4 ms·

Would they be wearing protective gear if it was an actual accident? Also, the dude with the clip board doesn't look very concerned...

dboreham 4y ago
The damage is at the non-nuclear end of the bomb.
jacobsenscott 4y ago
The guy with the beard (most likely the one who knows the most about it) looks like he's ready to take a big step back though.
- pigbearpig 4y ago
  Then he would know that's pointless.
ceejayoz 4y ago
> Would they be wearing protective gear if it was an actual accident? Nuclear warhead cores were routinely handled by hand. Not sure if they still are, but when intact and non-critical, they present very little radiation risk. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/after-wwii-scientists-conducted-deadly-tests-unexploded-nuclear-bomb-core-180953668/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/after-wwii-scienti...
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Plutonium is quite toxic, however, and I think by now it would be normal to have some protection when working with it. And given the consequences for playing fast & loose in the past, it's likely we aren't as flippant now. Also, you're talking about the scientists, not the EOD grunts.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    > Plutonium is quite toxic... Myth. For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity
    - zokier 4y ago
      > so that the toxicity of plutonium is roughly equivalent with that of nerve gas Is not exactly saying that it is not toxic. I tried looking for actually credible sources for toxicity, one Los Alamos publication claims: > For example, the LD50(30) for dogs after intravenous injection of plutonium is about 0.32 milligram per kilogram of tissue. Less than nerve gases, but still I'd classify as "quite toxic"
      - bell-cot 4y ago
        > ...after intravenous injection... Nerve agents are very readily absorbed through the skin. Metallic plutonium is not. The context here is (at worst) people poking around the outside of slightly-damaged nuclear warhead. Back in the day, I directly (metal-on-skin) handled lead totalling >1000X the human lethal dose...if administered via intravenous injection. No lethal effects were observed to occur.
        ceejayoz 4y ago
        Exactly. Don’t take a belt sander to it, or light it on fire, and you’re fine. (Also, don't let it hang out with its friends.)
avar 4y ago
Hypothetically, if the bomb is damaged in such a way that it may accidentally detonate, it's going to be pointless to try to fix the issue while wearing protective gear.
- rep_lodsb 4y ago
  This couldn't happen. It takes precision timing of the conventional explosives inside a nuke to trigger detonation.
  - avar 4y ago
    The article under discussion here disagrees with you, see the "Nuclear Accident Management" section.
- stametseater 4y ago
  The protective gear would presumably be to protect the EOD guys in scenarios in which the bomb doesn't blow up. Just spitballing here but.. maybe SCBA gear in case it starts to leak tritium gas?

dboreham 4y ago

The damage is at the non-nuclear end of the bomb.

jacobsenscott 4y ago

The guy with the beard (most likely the one who knows the most about it) looks like he's ready to take a big step back though.

pigbearpig 4y ago
Then he would know that's pointless.

ceejayoz 4y ago

> Would they be wearing protective gear if it was an actual accident? Nuclear warhead cores were routinely handled by hand. Not sure if they still are, but when intact and non-critical, they present very little radiation risk. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/after-wwii-scientists-conducted-deadly-tests-unexploded-nuclear-bomb-core-180953668/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/after-wwii-scienti...

rootusrootus 4y ago
Plutonium is quite toxic, however, and I think by now it would be normal to have some protection when working with it. And given the consequences for playing fast & loose in the past, it's likely we aren't as flippant now. Also, you're talking about the scientists, not the EOD grunts.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  > Plutonium is quite toxic... Myth. For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium#Toxicity
  - zokier 4y ago
    > so that the toxicity of plutonium is roughly equivalent with that of nerve gas Is not exactly saying that it is not toxic. I tried looking for actually credible sources for toxicity, one Los Alamos publication claims: > For example, the LD50(30) for dogs after intravenous injection of plutonium is about 0.32 milligram per kilogram of tissue. Less than nerve gases, but still I'd classify as "quite toxic"
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      > ...after intravenous injection... Nerve agents are very readily absorbed through the skin. Metallic plutonium is not. The context here is (at worst) people poking around the outside of slightly-damaged nuclear warhead. Back in the day, I directly (metal-on-skin) handled lead totalling >1000X the human lethal dose...if administered via intravenous injection. No lethal effects were observed to occur.
      - ceejayoz 4y ago
        Exactly. Don’t take a belt sander to it, or light it on fire, and you’re fine. (Also, don't let it hang out with its friends.)

avar 4y ago

Hypothetically, if the bomb is damaged in such a way that it may accidentally detonate, it's going to be pointless to try to fix the issue while wearing protective gear.

rep_lodsb 4y ago
This couldn't happen. It takes precision timing of the conventional explosives inside a nuke to trigger detonation.
- avar 4y ago
  The article under discussion here disagrees with you, see the "Nuclear Accident Management" section.
stametseater 4y ago
The protective gear would presumably be to protect the EOD guys in scenarios in which the bomb doesn't blow up. Just spitballing here but.. maybe SCBA gear in case it starts to leak tritium gas?