
Under a fermium sky - Ice_cream_suit
http://blogs.nature.com/thescepticalchymist/2017/06/under-a-fermium-sky.html
======
philipkglass
If you enjoyed this article, the Restricted Data blog about nuclear secrets
and allied issues is great:
[http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/](http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/)

Also recommended:

The Nuclear Weapons FAQ by Carey Sublette (one of the foremost open source
researchers about the actual workings of nuclear weapons -- much more on his
site):
[http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html](http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq0.html)

And Gregory Walker's Trinity Atomic Web Site:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20170606125046/http://www.abomb1...](https://web.archive.org/web/20170606125046/http://www.abomb1.org/)

(The last-updated version says "Trinity Atomic Web Site has moved to a new
primary web server courtesy of the Center for Digital Discourse and Culture at
Virginia Tech University." but apparently it's all just fallen offline since
the last time I read it, sadly -- hence the archive.org link.)

------
brian-armstrong
It's a little weird to think that just 60 years ago you could be forbidden
from publishing about findings related to rain. It falls in your own back
yard, but you aren't allowed to study it or tell other people about it.

~~~
njarboe
It would be interesting to look at a list what is forbidden from being
publishing in the US today. Maybe it is forbidden to publish such a list.

~~~
kurthr
Start taking pictures of policemen in your local area, especially near the
station. I'm sure they will provide a guide to publishing...

Really, on a larger scale, is there much shock that reporting on top secret
weapons research topics will get you in trouble?

[http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-17/local/me-607_1_spy-
pl...](http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-17/local/me-607_1_spy-plane)

~~~
ubernostrum
In the case of nuclear weapons specifically, it actually _was_ a shock when
the US tried to enforce the "born secret" doctrine (which said that
information about weapon design and mechanics -- even if figured out from
nothing but public, non-classified sources -- would automatically become
classified as of the moment the person figured it out).

See _US v. Progressive_ for the details:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Progressive,_Inc).

Amusingly, the argument was made -- and made seriously -- that the mere fact
that the government had pursued the case was a leak of "born secret"
information, since the attempt to suppress the information was tacitly an
acknowledgment that it was correct (since incorrect information would not be
subject to "born secret").

~~~
kurthr
Sonoluminescence research was made substantially more difficult, because most
of the modeling codes for collapsing plasmas were considered innapropriate to
civiliian research... or so I have heard.

------
labster
The good news is that given the geopolitical climate surrounding Korea, a new
generation of atmospheric chemists will get to study radioactive fallout
without censorship. Or wait, is that the bad news?

~~~
katastic
Kind of fucked up how you can joke about the murder of millions of people.

Replace Korea with Israel and now you got yourself a Holocaust joke.

~~~
dang
Would you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or inflammatory comments to
HN? You've done this repeatedly and we've warned you before, and eventually we
ban accounts that post this way. We have to, in order to preserve the site for
its intended use.

If you would read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)
and use HN as intended going forward, we'd appreciate it.

~~~
katastic
>we've warned you before

What are you talking about? Are you serious? You must really enjoy living in a
bubble. I'd be glad to take my sourced comments to a community that
appreciates... sourced, verifiable comments. What's the point in discussion if
it's not for finding the truth? Virtue signalling?

After the "Obama never did anything controversial" discussion (AND I VOTED FOR
HIM), I can tell pretty clearly the mods here value cohesion over facts,
logic, and reason.

So if I'm banned for that, I consider it a badge of honor to be on the right
side of history in standing for liberal values. I really can't comprehend how
you can value engineering and research and then shut your critical thinking
brains off when you start communicating with other people.

The thing about bubbles is... they eventually pop. Enjoy yours while it lasts.
It must be genuinely enjoyable to live in denial since so many people seem to
be doing it these days. But I wasn't blessed with the ability to think I'm
right all the time, even when someone posts a sourced rebuttal.

If this last election has proved anything, it's that people like you are
furious that their bubble is starting to crack. You all thought you had the
election "in the bag". Then the shock and tears came when reality seeped in to
the bubble. So enjoy having a website, while the rational people will enjoy
having the White House, cycle after cycle. Because as outraged as you get, the
one thing your group statistically can't be bothered to do... is vote.

TL;DR I'm better than you. ;) :P

