WI: Manhattan Project Disaster

GI Jim

Banned
What would be the outcomes, both social and geo-political, were the manhatten project to go drastically wrong. By this I mean that at some point during the research, I.E. most likely late 1944, human error leads to an atomic denonation in central new york.
 

Pangur

Donor
What would be the outcomes, both social and geo-political, were the manhatten project to go drastically wrong. By this I mean that at some point during the research, I.E. most likely late 1944, human error leads to an atomic denonation in central new york.
Why would they detonation be in New York when by 44 all the development was happening in Nevada?
 

nbcman

Donor
What would be the outcomes, both social and geo-political, were the manhatten project to go drastically wrong. By this I mean that at some point during the research, I.E. most likely late 1944, human error leads to an atomic denonation in central new york.
How? There weren't any significant atomic materials in New York. Plutonium was refined in Washington state and Uranium was enriched in Tennessee. The fissile materials were brought to facilities in New Mexico. If you want an atomic accident in a large metropolitan area, you could have the test reactor in Chicago malfunction. But it wasn't a very large nuclear reaction as it only had enough power output to energize a light bulb.
 
Perhaps, if they had kept the research in the University of Chicago and something had gone wrong, the potential was there. That it the only real POD.
 

Lusitania

Donor
I think that because it was called the Manhattan project the poster thought the testing was being done in Manhattan.
 

Philip

Donor
Apparently Fermi was jokingly wagering that the trinity test would ignite a chain reaction that would burn off the atmosphere.
 
I think that because it was called the Manhattan project the poster thought the testing was being done in Manhattan.
It was done in a collection of places, as the posts say. The test unit in Chicago, I believe, was the only one in a highly populated area. Could it have gone critical over a mistake? Remember, years later, the first H-bomb was bigger than predicted, with negative consequences.
 
The Chicago reactor was rated at 0.5 watts. They calculated that because of delayed neutrons they would have plenty of time to shut it down before anything bad could happen. The entire reason for it’s existence was to prove that sustained controlled chain reaction was possible. “Critical” was what they were trying to do. “Super critical” or “Prompt critical” is when bad things happen. The design, power level and delayed neutrons meant that the odds of something bad happening was very, very small. Wiki has a very well written article on the reactor.
 

nbcman

Donor
There was another reactor near Chicago (Chicago Pile-3) which did have a larger thermal power output of 300kW that started operation in 1944. Maybe there could be a mishap with this reactor?
 
Maybe it could melt down or have a huge reactivity excursion leading to a thermal release. What it can’t have is a nuclear detonation. This is simply not possible. It was started in May, 1944 in Palos Hills, IL. This was probably pretty far outside Chicago in 1944. IMHO the military would have just buried it, figuratively and literally, learned from the mistakes and moved on.
 
Maybe it could melt down or have a huge reactivity excursion leading to a thermal release. What it can’t have is a nuclear detonation. This is simply not possible. It was started in May, 1944 in Palos Hills, IL. This was probably pretty far outside Chicago in 1944. IMHO the military would have just buried it, figuratively and literally, learned from the mistakes and moved on.
So, if a real disaster happens with the project, it will likely be in Tennessee, Washington, Nevada or New Mexico and kept a hush-hush military secret for who knows how long. A super-critical detonation would likely preclude the need for the test at White Sands.
 

Kaze

Banned
How about the Japanese balloon bombs? One of the balloon bombs damaged one of the outhouses of the project - but a little wind to the right or left...well... that might have turn things interesting.
 
The original post was about a “nuclear detonation.” A huge reactivity excursion leading to a thermal release is what happened at Chernobyl. The reactor generates a crap ton of thermal energy because of the uncontrolled fission events. This rapid buildup of energy eventually gets released. This is in no way what a “nuclear detonation” is. You might, might have seen a Fukushima melt down or a Chernobyl type explosion, but not plutonium or uranium in a critical mass Trinity, Fat Man or Little Boy “nuclear detonation.”
 
The Chicago reactor was rated at 0.5 watts. They calculated that because of delayed neutrons they would have plenty of time to shut it down before anything bad could happen. The entire reason for it’s existence was to prove that sustained controlled chain reaction was possible. “Critical” was what they were trying to do. “Super critical” or “Prompt critical” is when bad things happen. The design, power level and delayed neutrons meant that the odds of something bad happening was very, very small. Wiki has a very well written article on the reactor.

Possibly the graphite could catch fire & there would be a small radioactivity release from the Uranium. These days, it would be classified as a "catastrophe" - in the early 1940's, no-one would even notice. There would possibly be a scandal in the 1960's about slightly increased cancer rates.
 
It was done in a collection of places, as the posts say. The test unit in Chicago, I believe, was the only one in a highly populated area. Could it have gone critical over a mistake? Remember, years later, the first H-bomb was bigger than predicted, with negative consequences.

CP-1 at Chicago never ran higher than 200 watts, so there's not much of a Chernobyl or Windscale possibility, not enough thermal watts to get the graphite burning.

The next reactor, Chicago Pile 2, a larger version of CP-1, was able to do 10,000 Thermal Watts, that may have been enough to start a fire, but unlikely to spread much radioactivity
 
CP-1 at Chicago never ran higher than 200 watts, so there's not much of a Chernobyl or Windscale possibility, not enough thermal watts to get the graphite burning.
-
The next reactor, Chicago Pile 2, a larger version of CP-1, was able to do 10,000 Thermal Watts, that may have been enough to start a fire, but unlikely to spread much radioactivity

Indeed, there would have to be an external source of ignition, perhaps a lab-fire spreads or other possibilities.
And, as you say, not much radioactivity (bear in mind this was unused Uranium, not a commercial decades-old core) and no-one would notice at the time but, after decades of the Linear No-Threshold model being assumed, it would freak people out these days
 
How about the Japanese balloon bombs? One of the balloon bombs damaged one of the outhouses of the project - but a little wind to the right or left...well... that might have turn things interesting.

The Chicago Piles were pretty crude. Emergency control rods, were wood boards with cadmium strips nailed on, suspended by clothesline that could be cut with a nearby axe, and would drop in, and you get your SCRAM.

The standard control rods were lowered by electric motor, and were tied into neutron detector circuits, anything over the threshold would trip, and all the rods would start to lower

Also had water with cadmium in it, in case of fire.
 
Indeed, there would have to be an external source of ignition, perhaps a lab-fire spreads or other possibilities.

Stagg Field was mostly unused, unlikely, but always possible. The Chicago Piles had around 6 tons of Uranium metal, and IIRC, ten times that in Uranium Oxide, and a lot of Graphite. Yeah it can burn, but i't not easy to ignite.

It's worse than trying to light a BBQ briquette with a Bic lighter, you can take a blowtorch to graphite and it won't light. Graphite is used as the element in electrical heaters, will go red hot and not burn
 
Top