Talk:The Manhattan Project (film)

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fair use rationale for Image:TheManhattanProjectFilm.jpg

Image:TheManhattanProjectFilm.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I removed an entire section (Technical errors). It was completely uncited and seems in all probability to consist entirely of original research. I have copied the deleted contents below in italics, in case any of it can be salvaged and reinstated with good references.

Dr. Mathewson claims that the device would produce a "50-kiloton blast." This is not nearly strong enough to do the kind of damage described. Some of the strategic nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal are capable of yields of up to 475 kilotons, and past warheads were capable of yields exceeding 3000 kilotons. For comparison, the Little Boy atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was only a 13- to 16-kiloton weapon.

Plant life is resilient to the effects of radiation. To find a patch of five leaf clovers, which had presumably been mutated by radioisotopes released during reprocessing, would have been evidence of a catastrophic containment failure. A radiation leak of that magnitude would have been lethal for workers within the facility as well as civilians within the local community.

Plutonium-239 does not release strong radiation without undergoing fission. The half-life of Pu-239 is 24 110 years. Therefore the timer on the device could not have been negatively affected by the release of radiation.

The Plutonium alloy depicted in the film is 99.997% pure which means the remainder is 0.003% Plutonium-240. Weapons-grade plutonium has around 7% Pu-240 contaminant and can be handled safely with thick gloves,^[1]but in the film this ultra-grade plutonium which contains far less Pu-240 is considered extremely "hot" and unsafe.

Paul refers to Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) as a nuclear bomb factory. Although ORNL is a United States Department of Energy laboratory, and one of the original Manhattan Project sites, it is not focused on nuclear weapons research or manufacturing. The Y-12 National Security Complex at Oak Ridge, however, would have been a more accurate choice.

Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Plutonium Isotopes - Nuclear Weapons". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-10-4.

Trivia

I removed the trivia section in its entirity. It was mostly uncited and consisted larely of observations of "interesting" aspects of the film. Wikipeterproject (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was just watching it again...

and at the end when Lithgow says "Too many secrets...too many secrets", I was reminded of that same line's use as a catch phrase in Sneakers, when they'd solved the "Setec Astronomy" anagram. Sometime when I get the time, I'm going to have to look at IMDB and see if any of the same writers were involved. That will keep me from adding any original research or trivia.67.142.130.45 (talk) 08:05, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flash at end

I believe that the 'flash' going off at the end doesn't mean it would have failed if they hadn't cut the lines. The lines were from the flash to the detonators. That was the whole reason they did it. Updating that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monty2 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Plutonium Isotopes - Nuclear Weapons". GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved 2010-10-4.

[1]