Jump to content

Talk:Louis Slotin/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

"Instinctively"

While not feeling myself sufficiently knowledgeable about the incident to make the change myself I think you should think carefully about whether to describe the hand movement as 'instinctively'. "Instinctively" at least to my way of thinking implies an action was involuntary, but if that's true then an article which is book-ended by praise of Dr Slotin's quick actions to save his colleagues has, in the centre of it, a description of the incident which read 'his hand slipped, he felt a burning sensation and he involuntarily jerked his hand away which, coincidentally, stopped the reaction' - this doesn't sound like a heroic act at all. So at the moment the article seems incoherent. One of two things would seem to be required; either the praise of Dr Slotin should be amended in light of the implicit view of the article that his action wasn't heroic at all or the description of the incident should be modified to be neutral between the two interpretations. So far as I can see the only problematic word here is 'involuntary'; if you remove that then at least the description is open to the interpretation that his action was heroic. I'm not asking anyone to falsify history, I'm just saying you have to pick - either his action was known to be involuntary in which case it's hard to see how he was a hero (any more than he was a 'villain' for having his hand accidentally slip in the first place, causing the reaction) or it's at least open to question whether it was a deliberate act, in which case it wasn't 'instinctive' in the colloquial sense, in which case it can readily be described as heroic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.220.27 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

1."Slotin instinctively jerked his left hand upward, lifting the upper beryllium hemisphere and dropping it to the floor, ending the reaction." and 2."Slotin was hailed as a hero by the United States government for reacting quickly enough to prevent the deaths of his colleagues due to the accident he caused.". As you are not contesting the factuality of those statements, I am going to assume both are correct as they do not appear to be contradictory and do not falsify each other... As an Encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not a place for authors to express their personal opinion simply on the grounds that they think that way, and although I think Slotin was an idiot and his name should be remembered in shame as the man who cased the early deaths of 7 other people, I do not think the article has an obligation to present judgement on people... and aside from that, the article clearly states; 1.It was his fault 2.He accidentally saved the day (kinda) 3.He was hailed as a hero by US gov. Never does it say that he IS a hero. Gabzlab00 (talk) 11:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Watchmen?

I don't think the reference from the Watchmen should be included, since Dr. Ostermann wasn't involved in a criticality incident whatsoever. He was in a fictional machine that removed objects from their "intrinsic fields", and was subsequently disintegrated. There was nothing stating any type of radioactive isotope reaching critical mass and emitting a burst of hard radiation, which is what Louis Slotin suffered. It almost seems a little disrespectful to relate the two, and unless there's a reference that Slotin was the inspiration for the fictional Dr. Manhattan, that will be removed. 70.189.191.130 (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

My random two cents - I don't see it as obviously being disrespectful. It would appear there are a fair number of fictional incidents which are loosely based on the Slotin incident and it's not the job of an encyclopedia to edit information other people might deem interesting or notable (such as the ability to back-trace fictional scenarios to the real life events which inspired them) on an ill defined concept of 'taste'. [1] suggests that in addition to Dr Manhattan, and the Stargate depiction mentioned below, the film 'Fat Man and Little Boy' had an incident explicitly based upon the Slotin one. It would seem a sensible compromise that if there is a page about the incident rather than the man himself these fictionalisations should go there and not here, however if there is not and the pages have been integrated together it doesn't seem right to actively suppress relevant connections to popular culture. I for one wouldn't have heard of Slotin had it not been for the Stargate connection, and while that might strike you as appallingly ignorant, I've listened to Feynman's Los Alamos from the Ground Up and don't believe it was mentioned there so....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.220.27 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Chalk circles

Allegedly, Slotin also used chalk to mark the positions of everybody in the room to allow later study of the effects of doses of radition received at different distances from the experiment. Does any know any more about this? The only reference I can find immediately online is here, which given the tone of the piece, I do not trust. Steved424 18:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Another reference .. This is the Google cache of this link, which is currently unreachable (for me, at least) Steved424 18:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Misinformation about observable radiation effects

The embellishments about blue glow, heat wave and sour taste in the mouth are not convincing. This page from the Canadian Nuclear Society explicitly refutes them. --18.85.9.22 06:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Criticality accident has discussions of the blue glow and heat effect. --Steved424 14:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Source?

Do we have a source for the recent edit:

"Nine months previously on August 21, 1945, the same 6.2 kg plutonium core (later nicknamed the "demon core" because of these accidents) had produced a burst of ionizing radiation that caused lethal radiation poisoning to Harry Daghlian, an experimentor who had made a mistake while working alone doing neutron reflection experiments on it. This core, subject to experiments so shortly after the end of the war, had probably been the intended core for the 3rd nuclear weapon never used on Japan."

I'm not saying its not real, just a bit dramatic and speculative. --Deglr6328 05:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It's dramatic, all right, but true from all I've read. It was named the "demon core" by people later. Clearly a bomb core, nickel coating and all. As for it being the core of the third atom bomb never used on Japan (but nearly shipped), we know there was a third bomb ready to go, and there can't have been too many bomb cores in August 21, 1945, because we know the bombing of Japan would have been limited at that time (had they not given up) by plutonium production. From Rhodes we know the Project was turning cores out as fast as it could and they were the limiting factor to rate of bomb drop. Groves thought he might *eventually* get to one bomb per 3 weeks, or 2 kg per week production rate. But they weren't there in August 45.SBHarris 16:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Stargate crap????

Why keep this on a serious page??? "In the 5th season of Stargate SG-1 series, in the episode Meridian, Dr. Daniel Jackson (one of the main characters) died under very similar circumstances to Slotin's death, being exposed to a lethal dose of radiation while deactivating an unstable naqahdriah reactor that would otherwise have caused a nuclear catastrophe."

Maybe pop culture for a subject page. But I hate to mess up a real man's bio with it. Perhaps if criticality accidents has its own page (I haven't checked) it can go on the pop section there. SBHarris 16:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've added it to a pop culture section which I stuck in the Criticality Accidents Wiki. We can put all the stuff which doesn't reference Slotin or Daghlian by name, perhaps there. SBHarris 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed the references to Stargate and Star Trek (of all things) as they had no relation to the article Alastairward 09:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I imagine that these references could go on some page with a subject of bravery, self sacrifice, for the greater good, etc. But I hope not. :) --SunDog 21:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Machinery removed?

I seem to recall that the "screwdriver trick" was one that Slotin invented due to his distrust of a machine that was intended to make these experiments. More specifically, he felt that the machine could potentially drop the reflector, or force it onto the core without a simple way to remove it. He then removed the device, and later the spacers as well. Does this ring any bells? Maury 22:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiction

I moved this section from article to this Talk page because it has no place in a serious bio. These could be merged to the various linked articles I suppose:

  • Dexter Masters—The Accident (1955)
  • Fat Man and Little Boy (1989 movie)—the character of Michael Merriman (played by John Cusack) is based on Slotin
  • E. L. Doctorow's City of God (2000) briefly references Slotin's criticality incident.
  • Bobbie Ann Mason's book An Atomic Romance (2005) also references Slotin's criticality incident.
  • Paul Mullin's play, Louis Slotin Sonata (2006), examines the incident and fictional deathbed hallucinations of Slotin.[1]
  • The 1947 MGM movie, The beginning or the End, was the first Hollywood film to tell the story of the development of the atomic bomb. It featured actor Robert Walker as a character who was killed in an accident similar to the real-life Slotin criticality event.
  • The Stargate SG-1 episode Meridian was based on events very similar to Slotin's criticality incident.

-Wikianon 06:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think these are cultural references that make perfect sense to include in a "serious bio". Apparently, Slotin's story, and his acts helped to make real the dangers and effects of nuclear research. I think these should go back into the article in a cultural references section. 71.39.78.68 (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I could probably incorporate them into the "Legacy" section I plan on writing. Nishkid64 (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I only added the Louis Slotin Sonata, The Accident and Fat Man and Little Boy to the article. I could not find reliable sources for all other fictional references to Slotin. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Slotin's death is also described in an excellent 1987 CBC mini series called "The Race For The Bomb". Neither the mini series nor the actor who plays Slotin (Denis Bouchard) have Wikipedia pages, however, so maybe it's not worth mentioning yet. IMDB has a page about the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.204.253.9 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of November 30, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Yes, but see comments
2. Factually accurate?: Yes
3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
4. Neutral point of view?: No
5. Article stability? Yes
6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Ruslik 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a few issues that should be dealt with:

1) Please, shrink the lead. It should be 1.5–2 times shorter.

2) The lead contains phrase "He separated the two half spheres using the blade of a screwdriver. The screwdriver slipped, and one of the half-spheres underwent a prompt critical reaction that resulted in a burst of hard radiation. Slotin reacted instinctively to the sudden release of heat from the reaction by dropping the beryllium half-sphere to the ground.", which is an inaccurate summary of the events (the description in the section 'The prompt criticality accident' is OK). First, the berilium halfsphere can not undergo critical reaction, because it is made of berilium. The chain reaction actually happened in the core. Second, he did not separate halfspheres with screwdriver, he actually kept them appart with screwdriver. Third, he did not drop the halfsphere, he actually lifted and then dropped the upper halfsphere. The difference is subtle but important.

Ruslik 14:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have resolved the factual errors in the lead. I am currently in the process of trimming the lead down, as well. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I have trimmed the lead significantly ([2]). Please tell me if you think it should be shorter. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 21:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will promote this article. Ruslik 19:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Nishkid64 (talk) 21:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Have you checked Richard Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb for information on this person/event? It is one of the most comprehensive treatments of the Manhattan Project and everything surrounding it that I have seen. It should be easily available at a public library or bookstore. Awadewit | talk 05:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is available at my university library. I will look for the book tomorrow. Nishkid64 (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition to being a vastly entertaining and informative read. This Pulizer-prize winning book should be required reading in every high school. SBHarris 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Copy editing questions

I have just done my first run-through. Honestly, I thought the article was very well-written. Some things I changed were probably more a matter of personal taste, than true "errors", so feel free to change those back. I tried to eliminate some of the redundancy that I saw since I noticed that one of the reviewers had mentioned that. Here are my questions:

  • Author Robert Jungt recounts in his book Brighter Than a Thousand Suns, "[e]ver since his earliest youth [Slotin] had gone in search of fighting, excitement, and adventure. He had volunteered for service in the Spanish Civil War, more for the sake of the thrill of it than on political grounds." - I'm not sure what this quote is supposed to support - it comes right after the claim regarding Slotin and his friends - was Jungt a friend of Slotin's?
  • From 1939 to 1940, Slotin collaborated with Professor Evans, the head of the university's biochemistry department, to develop radiocarbon from the cyclotron. - Who is Evans? (By the way, we usually just use first and last names and then an appellation like "physicist"). Does one really "develop" something from a cyclotron? I really have no idea, but the diction seemed a bit odd to me.
  • On May 21, 1946, Slotin and seven other colleagues were in a laboratory performing an experiment that involved the creation of the beginning of the fission reaction by placing two half-spheres of beryllium (a neutron reflector) around the plutonium core. - The creation of the beginning of a fission reaction" or "the creation of a fission reaction"? I wasn't totally sure.
  • At first, the incident was classified and not made known even within the laboratory; Robert Oppenheimer and other colleagues later reported severe emotional distress at having to carry on with normal work and social activities while they secretly knew that their colleague lay dying. - This doesn't make sense - if it wasn't known within the lab, how did Oppenheimer and others know? Did only some people know?
    • Oppenheimer just managed the project. He was rarely, if never, present in the labs. And yes, only the people "high up" in the ranks knew about the incident. I figure lab scientists knew Slotin was injured, but they did not know the exact circumstances. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Slotin's radiation dose was identical to the amount he would have received had he been 4,800-foot (1,463.0 m) away from the detonation of an atomic bomb. - This should say "feet", but I don't know how to change the template.
  • However, Robert B. Brode argues that the accident was avoidable and that Slotin was not using proper procedures, endangering the others in the lab along with himself. - Tell us why this criticism is important - who is Brode?
    • This criticism comes from someone within the Manhattan Project. The project leaders maintained Slotin's bravery, but Brode stated that the accident was avoidable. Also, Brode was a top physicist in the project. I have made a mention of that in the article. Nishkid64 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • From his early days at Machray Elementary School through his teenage years at St. Johns Technical High School, Slotin was academically exceptional. - The name (and link) here refers to a school in Florida. Did Slotin not attend St. John's High School in Winnipeg MB? The wiki page for St. John's High School in Winnipeg lists Slotin as an alumnus. Please correct if this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.35.37 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Lead

I do agree with the one reviewer who thought the lead was too detailed. Leads are supposed to summarize, not give the entire article away! Give the reader a reason to go on. Intrigue them a bit. Here is a rewrite I did of the lead. Since it was rather substantial, I did not replace it.

Louis Slotin (December 1, 1910 – May 30, 1946) was a Canadian physicist and chemist who took part in the Manhattan Project. He was born and raised in the North End of Winnipeg, Manitoba. After earning both his Bachelor of Science and Master of Science degrees from the University of Manitoba, Slotin attended King's College London, where he obtained his doctorate in physical chemistry in 1936. Afterwards, he joined the University of Chicago as a research associate to help design a cyclotron. In 1942, he was invited to participate in the Manhattan Project.

As part of the Manhattan Project, Slotin performed experiments with uranium and plutonium cores to determine their critical mass values. After World War II, Slotin continued his research at Los Alamos National Laboratory. On May 21, 1946, Slotin accidentally began a fission reaction, which released a burst of hard radiation. Slotin was rushed to the hospital, and died nine days later on May 30, the victim of the second criticality accident in history.

Slotin was hailed as a hero by the United States government for reacting quickly enough to prevent the deaths of his colleagues. However, some [scholars? physicists?] argue that this was a preventable accident. The accident and its aftermath have been dramatized in fiction.

I hope this was helpful. Awadewit | talk 07:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for trimming the lead. I have added your version to the article. I will look at the rest of the comments tomorrow. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Though I don't necessary agree with the idea that you're not supposed to "give away" the article in the LEAD. Given the space constraint (3-4 paragraphs max for a LEAD), that's exactly what you're TRYING to do. Wikipedia isn't a short story, or a joke with a punch line, or a strip-tease. It's an encyclopedia. It's not a meal, and the LEAD isn't dessert! Feel perfectly free to put the "best parts" right up front, if you can compress them enough without explanation. Think "executive summary." SBHarris 07:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I think the lead covers the main aspects of his life. I was struggling to trim the lead down, but I'm happy with Awadewit's work. Everything I originally wanted to get across is still there. Nishkid64 (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Additional references

Copying this list to here from my talk page, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


From Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

JSTOR papers with reference to Slotin or Criticality Accidents
  1. "'Clean' Nuclear Weapons," The Science News-Letter, Vol. 71, No. 24. (Jun. 15, 1957), pp. 374-375.
  2. Book Reviews, Annual Review of Nuclear Science, James G. Beckerley, Review author[s]: P. Morrison, Science, New Series, Vol. 120, No. 3109. (Jul. 30, 1954), pp. 180-181.
  3. In the Laboratory, "Carbon 14 Production from Ammonium Nitrate Solution in the Chain-Reacting Pile," L. D. Norris; Arthur H. Snell, Science, New Series, Vol. 105, No. 2723. (Mar. 7, 1947), pp. 265-267.
  4. "The Scientist in Contemporary Fiction," Bentley Glass, The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 85, No. 6. (Dec., 1957), pp. 288-293.
  5. "Literature, Science, and the Manpower Crisis," Joseph Gallant, Science, New Series, Vol. 125, No. 3252. (Apr. 26, 1957), pp. 787-791.
  6. News and Notes, Science, New Series, Vol. 107, No. 2776. (Mar. 12, 1948), pp. 264-268. (Announcement of the first Louis Slotin Memorial Lecture.)
  7. "Evaluations of Radiation Effects on Man: Radiation Accidents and Their Management," by Gould A. Andrews, Radiation Research Supplement, Vol. 7, Space Radiation Biology. Proceedings of a Workshop Conference on Space Radiation Biology Sponsored by the Office of Advanced Research of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration of the United States of America, held at the University of California, Berkeley, September 7-10, 1965. (1967), pp. 390-397.
  8. "Somatic Chromosome Aberrations Induced by Human Whole-Body Irradiation: The "Recuplex" Criticality Accident," by M. A. Bender; P. C. Gooch, Radiation Research, Vol. 29, No. 4. (Dec., 1966), pp. 568-582.
  9. "Chromosomal Aberrations in Persons Accidentally Irradiated in Vinc̆a 19 Years Ago," B. Pendić; Nada Barjaktarović; Vitana Kostić, Radiation Research, Vol. 81, No. 3. (Mar., 1980), pp. 478-482.
  10. "Chromosomal Aberrations in a Radiation Accident: Dosimetric and Hematological Aspects," G. J. Schneider; B. Choné; T. Blönnigen, Radiation Research, Vol. 40, No. 3. (Dec., 1969), pp. 613-617.
  11. "Estimation of Whole-Body Doses by Means of Chromosome Aberrations Observed in Survivors of the Hiroshima A-Bomb," M. L. Randolph; J. G. Brewen, Radiation Research, Vol. 82, No. 2. (May, 1980), pp. 393-407. (many more papers on chromosomal damage).
  12. "Early Functional Hemodynamic Impairment in Baboons after 1000 R or Less of Gamma Radiation as Revealed by Hemorrhagic Stress," J. H. Myers; L. H. Blackwell; R. R. Overman, Radiation Research, Vol. 52, No. 3. (Dec., 1972), pp. 564-578.
Papers/books in Google Scholar
  1. Jews in Manitoba: A Social History by A. A. Chiel, University of Toronto Press.
  2. (Radiobiology paper) "THE UTILIZATION OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE SYNTHESIS OF α-KETOGLUTARIC ACID," EA Evans, L Slotin - Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1940 - ASBMB, Chicago E. A. EVANS, JR. LOUIS SLOTIN Received for publication, September 17, 1940 6 Evans, E. A., Jr., Biochem. J., 34,829 (1940).
  3. (Radiobiology paper) "CARBON DIOXIDE UTILIZATION BY PIGEON LIVER," EA Evans, L Slotin - Journal of Biological Chemistry, 141 (2): 439. (1941)
  4. (Radiobiology) "THE ROLE OF CARBON DIOXIDE IN THE SYNTHESIS OF UREA IN RAT LIVER SLICES," Journal of Biological Chemistry, 136 (3): 805. (1940)
  5. (Radiobiology paper) "CARBON DIOXIDE ASSIMILATION IN CELL-FREE LIVER EXTRACTS," - EA Evans, L Slotin, B Vennesland - Journal of Biological Chemistry, 143 (2): 565. (1942)
  6. (Radiobiology paper) "THE MECHANISM OF CARBON DIOXIDE FIXATION IN CELL-FREE EXTRACTS OF PIGEON LIVER," EA Evans, B Vennesland, L Slotin - Journal of Biological Chemistry, (1943)
  7. (Patent)"Method of Dissolving Uranium Metal", Louis A. Slotin, US Patent Office
  8. (Early Manitoba Paper) "The Preparation of Racemic Tartaric Acid," AN Campbell, L Slotin, SA Johnston - Journal of the American Chemical Society, volume 55, p. 2604. (1933)
  9. (Early Manitoba Paper), "The Systems (a) Ammonium d-Tartrate—Lithium d-Tartrate—Water, and (b) Ammonium Lithium d-Tartrate" AN Campbell, L Slotin - Journal of the American Chemical Society, p. 3961, 1933
  10. (Patent file by Wigner et al which refers to a co-pending patent by Slotin et al (Slotin not first author)). Fluid Moderated Reactor
  11. (Refers to the work of Slotin) Krebs, Hans A., "The discovery of carbon dioxide fixation in mammalian tissues," Journal Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry, Springer Netherlands, Volume 5, Numbers 1-2 / November, 1974, Pages, 79-94.
  12. History of the Oak Ridge Critical Experiments Program
  13. A History of Critical Experiments at the Pajarito Site, Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  14. Nuclear Criticality Safety: A Two-Day Training Course, offered at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
  15. Vennesland, Brigit, Recollections and Small Confessions, Annual Review of Plant Physiology Vol. 32: 1-21 (Volume publication date June 1981) Vennesland was both a student and instructor in biochemistry around the same time Slotin was there. She was a research assistant to E. A. Evans (collaborator of Slotin). She mentions Slotin, but more importantly, describes the University of Chicago during that time.
  16. Remembering the Manhattan Project: Perspectives on the making of the Atomic Bomb and its legacy, Cynthia Kelley, 2004.
  17. Dosimetry at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility: Past, Present, and Future by Richard E. Malenfant (2 MB pdf file) From intro: "The first critical experiments at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility (LACEF), were conducted in 1945. The first documented application of the facility to dosimetry followed the fatal accident of 21 May 1946. Although the first fatality resulted from an accident on 21 August 1945, no serious attempt could be made to characterize the dose (which was estimated at 800 rep °) because only one individual was involved, and he was working alone. The 21 May 1946 accident involved eight participants. Following the accident, Louis Slotin (the only fatality) requested that all participants be surveyed in an attempt to establish at least the relative exposures. This was done in a crude way by evaluating the activation of silver coins, gold and silver fillings in the teeth, and blood sodium activation. Stratton 3,4reports estimated doses of 900, 185, 116, 93, 41, 26, 18, and 18 rep. The attempt to understand and evaluate biological radiation effects is extremely difficult and very sensitive...."
  18. "Criticality: The fine line of control" by Hugh Paxton, Los Alamos Science, Winter 1983.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the move, SandyGeorgia. I will start working on these new references soon. Nishkid64 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This was supposed to be a featured article on Jan 23. It's noted here, and it was on the FA calendar. Now it's not... a different article is slated for that date. Looking into the change, I can't find ANY discussion of this article on the FA review pages. What's going on? Leotohill (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can see the discussion log by following a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Louis_Slotin from the FA template above. But why doesn't it appear on the list of archived nominations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2007 ? Also, that discussion doesn't provide a clue on why it was FA, and then not.

I'm sure this is all just my ignorance... would someone shine a light for me?. Thanks. Leotohill (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is FA, see Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Physics and astronomy.

Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/December_2007 is only for failed nominations. Ruslik (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the clarification Ruslik. It suddenly became clear to me that I was conflating "featured article" and "main page article". What happened to the main page designation for this article? Leotohill (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I came here curious because the FA on now (Crazy_Taxi_(series)) appears to be just a GA by all of the discussion on the talk page. A mistake somewhere?? 210.138.109.72 (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... nah I guess there's just not a lot of discussion there. It's definitely an FA. 210.138.109.72 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the mixup, folks. I did not want the article featured on the Main Page at the moment, since I have some issues from the FAC that I still need to work on. I asked Raul to remove Louis Slotin and replace it with Stede Bonnet, another FA I wrote. Nishkid64 (talk) 04:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

New article

The Winnipeg Free Press has done a well researched article about Louis Slotin, it may be useful to use it as a source for this article. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/story/4221946p-4838936c.html Iamthenew!! (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio

Some parts of the article are direct copies, word for word, of this source. Citing it with a footnote doesn't mean entire sentences can be copied directly. I have fixed one, which was put into the article as prose but was in fact a direct copy from the source where it was a quote from an eyewitness, which was not clear in this article at all. Hopefully we can find the other instances of this and avoid a FAR. SGGH ping! 22:01, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing info

  1. How did he save others? Assume this is quick disassembly of core.
    Right.--Yannick (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  2. What happened to others?
    They lived happily ever after.--Yannick (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
  3. Diagram shows someone standing right beside him, why wasn't that person fatally affected?
    Because he was further away from the source. He probably got acute radiation syndrome but survived it. His dose was estimated as 185 rep.--Yannick (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

72.228.189.184 (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

additional Slotin source (in Czech)

a decade-old article on Slotin for a Czech online mag - a compilation of several sources (some of which are no longer online). It got mirrored and is stil available:

http://www.webzapo.com/cumak/index.php?m=1000002&id=303

The article contains an authentic photo of the room right after the accident (there are no chalk markings visible but what appears to be five measuring sticks was placed on the scene). It mentions that apart from Slotin, 3 witnesses of the accident eventually died of leukemia years later.

If you want, I can re-translate it back to English and maybe try to piece together the original sources (that are now unavailable).

Please let me know.

Nipple ointment — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipple ointment (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

PS: "Luis Slotin received about 2100 rem - several times the lethal dose. Alvin Graves standing nearby received 360 rem, nearly a lethal dose. The exposure of other participants was 250, 160, 110, 47 and 37 rem. [snip] Alvin Graves and Samuel Allan Kline survived radiation doses which were considered fatal at the time - it took them a long time to recover from the symptoms of radiation sickness. Graves died in 1965 from heart attack. Kline lived until 2001. [snip] From the remaining five participants, three eventually died of leukemia years later. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nipple ointment (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dose problems

The article gives two dose values which are problematic for multiple reasons:

"The 24-year old Daghlian was irradiated with 510 rems (5.1 Sv) of neutron radiation."
"However, he had already been exposed to a lethal dose (around 2100 rems, or 21 Sv, or 21 gray) of neutron and gamma radiation."

Both of these doses are properly supported by a Los Alamos review published in 2000, which gave these doses in units of rem. However, the source does not give the radiation types. I would guess that gamma would dominate in both cases, followed by neutron. I don't understand why the same plutonium core would give different radiation types in the two cases, though I might speculate some ideas.

The next question is which definition of rem is being used here? Between 1950 and 1977, the rem was defined in terms of the roentgen, and I believe it would convert to a little less than 0.01 Sv. But in 1946, at the time of the accident, I'm not sure that there was any widely-agreed definition of the rem.

A related question would be what radiation weighting factors were used for the neutrons? You see, the accepted factors have changed over time, they remain controversial, and they depend on energy. Did someone do a thorough measurement or analysis, integrating over a spectrum of neutrons? Or did this dose come from a back-of-the-envelope calculation using a single value? In 1977, ICRP 26 recommended using a factor of 10 for all neutrons of unknown energy, in 1990, ICRP 60 recommended the functions shown below, and the US has meanwhile followed it's own drummer. We can rule out the ICRP 92 and ICRP 103 curves because the Los Alamos review was published before those came out. But what if they were quoting old values; what were the weighting factors in use in 1946?

Maybe we could sweep this under the rug by assuming that the Los Alamos report considered all of these issues and already corrected the values using the best practices in effect at time of publication. But then why were these doses given in rem at all? Modern practice is to use absorbed dose, in units of rad or gray, to correlate to acute radiation syndrome. Using units of rem indicates an equivalent or effective dose only used to gauge stochastic (cancer) effects. Unless they were following very old conventions, say pre-1953 or at least pre-1977. Other accident discussions in the Los Alamos report use units of rad and roentgen, so I would guess that they were copying old documents verbatim.

There's another reference out there, from 1995, that gives Slotin's dose at almost 1000 rad. Although this source has less pedigree, this is at least an absorbed dose, which is what is relevant to ARS fatalities. And it suggests that some answers might be found in old-fashioned paper records.--Yannick (talk) 05:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the 21 gray just has to be wrong. I wish people wouldn't just make stuff up.--Yannick (talk) 05:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I found something that may help: Dosimetry at the Los Alamos Critical Experiments Facility: Past, Present, and Future by Richard E. Malenfant says that Slotin's dose was estimated 900 roentgen equivalent physical (rep, not rad or rem!) by evaluating the activation of fillings, coins, and blood sodium. Daghlian's dose was estimated at 800 rep by some other means. The rep came into use in 1945 and started dying out in 1954, so that sounds like original numbers. It might be better to report those original estimates, or maybe both.--Yannick (talk) 05:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This newspaper article says Daghlian's dose was 800-900 roentgen, while Slotin's dose was 1900 roentgen. This web page says Daghlian got 590 roentgen whole body exposure. This 1959 newspaper article says Daghlian got 600 roentgen. This book written in 1986 says Slotin got 880 rad, "as though he had been within 4800 feet of a nuclear detonation."[sic]--Yannick (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This book gives an interestingly precise number: (Morgan, Karl Ziegler; Peterson, Ken M. (1999). The Angry Genie: One Man's Walk Through the Nuclear Age. University of Oklahoma Press. pp. 34–35. ISBN 978-0-8061-3122-1. Retrieved 30 May 2012.) "A neutron dose of 287 rad and an unknown amount of gamma exposure (he was not wearing his film badge at the time of the accident)."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ytrottier (talk • contribs) 17:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

This time I got the good stuff: a full dosimetry calculation written just two years after the accident. It's very hard to interpret into modern units, though. I've never heard tell of a megm-R unit!--Yannick (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

And here's one that summarizes 6 different dosimetry analyses of the events, the last one being in 1978.--Yannick (talk) 23:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Second victim

So he was the second victim of a criticality accident, was he ? Slotin's accident occured in May 1946. There were already about 150,000 victims of at least two previous criticality accidents prior to that.Eregli bob (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Those weren't accidents, they were quite deliberate. Modest Genius talk 13:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"Criticality"

I'm surprised that no one has flagged the word "criticality" -- at first glance, it doesn't sound like a normal word, & I had to resist from changing its appearances to "critical". (FWIW, my spell checker marks it as a possible misspelling.) From both the link and its context in the relevant section, I surmised quickly that it has a specific technical meaning, one different from "critical". However, there are several reasons for explaining to the reader this difference, either in the text or a footnote. One is the rule of least astonishment, so that a reader who is not an expert in nuclear physics is alerted that this is proper usage. More importantly, even experienced users need some kind of flag to show that this word wasn't added by a vandal or a less skilled editor; an experienced editor would suspect one of these had changed "critical" to the suspect "criticality" & made this article worse. -- llywrch (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Critical is an adjective, criticality is a noun. They both have pretty much the same technical meaning in the context of nuclear physics. There are hyperlinks to criticality accident and critical mass in the article.--Yannick (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Prompt Critical?

The discussion of the accident mentions it was a "Prompt Critical" reaction. The article on Prompt Critical says that a nuclear explosion will result after a few millionths of a second. How fast could Slotin have removed the reflector to prevent a detonation? Surely much longer than mere millionths of a second. There seems to be no clear agreed-upon definition of "Prompt Critical" in other articles related to criticality. Was Slotin's accident truly a "Prompt Critical" or is the Prompt Critical article incorrect?

James4v8 (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not so simple. The first sentence of prompt critical seems like a good accurate definition. But tt's possible for a prompt criticality reaction to then stabilize or poison out before it gets to the nuclear explosion level. The citation does say the assembly went prompt critical, though I may have my doubts.--Yannick (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, A nuclear detonation is a lot different, the implosion compresses the core so it is well beyond prompt critical, so the reaction will multiply fast and consume all the nuclear fuel before the core expands and drops below criticality again. The Slotin core was just barely prompt critical, so as you say a lot of marginal negative feedback factors could bring the multiplication parameter back below one to limit the reaction. For example, thermal expansion of the core. It seems like a lot of criticality accidents are self-limiting (see Review of Criticality Accidents) It does seem pretty amazing that there wasn't a greater release of energy and partial melting of the core, though. --ChetvornoTALK
No bomb can consume all the nuclear fuel, or even come close. They all blow themselves apart before that can happen.--Yannick (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
True. --ChetvornoTALK 03:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Enrico Fermi quote

I've added a quote from Eileen Welsome's The Plutonium Files quoting Enrico Fermi as saying to Daghlian (re: the tickling the dragon's tail test) "If you keep performing the experiment that way, you'll be dead within a year." Bravo Foxtrot (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Trained to fly jet fighter? Gentleman passed in 1946?

this article states something to the effect the slotin trained to fly a jet fighter during the Spanish civil war. as far as I can find the first rudimentary jet fighters were fielded by nazi Germany in the last ~ 15 months of the war. is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.27.251.183 (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

checkY Well spotted. Believe it or not, that error has been in the article since 2007 and you're the first to spot it, even though the article was on the front page! If you were a registered user I'd give you a barnstar. Well done, anyway. I've removed "jet" per the original source. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Dose in comparison with an atomic weapon

This is an excellent article but it says "However, he had already been exposed to a lethal dose (around 2100 rems, or 21 Sv, or 21 gray) of neutron and gamma radiation.[15] Slotin's radiation dose was about four times the lethal dose, equivalent to the amount that he would have been exposed to by being 1500 m (4800 ft) away from the detonation of an atomic bomb.[15]"

There are a couple of problems with that. Firstly, the second sentence is ambiguous as it is not clear if the dose referred to at 1500m is Slotins's dose, (21 Sv) or the fatal dose (about 5 Sv). Secondly, for weapons of approximately the size of those exploded in Japan, neither of the above figures is correct - the dose at 1500m is a little less than 1 Sv (or Gy, which in this context is near enough to the same thing). See for instance the Radiation Effects Research Foundation http://www.rerf.or.jp/library/update/rerfupda_e/dosphysi/ds86gam.html Finally, the dose from a weapon (at 1500m or any other distance) depends on the size (yield) of that weapon, and the span of yields is very wide. So it is not very helpful to say the dose is the same as that from a weapon.

I suggest that the reference to bombs does not help the article and would be better removed, so that it reads something like "However, he had already been exposed to a lethal dose (around 2100 rems, or 21 Sv, or 21 gray) of neutron and gamma radiation, which was about four times the lethal dose. [15]"

202.61.229.152 (talk) 11:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I would add that the lethal dose, assuming it means LD50, is probably a bit lower, mayber 4 Gy, and I've disputed Slotin's dose above. Comparisons to the bomb would be nice because the general reader has little experience with radiation units. How about saying: "Slotin's radiation dose was several times the lethal dose, comparable to the highest doses imparted by the atomic bombings of hiroshima and nagasaki."--Yannick (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well I would agree that the general reader has little idea of dose, or of the risks involved. So I'm not sure that comparing with the Japanese bombs would help a great deal, but your suggestion is certainly an improvement.
But now I see that someone has edited it again, removing any comparison with a lethal dose, and stating that Slotin received "a lethal dose of neutron radiation". I think there has to be a discussion of lethal dose somewhere (4 Sv, 5 Sv - in this context it doesn't matter much), and it is certainly wrong to imply that the "lethal dose" was from neutrons (only). -Baska436 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
That was me. Read further down in the article - there's a whole section on dose now. From the citations given, it looks like he got a lethal dose of neutrons, and no so much gamma.

As a native English speaker who lives in England I do not feel that the second sentence is at all ambiguous, and it took me some while to see what could be ambiguous about it. "Slotin's radiation dose" clearly refers to "the amount that he would have been exposed to (etc)...". The "lethal dose" can be assumed to be defined in a way (e.g. the dose that usually kills a person) which does not refer to Slotkin or his real or imagined experience. AJS77.96.59.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Timeline?

This article places Slotin's swim in the Clinton Pile (X-10 Graphite Reactor) in the winter of 1945-46, during his time in Los Alamos. But the Clinton Pile is in Oak Ridge, which Slotin had left a year earlier. In fact, I have a source (Mahaffey's Atomic Accidents, p. 63) that says the Clinton Pile swim led to Slotin's reassignment from Oak Ridge to Los Alamos, which means it happened sometime before December 1944, not late '45 or early '46. I only have the one source with no other confirmation, and I'm a complete Wikipedia novice. Can anyone confirm the timeline and make the edits if necessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.194.170.142 (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Louis Slotin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Louis Slotin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.thinkartificial.org/misc/real-life-doctor-manhattan/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Louis_Slotin/Archive_1&oldid=1088801513"