4 ms·

Meanwhile, American scientists as part of Project Plowshare[1] were proposing to use nukes to blast a harbor in Alaska, "in the shape of a polar bear, if desire

Meanwhile, American scientists as part of Project Plowshare[1] were proposing to use nukes to blast a harbor in Alaska, "in the shape of a polar bear, if desired".[2] They also wanted to use nukes to blast a canal through Central America, as an alternative to the Panama Canal.[2] [1] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare#cite_note-11 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare#cite_note-... [2] - https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-for-peace/ https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-fo...

koheripbal 4y ago
This was obviously before they understood that radioactive fallout was an issue with nukes.
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  No, they already knew about the dangers of fallout. "the AEC established Project Plowshare amid growing public and political opposition to nuclear programs. Nuclear tests routinely produced unacceptably high levels of fallout, and the subsequent appearance in drinking water, milk, meat, and produce of strontium-90, cesium-137, and other cancer-causing radioactive elements had generated a movement demanding a worldwide ban on airborne nuclear tests." But "the AEC believed the region [in Alaska where the harbor would be created with nukes] to be an uninhabited Arctic wasteland." "Environmental scientists, as well as many Alaskan locals, were not sold. They doubted AEC estimates that a bomb crater harbor would be handling $176 million in annual exports within 25 years. Cape Thompson adjoined large deposits of coal and oil, but it also was iced in nine months out of every 12." "And the cape was only 30 miles south of Point Hope, an Inuit village whose residents subsisted on the region’s abundant wildlife. Irked by critics, Teller vented to economist George Rogers, "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner.""[1] [1] - https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-for-peace/ https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-fo...
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    > "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner." Wow and they say old times were better lol They were so careless with nature and people
    - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
      You're only saying that because of the political baggage that surrounds treatment of native Americans and coal mining and the way we view those things today. The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one.
      - pmoriarty 4y ago
        "The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one." It certainly is controversial. Some look at this process as economic opportunity, others as indentured servitude and exploitation. There's been a long and sad history of such developments leaving the areas where it happens a polluted, barren carcass.
- gambiting 4y ago
  There was never a time when anyone involved in these projects didn't take fallout into account. The thing is that fallout is something that can be controlled(to an extent). You can make a nuke that produces a lot of it, or a nuke that produces hardly any. Also(understandably) you don't get any fallout for underground explosions - we've used nukes for closing oil wells for instance, with zero environmental contamination outside of the initial blast zone. That's not me saying that this is a good idea of course. But it's not like fallout wasn't planned for.
- trimbo 4y ago
  One of Plowshare's proponents was Edward Teller. Teller designed the bomb that was tested as Castle Bravo. Castle Bravo's yield was far above expected and was a fallout disaster that was known at the time[1]. Castle Bravo was in 1954. He began to push for for Plowshare in the late 50s. Here he is in 1965 advocating for it.[2] Read "The Firecracker Boys" if you are interested in a lot more detail.[3] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fa... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k [3] - https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.html?id=0C59HAAACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.ht...
daniel-cussen 4y ago
Shape of a polar bear, if desired. You think that's a smoking gun? Hey you gotta brag your wares. It ain't bragging if it's true. And it's a really great way to dig, it's not blasting, it's boiling the rock, so the oxygen goes into the atmosphere, you crack it for a huge radius, it's a really good application of nuclear explosives. Explosives always had a dual use, war and mining, clearing rock.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  > And it's a really great way to dig, it's not blasting, it's boiling the rock, so the oxygen goes into the atmosphere, you crack it for a huge radius, it's a really good application of nuclear explosives. The Soviets actually got beyond the "talking about it" stage on such a project, and tested nuclear explosives to build a canal. AIUI it did not in practice work very well, and was abandoned.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Yeah one nuke, one canal. That nuke, that canal. They did get it to put out a gas well fire, perfectly at the first try, and gas well discovery--made good money off that. Don't talk about that, or like falsify the toxicology oh oh radioactive danger danger! Haha. Like you know the guy who took the biggest direct risk with the Chernobyl regulus is still alive? Doesn't even have cancer. EDIT: nobody talks about the metallurgy of plutonium in all of this, huge thing. People think nuclear bombs don't have any specific personality, just uniform atoms, when Pu has the most complex metallurgy.
treeman79 4y ago
To be fair at that point in time people didn’t understand radiation fall out. It was just a really big bomb.
- tuxie_ 4y ago
  Scientists didn't need to build a bomb, detonate it, and wait years to know that. Politicians just decided to ignore it because they thought that the economical gain for themselves outweighed the human costs for other countries. AKA Imperialism.
  - ch4s3 4y ago
    No, scientists like Edward Teller were pushing for Plowshare, it wasn't driven by politicians except the head of the AEC Lewis Strauss. They seriously thought they could do large scale engineering this way without much fallout, but couldn't make it work in practice.
makerofspoons 4y ago
Several bombs were used to attempt to extract natural gas under Project Plowshare. Lots of gas was made extractable but due to contamination it was unsuitable for cooking or heating buildings. You can hike or drive to the detonation sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rulison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rulison
- _joel 4y ago
  The Russians also used a nuke to cap a well that was burning out of control edit: linkage https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/09/how-soviets-put-out-oil-well-fires-by.html https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/09/how-soviets-put-out-oi...
  - lapetitejort 4y ago
    Did this chain of posters happen to watch a Curious Droid video recently? If you haven't, give the channel a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhITTxeAWDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhITTxeAWDk
    - _joel 4y ago
      No, I think it was a Dark Docs vid I saw that on.
    - makerofspoons 4y ago
      No but it looks cool. Project Gasbuggy and similar projects as well as their impacts are just part of the local folklore where I'm from.
srvmshr 4y ago
In those times i.e. nuclear age, scientists probably dreamed of every solution in terms of nuclear energy or explosions to solve things quickly, much as we think of ML today. All these technologies have their limitations and it took some careful failures to realize and move to alternatives or tested traditional methods.
- throwaway0a5e 4y ago
  Increasingly it seems like people who should know better (i.e. HN) don't realize that the people of the past were just as smart and resourceful as us but with different resources at their disposal and that the people of the future will likely have some much better solutions for things you think you are solving intelligently now.
  - srvmshr 4y ago
    Of course, every iteration of technological revolution will bring us better tools - and probably just like how we are wondering about nuclear age in the current information age, the future scientists will wonder why and how we reached the means we are dealing with now.

koheripbal 4y ago

This was obviously before they understood that radioactive fallout was an issue with nukes.

pmoriarty 4y ago
No, they already knew about the dangers of fallout. "the AEC established Project Plowshare amid growing public and political opposition to nuclear programs. Nuclear tests routinely produced unacceptably high levels of fallout, and the subsequent appearance in drinking water, milk, meat, and produce of strontium-90, cesium-137, and other cancer-causing radioactive elements had generated a movement demanding a worldwide ban on airborne nuclear tests." But "the AEC believed the region [in Alaska where the harbor would be created with nukes] to be an uninhabited Arctic wasteland." "Environmental scientists, as well as many Alaskan locals, were not sold. They doubted AEC estimates that a bomb crater harbor would be handling $176 million in annual exports within 25 years. Cape Thompson adjoined large deposits of coal and oil, but it also was iced in nine months out of every 12." "And the cape was only 30 miles south of Point Hope, an Inuit village whose residents subsisted on the region’s abundant wildlife. Irked by critics, Teller vented to economist George Rogers, "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner.""[1] [1] - https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-for-peace/ https://www.historynet.com/an-explosive-plan-to-use-atoms-fo...
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  > "We are not interested in preserving the Eskimo as a hunter. We are interested in giving him the opportunity of becoming a coal miner." Wow and they say old times were better lol They were so careless with nature and people
  - throwaway0a5e 4y ago
    You're only saying that because of the political baggage that surrounds treatment of native Americans and coal mining and the way we view those things today. The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one.
    - pmoriarty 4y ago
      "The premise that a big infrastructure project will create a bunch of economic opportunity in the local area and people will be better off for it is not a controversial one." It certainly is controversial. Some look at this process as economic opportunity, others as indentured servitude and exploitation. There's been a long and sad history of such developments leaving the areas where it happens a polluted, barren carcass.
gambiting 4y ago
There was never a time when anyone involved in these projects didn't take fallout into account. The thing is that fallout is something that can be controlled(to an extent). You can make a nuke that produces a lot of it, or a nuke that produces hardly any. Also(understandably) you don't get any fallout for underground explosions - we've used nukes for closing oil wells for instance, with zero environmental contamination outside of the initial blast zone. That's not me saying that this is a good idea of course. But it's not like fallout wasn't planned for.
trimbo 4y ago
One of Plowshare's proponents was Edward Teller. Teller designed the bomb that was tested as Castle Bravo. Castle Bravo's yield was far above expected and was a fallout disaster that was known at the time[1]. Castle Bravo was in 1954. He began to push for for Plowshare in the late 50s. Here he is in 1965 advocating for it.[2] Read "The Firecracker Boys" if you are interested in a lot more detail.[3] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#High_levels_of_fa... [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oa-IqOHDr_k [3] - https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.html?id=0C59HAAACAAJ https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Firecracker_Boys.ht...

daniel-cussen 4y ago

Shape of a polar bear, if desired. You think that's a smoking gun? Hey you gotta brag your wares. It ain't bragging if it's true. And it's a really great way to dig, it's not blasting, it's boiling the rock, so the oxygen goes into the atmosphere, you crack it for a huge radius, it's a really good application of nuclear explosives. Explosives always had a dual use, war and mining, clearing rock.

rsynnott 4y ago
> And it's a really great way to dig, it's not blasting, it's boiling the rock, so the oxygen goes into the atmosphere, you crack it for a huge radius, it's a really good application of nuclear explosives. The Soviets actually got beyond the "talking about it" stage on such a project, and tested nuclear explosives to build a canal. AIUI it did not in practice work very well, and was abandoned.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Yeah one nuke, one canal. That nuke, that canal. They did get it to put out a gas well fire, perfectly at the first try, and gas well discovery--made good money off that. Don't talk about that, or like falsify the toxicology oh oh radioactive danger danger! Haha. Like you know the guy who took the biggest direct risk with the Chernobyl regulus is still alive? Doesn't even have cancer. EDIT: nobody talks about the metallurgy of plutonium in all of this, huge thing. People think nuclear bombs don't have any specific personality, just uniform atoms, when Pu has the most complex metallurgy.

treeman79 4y ago

To be fair at that point in time people didn’t understand radiation fall out. It was just a really big bomb.

tuxie_ 4y ago
Scientists didn't need to build a bomb, detonate it, and wait years to know that. Politicians just decided to ignore it because they thought that the economical gain for themselves outweighed the human costs for other countries. AKA Imperialism.
- ch4s3 4y ago
  No, scientists like Edward Teller were pushing for Plowshare, it wasn't driven by politicians except the head of the AEC Lewis Strauss. They seriously thought they could do large scale engineering this way without much fallout, but couldn't make it work in practice.

makerofspoons 4y ago

Several bombs were used to attempt to extract natural gas under Project Plowshare. Lots of gas was made extractable but due to contamination it was unsuitable for cooking or heating buildings. You can hike or drive to the detonation sites: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rulison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Rulison

_joel 4y ago
The Russians also used a nuke to cap a well that was burning out of control edit: linkage https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/09/how-soviets-put-out-oil-well-fires-by.html https://www.amusingplanet.com/2018/09/how-soviets-put-out-oi...
- lapetitejort 4y ago
  Did this chain of posters happen to watch a Curious Droid video recently? If you haven't, give the channel a look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhITTxeAWDk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhITTxeAWDk
  - _joel 4y ago
    No, I think it was a Dark Docs vid I saw that on.
  - makerofspoons 4y ago
    No but it looks cool. Project Gasbuggy and similar projects as well as their impacts are just part of the local folklore where I'm from.

srvmshr 4y ago

In those times i.e. nuclear age, scientists probably dreamed of every solution in terms of nuclear energy or explosions to solve things quickly, much as we think of ML today. All these technologies have their limitations and it took some careful failures to realize and move to alternatives or tested traditional methods.

throwaway0a5e 4y ago
Increasingly it seems like people who should know better (i.e. HN) don't realize that the people of the past were just as smart and resourceful as us but with different resources at their disposal and that the people of the future will likely have some much better solutions for things you think you are solving intelligently now.
- srvmshr 4y ago
  Of course, every iteration of technological revolution will bring us better tools - and probably just like how we are wondering about nuclear age in the current information age, the future scientists will wonder why and how we reached the means we are dealing with now.