit into Nuclear proliferation. NPguy (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

edit request

The interwikilink for yi: has bad markup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.223.136 (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

edit request

"Only two nuclear weapons have been used in the course of warfare, " is wrong wording. "nuclear weapons" and "psycholgical warfare" are often coupled, and they were an important weapon in the cold war. They have been used in the course of warfare in the same way that rifles can be used in the course of warfare - as a threat. "Only two nuclear weapons have been used as weapons of war," is preferable.87.194.46.83 (talk) 05:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Other types - antimatter

Perhaps something like this (in this wording of mine or similar) should be added?:

Antimatter, which consists of particles resembling ordinary matter particles in most of their properties but having opposite electric charge, has been considered as a trigger mechanism for nuclear weapons. A major obstacle is the difficulty of producing antimatter in large enough quantities. However, the U.S. Air Force funded studies of the physics of antimatter in the Cold War, and began considering its possible use in weapons, not just as a trigger, but as the explosive itself. Switchcraft (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, stated fallout deaths are grossly exaggerated

This wiki article suggests that the following report found that 11,000 deaths may have resulted from nuclear testing in the United States.

But that is completely incorrect, as the report unambiguously states - 1,000 excess cancer deaths on page 23, there is no mention to 11,000 in the report whatsoever.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10621

83.71.31.96 (talk) 12:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed -- I have verified the quote in the source, and I have made the appropriate edits in the main article. Thanks for catching that!

kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 00:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but that seems like an incorrect fix. The source document is Report on the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations and it contains the quote (Executive Summary, p. 4) "It is also estimated that about 11,000 extra cancer deaths from all cancers, including leukemia, would be predicted to occur among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000 as a result of external exposure to fallout."

You're correct, I just checked. Looks like the other report was estimating 1,000 deaths based on the 1951 US population estimates (which they assumed were constant over 50 years), and the study was readjusted later to bring the population estimates up to a more realistic number. For anyone else wishing to double-check, the figures appear on page 115 of the report.

kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 18:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

An error- the article reads - The goal would be twofold: first, to deter leaders of nuclear states from selling weapons to terrorists by holding them accountable for any use of their own weapons; second, to give leader every incentive to tightly secure their nuclear weapons and materials. However "leader" should be "leaders, no?

Secondly, it's  Not fixed, the alleged 11,000 extra cancer deaths is not a scientific number.

Page 115 details very clearly that the figure comes about by "crude[ly]" assuming the population of the US in 1973 was the same as that in 1990. Moreover the article now falsely ascribes the previously discussed nap.edu reference to this crude "11,000" figure, but as was just previously determined, that particular reference does not mention 11,000 at all, it states 1000.

See page 115 here, for the "crudely" estimated 11,000 figure, that is presented merely as "illustrative only". http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/Technical_Vol_1_Chapter_4.pdf

I'm suggesting that the article should read something like this -...with estimates on the total number of predicted cancer deaths in the continental US from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref], to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000, both according to the Linear no-threshold model and the ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions.

What do you think?

On page 112 of your linked report from the CDC, it would appear that the CDC specifically says that the estimate on page 114 is "for tissues other than thyroid" (emphasis mine). On page 112, they cite several studies that support the claim of over 11,000 deaths from thyroid cancer; the lower estimates are for cancers other than thyroid. The article already mentions that most of the 11,000 estimated deaths are from thyroid cancer caused by iodine-131, so I don't believe that we need to change it.

In addition, after rereading the NAP study, it looks like they're estimating the death rates from fallout-triggered cancers for parts of the body other than the thyroid (which is alluded to in the Executive Summary at the beginning of the report.

kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

On page 112 the report does NOT cite several studies that support the claim of over 11,000 thyroid cancer deaths, they cite studies that support 11,300 to 212,000 thyroid cancers - not - cancer deaths. Thyroid cancer has a ~ 95% survival rate so not very many people who get thyroid cancer die. I'm not exactly sure why you're into the number of thyroid cancer deaths, as according to the CDC paper, most of the deaths are "likely" to be from other causes. Page 115 "It is likely that the number of deaths (roughly 11,000) might exceed deaths from thyroid cancer,". Meaning, that the number of deaths from other cancers probably overshadowed the number of thyroid cancer deaths. Granted, if the US was absent a modern health care system then thyroid cancer might've been the no.1 killer, but that's getting out of the realm of what the references say.

22:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.191.135 (talk)

You know what, you're right. I must have misread it; I could have sworn it said cancer deaths, but after carefully rereading it, I can see that it is instead discussing the number of total thyroid cancer cases. I was in a hurry earlier, misread the report, and I apologize.

I'd agree that we should go ahead and rewrite the section; I'll take a stab at it, but I'd appreciate it if somebody who knows more about the subject would clean up after me (most of my knowledge pertains to the development of the bombs, not fallout).

And thanks for following up and correcting me!

kc0wir [Editor] (Talk|User) 00:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To repeat the comment from above:

Sorry, but that seems like an incorrect fix. The source document is Report on the Health Consequences to the American Population from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations and it contains the quote (Executive Summary, p. 4) "It is also estimated that about 11,000 extra cancer deaths from all cancers, including leukemia, would be predicted to occur among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000 as a result of external exposure to fallout." NPguy (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes it does say that NPguy, however, pg 115 clearly states it's a "crude" estimate based on simply assuming the 1970s population was the same as the 1990s etc. That's why I suggested that the article should read something like this - "...with estimates on the total number of predicted cancer deaths from external exposure to fallout in the continental US, from the combined effect of the 100 atmospheric Nevada Test Site explosions, to be from 1,000[include nap.edu ref], to a "crude" estimate of about 11,000 among the population of the United States alive at any time during the years 1951–2000, both, according to the Linear no-threshold model and the ICRP's cancer risk coefficient of 5% per Sievert.[include the cdc.gov ref]. With the uncertainty largely due to Radiation dose reconstruction, and population size assumptions."

Even then, that's pretty conservative, as the controversial LNT model (as discussed in the CDC paper) suggests, amongst other things that natural background radiation causes millions of cancer deaths each year, there is no "safe" level of sunlight, and therefore those that don't wear a burka, are all increasing their cancer risk. In sum, it's pretty extreme, with little evidence to support it.

86.46.191.135 (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)