Category:
Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters

Miss Uranium

During the 1950s and 1960s, a number of women were given the title of "Miss Uranium."

I don't think there was one organization awarding the title. Instead, I think various local entrepreneurs held separate 'Miss Uranium' pageants. Or they didn't even bother with a pageant and just declared a model to be 'Miss Uranium'.

Toronto Star - June 11, 1968



Cleveland Plain Dealer - Aug 26, 1951



Toronto Star - Nov 4, 1953

Posted By: Alex - Mon Jan 13, 2025 - Comments (1)
Category: Awards, Prizes, Competitions and Contests, Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters

Lionel Toxic Waste Car

One of the stranger model train cars sold by Lionel is its "Toxic Waste Car," which it introduced in 1956 . From the product info:

Congratulations! Your Lionel railroad has won the government contract to safely remove toxic waste from your friendly local nuclear power plant for transport to remote dump sites located all across the continent. The simulated toxic waste load is held in two containers from which an ominously radiating light flashes on and off whenever the track is energized.



Over the years, Lionel has made various design changes and tweaks to the Toxic Waste Car. For instance, in 2007 it turned it into the "Area 51 Alien Radioactive Flatcar."



More info: tcatrains.org

Posted By: Alex - Sun Jan 12, 2025 - Comments (0)
Category: Toys, Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, Trains and Other Vehicles on Rails

Typical reactions of typical American women to feeling A-bomb blast

May 1955: Seven "typical American women" crouched in a trench 3500 yards from an atomic-bomb test in the Nevada desert. They did it to "demonstrate to other women that civilians can survive an atomic blast, if they take proper precautions."

The best reaction to the blast came from Mrs. Grace Doebler of Tucson, Ariz.: "I'd like to do it again, with a bigger one."



Binghamton Press and Sun-Bulletin - May 5, 1955

Posted By: Alex - Wed Dec 04, 2024 - Comments (3)
Category: Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, 1950s, Women

Atomic Bomb food tastes off

May 1955: Food tasters sampled a meal of French fries, vegetables, strawberries, chicken pot pie, cod fish fillets, and orange juice taken from a freezer buried 1,270 feet from an atomic bomb blast. While all the food was deemed edible, they said the orange juice and pie were noticeably "off flavor."

It's unclear why the food tasted off. Radiation shouldn't have changed the taste of the food. It was probably because they were told where it was from and their expectations led them to believe it tasted different. The researchers should have conducted a blind taste test.

Tampa Bay Times - May 11, 1955



Reno Gazette-Journal - May 12, 1955

Posted By: Alex - Tue Nov 26, 2024 - Comments (3)
Category: Food, Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, 1950s

Atomic Bomb Ring

Back in 1947, kids could get an "atomic bomb ring" by sending in a boxtop of Kix cereal plus 15 cents. The ring allowed them to observe flashes of light caused by polonium alpha particles striking a zinc sulfide screen. Although one had to be in a fully dark room, with dark-adapted eyes, to see the effect. That's actually a pretty cool toy for a cereal promotion.

I think the ring may have been similar in principle to the cheap geigerscopes that used to be sold to let people search for uranium in their backyards (see previous post).

San Francisco Examiner - Feb 9, 1947
Click to enlarge



image source: orau.org

Posted By: Alex - Fri Nov 22, 2024 - Comments (2)
Category: Toys, Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, 1940s

Neutron Radiation Wall

Physicist Samuel T. Cohen is credited with inventing the neutron bomb — a nuclear weapon designed to minimize blast damage but maximize the release of radiation, so that it would kill people but preserve infrastructure.

Cohen later came up with the idea of a neutron radiation wall. This would be a wall of ionizing radiation that would kill anyone who passed through it. He suggested that Israel could build a neutron radiation wall along its border to protect itself from invasion.

He described how this wall would work in a March 1984 article in Reason magazine:

What I am suggesting is the construction of a border barrier whose most effective component is an extremely intense field of nuclear radiation (produced by the operation of underground nuclear reactors), sharply confined to the barrier zone, which practically guarantees the death of anyone attempting to breach the barrier...

Briefly, this is how such a barrier scheme would work:

During peacetime, the reactors (employed underground, for protection and safety) are operated on a continual basis, as are our power reactors. The neutrons produced by the fission reactions escape into a solution containing an element that, upon absorbing the neutrons, becomes highly radioactive and emits gamma rays (very high energy X-rays) at extremely high intensity. The radioactive solution is then passed into a series of pipes running along the barrier length in conjunction with conventional obstacle components—mines, Dragon's Teeth, tank traps, barbed wire, etc. To the rear of the pipes and obstacle belts is a system of conventional defensive fortifications. (The obstacles, the firepower from the fortifications, and tactical air power all serve to impede the rate of advance of the attacker, increasing the attacker's exposure to the gamma radiation. Vice versa, by quickly incapacitating the attacker, the radiation serves to make it difficult, or even impossible, for the attacker to remove the obstacles and assault the fortifications.) The width of the entire defensive system need be no more than a few miles.

The gamma ray field in the immediate vicinity of the obstacle zone readily can be sufficiently intense that several minutes' exposure will produce incapacitation and ultimately death. However, at a distance of, say, 1,000 yards from the pipes, the radiation intensity is so reduced that people are perfectly safe. In fact, a person could stand all day at this distance without putting himself in jeopardy.

Posted By: Alex - Wed Sep 25, 2024 - Comments (3)
Category: Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, 1980s, Weapons

The dog with the nuclear nose

Physicist Cristjo Cristofv claimed that his cocker spaniel, Bijou, could not only detect nuclear fallout but also "changes in the atmospheric electrical field" caused by nuclear explosions halfway around the world.

Certainly a dog like that would be worth at least $10 million. Or so he claimed when the dog died as a result of a bad reaction to medicine given to it by a vet.

Cristofv eventually dropped his lawsuit against the vet due to unexplained "security reasons."

Peninsula Times - July 30, 1965



Chicago Tribune - July 30, 1965



Akron Beacon Journal - May 25, 1966

Posted By: Alex - Wed Sep 18, 2024 - Comments (1)
Category: Lawsuits, Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, Dogs, 1960s

Atomic Car



Posted By: Paul - Tue Aug 27, 2024 - Comments (1)
Category: Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, 1960s, Europe, Cars

A method for irradiating radioactive radiation

Patent No. 6,415,009 (granted in 2002) is titled, "Method for producing a coiled body for irradiating radioactive radiation."

What could it mean to irradiate radioactive radiation? When I came across the phrase I had to stop and think about it.

The text of the patent unfortunately didn't provide any clarification, although it did reveal that all this irradiating is being done in the context of brachytherapy (from wikipedia: "a form of radiation therapy where a sealed radiation source is placed inside or next to the area requiring treatment").

The phrase "radioactive radiation" actually does make sense to me. Radiation is a catch-all term for the emission of any kind of electromagnetic energy. So 'radioactive radiation' would be high-energy or ionizing radiation, as opposed to, say, low-energy heat radiation.

But I'm still confused what they mean by irradiating radioactive radiation? Does it mean to make radioactive radiation even more radioactive?

Or are they misusing the word 'irradiate'? My dictionary indicates that 'irradiate' means either to be exposed to radiation or to be illuminated by radiation. The sun radiates or emits light, and the earth is irradiated by its light.

So did the patentees mean 'emitting' rather than 'irradiating'? I'm just not sure. If anyone can figure out what the phrase means, let me know.

Posted By: Alex - Mon Aug 26, 2024 - Comments (3)
Category: Science, Atomic Power and Other Nuclear Matters, Patents

Page 1 of 9 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›




weird universe thumbnail
Who We Are
Alex Boese
Alex is the creator and curator of the Museum of Hoaxes. He's also the author of various weird, non-fiction, science-themed books such as Elephants on Acid and Psychedelic Apes.

Paul Di Filippo
Paul has been paid to put weird ideas into fictional form for over thirty years, in his career as a noted science fiction writer. He has recently begun blogging on many curious topics with three fellow writers at The Inferior 4+1.

Contact Us
Monthly Archives
January 2025

December 2024 •  November 2024 •  October 2024 •  September 2024 •  August 2024 •  July 2024 •  June 2024 •  May 2024 •  April 2024 •  March 2024 •  February 2024 •  January 2024

December 2023 •  November 2023 •  October 2023 •  September 2023 •  August 2023 •  July 2023 •  June 2023 •  May 2023 •  April 2023 •  March 2023 •  February 2023 •  January 2023

December 2022 •  November 2022 •  October 2022 •  September 2022 •  August 2022 •  July 2022 •  June 2022 •  May 2022 •  April 2022 •  March 2022 •  February 2022 •  January 2022

December 2021 •  November 2021 •  October 2021 •  September 2021 •  August 2021 •  July 2021 •  June 2021 •  May 2021 •  April 2021 •  March 2021 •  February 2021 •  January 2021

December 2020 •  November 2020 •  October 2020 •  September 2020 •  August 2020 •  July 2020 •  June 2020 •  May 2020 •  April 2020 •  March 2020 •  February 2020 •  January 2020

December 2019 •  November 2019 •  October 2019 •  September 2019 •  August 2019 •  July 2019 •  June 2019 •  May 2019 •  April 2019 •  March 2019 •  February 2019 •  January 2019

December 2018 •  November 2018 •  October 2018 •  September 2018 •  August 2018 •  July 2018 •  June 2018 •  May 2018 •  April 2018 •  March 2018 •  February 2018 •  January 2018

December 2017 •  November 2017 •  October 2017 •  September 2017 •  August 2017 •  July 2017 •  June 2017 •  May 2017 •  April 2017 •  March 2017 •  February 2017 •  January 2017

December 2016 •  November 2016 •  October 2016 •  September 2016 •  August 2016 •  July 2016 •  June 2016 •  May 2016 •  April 2016 •  March 2016 •  February 2016 •  January 2016

December 2015 •  November 2015 •  October 2015 •  September 2015 •  August 2015 •  July 2015 •  June 2015 •  May 2015 •  April 2015 •  March 2015 •  February 2015 •  January 2015

December 2014 •  November 2014 •  October 2014 •  September 2014 •  August 2014 •  July 2014 •  June 2014 •  May 2014 •  April 2014 •  March 2014 •  February 2014 •  January 2014

December 2013 •  November 2013 •  October 2013 •  September 2013 •  August 2013 •  July 2013 •  June 2013 •  May 2013 •  April 2013 •  March 2013 •  February 2013 •  January 2013

December 2012 •  November 2012 •  October 2012 •  September 2012 •  August 2012 •  July 2012 •  June 2012 •  May 2012 •  April 2012 •  March 2012 •  February 2012 •  January 2012

December 2011 •  November 2011 •  October 2011 •  September 2011 •  August 2011 •  July 2011 •  June 2011 •  May 2011 •  April 2011 •  March 2011 •  February 2011 •  January 2011

December 2010 •  November 2010 •  October 2010 •  September 2010 •  August 2010 •  July 2010 •  June 2010 •  May 2010 •  April 2010 •  March 2010 •  February 2010 •  January 2010

December 2009 •  November 2009 •  October 2009 •  September 2009 •  August 2009 •  July 2009 •  June 2009 •  May 2009 •  April 2009 •  March 2009 •  February 2009 •  January 2009

December 2008 •  November 2008 •  October 2008 •  September 2008 •  August 2008 •  July 2008 •