Point Hope, Alaska!

[kiwi1960]

Among Numerous old copies of Popular mechanics and Popular Science I have are some humdingers. These particular magazines dated from the 1920's to about late 1990. The history contained in these publications is amazing.

Some articles (with photos) from about 1936 (I cannot find the particular issue right now) had the U.S. Navy in exercises with the German Navy and the author was saying it bodes well for both nations should they ever face a common enemy ... seriously? THEN, it would have been what was wished for, but now, it was laughable.

The issue I am reading now is from March 1960, the year I was born. The main article is called "We're going to work miracles" ... the idea was to explode 5 small atomic bombs at Point Hope to create an artificial harbour which would remain open three months of the year as opposed to only 1 month nearby. They talked about nearby coal and oil reserves.

How stupid can you get.

I Googled it to see if they had ever done this foolish idea and found this wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Hope,_Alaska

and in there, this bit...

"Point Hope residents successfully opposed Project Chariot in 1958. The project would have involved buried thermonuclear detonations some 30 miles (48 km) from the village to create a deep-water artificial harbor, which would only have been usable about three months out of the year."

But that was 1958, this was 1961 (the year this story was talking about) and the project was called CHARIOT ..... so, I'm wondering if they made a mistake with the dates on the Wiki page *OR* if Uncle Sam cannot take NO for an answer... and this Popular Mechanics article was nothing but propaganda to window dress an idea which had already been scrapped...

It is my opinion that back in those days, publications like these were used by the U.S. Government for nothing more than propaganda, I have thought this for years ever since it was revealed that the U.S.S.R. purchased such publications for ideas and to see what the USA was planning.

Had they gotten away with this, what would they have done then?

There was a story going around, a time ago, apparently true, that the US Air force wanted to detonate Atomic Bombs on the Moon.... (in the 1950's I think) for no other reason than they could... and to scare the crap out of the USSR .... but reality was, they couldn't even put an object into orbit then let alone bomb the Moon.

----------------

So now, I wonder how many people out there would think this was a good idea? How many of YOU think it was a good idea or a bad one.

This story MIGHT be better under "technology" but I put it in "Physics" as the technology (idea) is OLD, but the physics of moving dirt to create an inlet is still current...

- - - Updated - - -

Just read this chilling wiki entry on CHARIOT...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Chariot

Were they STUPID or did they just want to kill stuff?

[DerekL1963]

But that was 1958, this was 1961 (the year this story was talking about) and the project was called CHARIOT ..... so, I'm wondering if they made a mistake with the dates on the Wiki page *OR* if Uncle Sam cannot take NO for an answer... and this Popular Mechanics article was nothing but propaganda to window dress an idea which had already been scrapped...

Then nor now, Popular Mechanics has never had a reputation for honesty or accuracy. They're not quite a tabloid when it comes to such things, but they sure as heck have shaved awful close over the years.

[ZetaX]

the idea was to explode 5 small atomic bombs at Point Hope to create an artificial harbour which would remain open three months of the year as opposed to only 1 month nearby. They talked about nearby coal and oil reserves.

How stupid can you get.

It surely isn't that good an idea, but calling it outright stupid needs some explanation.

If I recall it correctly, then the main reason against the "use nuclear weapons to change the landscape"-style plans was mainly the lack of precision.

[Cydonian Monk]

Given all the variables I don't particularly see the issue with it. Provided the bombs are buried deeply enough the negligible amounts of radiation released would be contained, though admittedly there would be some seepage into nearby groundwater. Assuming the harbor was indeed being developed for coal and oil export, the town would have seen several orders of magnitude more pollution, even radioactive pollution, from the coal alone. In this scenario the coal is much, much worse for the nearby inhabitants than the five small bombs would have been.

That isn't to say I'd like to see this done, but if using cleaner low-yield devices it might even be a cleaner alternative than using oil or coal-powered cranes to excavate the harbour. Certainly cheaper.

[AndrewBCrisp]

Lack of precision was one objection, but the fallout and subsequent contamination of the countryside was probably just as bad, or worse, in the eyes of the public. (Yes, I suppose we can posit cleanup operations to deal with fallout, but still...).

The big rationale of such plans (filed under Project Plowshares) was not just to harness the power of nuclear explosions for our benefit but also to improve the public perception of nuclear weapons ("Yes, we've got enough nukes to end civilization, but look what else we can do with them!") It's no surprise to find the biggest proponents of such plans to be those who wanted more bombs. Personally, I'm glad those plans never really caught on.

[magnemoe]

Given all the variables I don't particularly see the issue with it. Provided the bombs are buried deeply enough the negligible amounts of radiation released would be contained, though admittedly there would be some seepage into nearby groundwater. Assuming the harbor was indeed being developed for coal and oil export, the town would have seen several orders of magnitude more pollution, even radioactive pollution, from the coal alone. In this scenario the coal is much, much worse for the nearby inhabitants than the five small bombs would have been.

That isn't to say I'd like to see this done, but if using cleaner low-yield devices it might even be a cleaner alternative than using oil or coal-powered cranes to excavate the harbour. Certainly cheaper.

First they did not expect the amount of fallout they got doing an shallow underground blast. They expected it to be more like an surface blast.

They expected that they could make an fusion only nuclear bomb.

[Cydonian Monk]

Now this bit from the Wikipedia article on Point Hope is interesting:

The site was radioactively contaminated by an experiment to estimate the effect on water sources of radioactive ejecta landing on tundra plants and subsequently washed down and carried away by rains. Thirty years later State officials traveled to the site and found low levels of radioactivity at a depth of two feet (60 cm) in the burial mound.

It's like they couldn't take no for an answer so went ahead with it anyway.

The specifics of Point Hope are a bit different than I had remembered. It seems all of their detonations were to have been at a shallow depth.... Which is obviously a very bad idea. I'm still not convinced a deeper blast without significant outgassing would produce more radiation and/or pollution than the supposed coal operations would have, especially since the details of the devices in question aren't available. (Coal is really dirty stuff.) Chagan and Sedan are proof enough that a shallow blast would not work for the intended purpose: A radioactive harbor is useless..... Harbors need stevedores and crews for the ships and squishy humans types don't agree so much with radiation. Then again the Soviet Kraton-3 and Globus-1 tests aren't shining examples of such an approach working well. I've not seen any data on the Soviet's other hundred+ exploratory detonations though - it'd be interesting to see numbers on radioactivity levels three decades removed.

[PakledHostage]

Only peripherally related in so far as they used a large explosion to modify a shipping lane, but the story of the Ripple Rock explosion may be interesting to some here:

Ripple Rock was and underwater ridge located in Seymour Narrows, between Vancouver Island and the British Columbia mainland. It was blown up in 1958 to remove the hazard it posed to shipping. They used 1300 tonnes of explosives placed inside the rock ridge via tunnels from nearby islands. According to the Wikipedia article, the explosion was of "interest to nuclear weapons scientists at the United Kingdom's Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston, which sent a delegation to Canada and set up various monitoring instruments to record data from the explosion."

Edited July 25, 2015 by PakledHostage
Fixed video link.

[Nothalogh]

Were they STUPID or did they just want to kill stuff?

Neither

And it was called Project Plowshare

[kiwi1960]

It was stupid... they looked for crazy ideas to justify the peaceful uses of atomic energy... this idea to create a harbour was insane, the locals didn't want it, commerce didn't want it... only the ones behind "plowshare" and "Chariot" wanted it.

And as Cydonian Monk said, because they couldn't get their way, they secretly contaminated the area anyway .... to kill the locals????? This is what the secret contamination experiment aims were...

Although the detonation never occurred, the site was radioactively contaminated by an experiment to estimate the effect on water sources of radioactive ejecta landing on tundra plants and subsequently washed down and carried away by rains. Material from a 1962 nuclear explosion at the Nevada Test Site was transported to the Chariot site in August 1962, used in several experiments, then buried. Thirty years later, the disposal was discovered in archival documents by a University of Alaska researcher. State officials immediately traveled to the site and found low levels of radioactivity at a depth of two feet (60 cm) in the burial mound. Outraged residents of the Inupiat village of Point Hope demanded the removal of the contaminated soil, which the government did at considerable expense.

What they did, was poison the land to punish the locals... that is the ONLY explanation you could gather from that experiment, otherwise.... why secretly do this? And more... why not somewhere closer to the original Nevada test site?

SPITE.... pure and simple. Payback for daring to stand up to the Government!

And I said it was a STUPID idea and it was... why? Had they accomplished this, what then?

Make an offer to the Australian Government to 'remove' that pesky reef? (Its called the Great Barrier Reef and its a world heritage site!)

To put it another way.... why out in the middle of nowhere? Why in place where no one wanted to use it? And they only SUSPECTED there was coal and oil reserves nearby....

Why not offer to make a BIG hole that New York could use to allow kids to swim in? Why not build a new lake in Washington D.C. or make a huge reservoir to hold water for those times there was a drought in Los Angeles??????

Its the same logic France used to test their nukes in our back yard of the Pacific... not many voters around OR the voters wouldn't get poisoned...

and even if a few did, who would care? France doesn't care about the people of the Pacific that were contaminated and slowly died....

Its just why they did it in Alaska.... because "its not in our backyard" and so what if a few dozen people got killed...

STUPID.... and dishonest. I'm glad this thinking is as dead as the ones that proposed it!

[Stargate525]

Some articles (with photos) from about 1936 (I cannot find the particular issue right now) had the U.S. Navy in exercises with the German Navy and the author was saying it bodes well for both nations should they ever face a common enemy ... seriously? THEN, it would have been what was wished for, but now, it was laughable.

Actually... No. We whitewash a TON of the popular opinion of the US before and during wars. In 1936 it was entirely possible that the US could have thrown in with Germany. They, like us, were lagging behind on colonial claims abroad, and we weren't terribly happy with how we had to bail France and the UK before. A large majority of the population of the United States was (and mostly still is) Germanic European. There were a number of powerful and influential .... sympathizers (remember, this is before anyone knew anything about the death camps).

Contrary to popular belief, we did not declare war on Germany. They declared war on us after their 'ally' attacked without provocation. Had they instead broke treaty, declared on Japan 'in support of our Germanic bretheren' or some such, we would probably have had a much, much different war.

[kiwi1960]

Actually... No. We whitewash a TON of the popular opinion of the US before and during wars. In 1936 it was entirely possible that the US could have thrown in with Germany. They, like us, were lagging behind on colonial claims abroad, and we weren't terribly happy with how we had to bail France and the UK before. A large majority of the population of the United States was (and mostly still is) Germanic European. There were a number of powerful and influential .... sympathizers (remember, this is before anyone knew anything about the death camps).

Contrary to popular belief, we did not declare war on Germany. They declared war on us after their 'ally' attacked without provocation. Had they instead broke treaty, declared on Japan 'in support of our Germanic bretheren' or some such, we would probably have had a much, much different war.

I agree, with one slight correction, or rather, counter argument.

You may well have bailed out France during WW2 .... but they helped bail out the USA during your war of independence. If you had lost that war, then history would be totally different.

Rather than the USA bailing out the allies.... the allies bailed each other out. had we not stopped Germany from invading Britain prior to December 7th, 1941, then you would probably faced eventual defeat simply because, had not japan attacked, I seriously doubt if you would ever have gone to war given the mood of the USA at the time.

We (UK, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, India etc etc) declared war on September 3rd, 1939. The first real naval battle was won when the Pocket Battleship Graf Spee was sunk by three UK Cruisers and 1 NZ cruiser...

Anyhow.... this is going off topic, sorry, WW2 history is one of my favourite topics... any excuse to discuss it, I will....

Getting back on topic... As I said.... it was wishful thinking that the Popular Mechanics author really did want the USa and Germany to be allies... so not really sure why you are saying "no" to me... its what i meant.

Point Hope was only one example of the ... silly... thinking during the 1940's and 50's.... some ideas were not silly.... just impracticable... such as the Aircraft Carrier they wanted to build out of ice... or rather, ice and sawdust. (Mythbusters did an episode on it) ... it would have been a very good idea.... was a good idea... but silly given the task to actually build it...

Another idea they had to end the war with Japan was to bomb the Volcanoes to create earthquakes and/or eruptions... a very silly idea, but seeing as Japanese spies would have seen the article as well meant they probably wasted time and money trying to ensure it didn't happen.

The thing is, I *know* those old publications are sometimes used as propaganda... but its still very good reading and gives you an insight into the psychological war they waged against the Germany, Italy, Japan and after that, the USSR. This is why they really hoped Germany and the USA would be allies... both nations hated the USSR... Germany because its leader was fanatically anti Communist and the USA because it was anti Communist because they were (and still are) a Capitalist nation (although they always mentioned "democracy" when denouncing the USSR!)

[DerekL1963]

Actually... No. We whitewash a TON of the popular opinion of the US before and during wars. In 1936 it was entirely possible that the US could have thrown in with Germany. They, like us, were lagging behind on colonial claims abroad, and we weren't terribly happy with how we had to bail France and the UK before. A large majority of the population of the United States was (and mostly still is) Germanic European. There were a number of powerful and influential .... sympathizers (remember, this is before anyone knew anything about the death camps).

We're wandering far off topic, but Stargate is quite correct - In 1936 (as in 1914) America was largely isolationist, moderately pro-German and (in the eyes of the general public) not necessarily that fond of the British. (Not to mention there was still lingering feelings of antipathy that dated back to the Revolution.) In both wars it was a combination of a largely anglophilic (American) upper crust and German over aggressiveness that ended up tipping the balance and causing events to unfold as they did.

[mrfox]

They underestimated the fallout that would result from such use.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Hence - testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_%28nuclear_test%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_%28nuclear_test%29

[kiwi1960]

They underestimated the fallout that would result from such use.

Hindsight is always 20/20.

Hence - testing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_%28nuclear_test%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagan_%28nuclear_test%29

Testing? I object to using humans as Guinea Pigs without their knowledge or consent.