- Email: [email protected]
This week 50 years ago
CHRIS STEELE-PERKINS/MAGNUM
THIS WEEK 50 YEARS AGO Race to place first satellite Even though cooperation, rather than competition, is the keynote of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), scientists would be less than human if they were not speculating which of the artificial Earth satellites – American or Russian – will be aloft first. The Americans have announced that the launching of theirs must be postponed until next year. The Russians until very recently contented themselves with a mere couple of sentences affirming their intention to send up a satellite during the IGY. Now, however, they have communicated in some detail to the IGY central planning committee the nature of the investigations they intend to pursue with their satellite. The latest information suggests that, unlike the Americans, the Russians would choose a polar rather than an equatorial orbit. The documentation the Soviet Union has supplied says it will be using upper atmosphere research rockets to launch the satellite along a band between the 50th and 60th meridians east. This takes in Franz Josef Land in the Russian Arctic, passes between the Caspian and Aral seas in central Russia, and orbits above the main Soviet Antarctic station of Mirny near the South Pole. The main difference between the orbits of the American and Russian satellites is, therefore, that the former is being fired so that its path will be in a generally east-west direction, largely within the tropics, while the latter will pass in a more or less north-south direction over nearly all the inhabited land masses of the globe, and should certainly be observable from the British Isles. All we await now is the identity of the first nation to launch its artificial satellite. While everything seemingly points towards the Russians gaining priority, until a satellite is actually in orbit the veracity of any prior claims will constantly remain under scrutiny. From The New Scientist, 18 July 1957
www.newscientist.com
–Too close to cities for comfort–
US nuclear missiles ‘posed safety threat’ ROB EDWARDS
WHEN the US deployed nuclear missiles in England during the cold war, it did so despite safety warnings from UK government scientists, New Scientist has learned. Between 1983 and 1991, the US stationed 96 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles at Greenham Common in Berkshire, prompting the most prolonged and iconic of the UK’s protests against nuclear weapons. Now, previously top secret reports released to New Scientist by the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) under freedom of information legislation show that the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston had estimated that 10 million people, including the population of London, could have been exposed to an “inhalation hazard”
from plutonium if warheads exploded or caught fire. It was “credible” for one warhead to detonate by accident and engulf another seven in a fire, one report said. In another report dated 11 February 1980, scientists worked out the “plutonium dispersion hazard” from a cruise missile fire. Of the 11 bases in England being considered for the missiles, Greenham Common posed the highest risks, the report said. It was “the worst site which has been examined” because it was the closest to large centres of population which could be exposed to radiation in the event of an accident. The report said a fire in one storage cell, fed from fuel from the missiles, could result in the plutonium from eight warheads being blown across a large swathe of southern England. Still, the risk was considered “acceptable”.
That assessment was revised a few months later because new information from the US showed that warheads could indeed explode by accident. A second report was produced on 2 December 1980, after the US decided to station cruise missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth in Cambridgeshire. The report said: “If one warhead were to detonate it is possible that the other seven warheads in the storage cell could be engulfed in the fire which is virtually certain to ensue from the rupture of the missiles’ fuel tanks.” The risk was deemed to be “still acceptable”. The MoD’s response is that it “does not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place at any particular time”. It added, “There has never been an accident involving nuclear weapons in the UK that has put the public at risk. The MoD maintains the highest standards of safety and security during the storage or transport of nuclear weapons.” The Aldermaston reports will feature in a BBC Radio 4 documentary to be broadcast at 8 pm on Monday 16 July. ● 14 July 2007 | NewScientist | 17
THIS WEEK 50 YEARS AGO Race to place first satellite Even though cooperation, rather than competition, is the keynote of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), scientists would be less than human if they were not speculating which of the artificial Earth satellites – American or Russian – will be aloft first. The Americans have announced that the launching of theirs must be postponed until next year. The Russians until very recently contented themselves with a mere couple of sentences affirming their intention to send up a satellite during the IGY. Now, however, they have communicated in some detail to the IGY central planning committee the nature of the investigations they intend to pursue with their satellite. The latest information suggests that, unlike the Americans, the Russians would choose a polar rather than an equatorial orbit. The documentation the Soviet Union has supplied says it will be using upper atmosphere research rockets to launch the satellite along a band between the 50th and 60th meridians east. This takes in Franz Josef Land in the Russian Arctic, passes between the Caspian and Aral seas in central Russia, and orbits above the main Soviet Antarctic station of Mirny near the South Pole. The main difference between the orbits of the American and Russian satellites is, therefore, that the former is being fired so that its path will be in a generally east-west direction, largely within the tropics, while the latter will pass in a more or less north-south direction over nearly all the inhabited land masses of the globe, and should certainly be observable from the British Isles. All we await now is the identity of the first nation to launch its artificial satellite. While everything seemingly points towards the Russians gaining priority, until a satellite is actually in orbit the veracity of any prior claims will constantly remain under scrutiny. From The New Scientist, 18 July 1957
www.newscientist.com
–Too close to cities for comfort–
US nuclear missiles ‘posed safety threat’ ROB EDWARDS
WHEN the US deployed nuclear missiles in England during the cold war, it did so despite safety warnings from UK government scientists, New Scientist has learned. Between 1983 and 1991, the US stationed 96 nuclear-tipped cruise missiles at Greenham Common in Berkshire, prompting the most prolonged and iconic of the UK’s protests against nuclear weapons. Now, previously top secret reports released to New Scientist by the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) under freedom of information legislation show that the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment at Aldermaston had estimated that 10 million people, including the population of London, could have been exposed to an “inhalation hazard”
from plutonium if warheads exploded or caught fire. It was “credible” for one warhead to detonate by accident and engulf another seven in a fire, one report said. In another report dated 11 February 1980, scientists worked out the “plutonium dispersion hazard” from a cruise missile fire. Of the 11 bases in England being considered for the missiles, Greenham Common posed the highest risks, the report said. It was “the worst site which has been examined” because it was the closest to large centres of population which could be exposed to radiation in the event of an accident. The report said a fire in one storage cell, fed from fuel from the missiles, could result in the plutonium from eight warheads being blown across a large swathe of southern England. Still, the risk was considered “acceptable”.
That assessment was revised a few months later because new information from the US showed that warheads could indeed explode by accident. A second report was produced on 2 December 1980, after the US decided to station cruise missiles at Greenham Common and Molesworth in Cambridgeshire. The report said: “If one warhead were to detonate it is possible that the other seven warheads in the storage cell could be engulfed in the fire which is virtually certain to ensue from the rupture of the missiles’ fuel tanks.” The risk was deemed to be “still acceptable”. The MoD’s response is that it “does not confirm or deny the presence of nuclear weapons at any particular place at any particular time”. It added, “There has never been an accident involving nuclear weapons in the UK that has put the public at risk. The MoD maintains the highest standards of safety and security during the storage or transport of nuclear weapons.” The Aldermaston reports will feature in a BBC Radio 4 documentary to be broadcast at 8 pm on Monday 16 July. ● 14 July 2007 | NewScientist | 17