Right-Wing Science, 1959

[Nova Land]

This is something I found recently in a back issue of National Review. [color=f7f7f7]Kittynh keeps a large supply of these back issues in her basement, claiming many of her guests prefer them to toilet paper.[/color]
I debated between posting this item in Politics (so I could take a cheap shot at conservatives) and Science (on the chance that someone might know more about this and explain to me what Porzel was referring to). Curiosity won out.

originally published in National Review, August 1, 1959:

There is a foolproof means to explode a nuclear bomb which could not be detected by any inspection system yet devised. According to scientist Francis B Porzel, director of a series of eight Nevada atomic tests and senior scientific advisor at the Armour Research Foundation, not only can an undetected nuclear explosion be detonated within a few feet of an unknowing individual, but:

(1) either graphite or simple ice and snow (abundantly available in Siberia, for instance) can be used in capsular form to encase and hide the explosion;

(2) heat then generated can be stored for later use;

(3) the Russians have probably already developed this system.

Does Dr. Porzel's technique mean that mutual inspection systems to enforce a ban on muclear tests are unfeasible? A bald Yes. "It would make as much sense," says the Doctor, to have banned the airplane at the end of World War I... the problem is with people who will use the bombs."

That is the item, in its entirety. (The ellipsis is in the original.)

The idea that someone could set off a nuclear explosion a few feet away from me and I wouldn't have a clue it had happened sounds odd to me, but I am not an expert on nuclear explosions. My layperson's impression is that nuclear explosions are big and noticeable, but perhaps there is some itsy-bitsy teensy-weensy kind of nuclear explosion that they are referring to?

For those not familiar with the political context of this item: In the 1950s, the testing of nuclear weapons was a hot political topic. Many on the left strongly opposed nuclear testing, especially atmospheric testing; many on the right strongly supported it. In 1963 President Kennedy and the Democrats, under pressure from anti-war and pro-environment lefties, passed a limited test ban treaty and the issue faded from prominence. (Here is an article for those wishing more information on the background to this.)

If effective detection of nuclear explosions had truly been impossible, as this NR item claims, that would have been a powerful argument against passage of any test ban treaty, which is why NR printed the item. I am inclined to think this is a case of political ideology overcoming common sense (at least in the case of NR's editors -- I don't know how many others on the right bought into this notion) but wanted to check with more knowledgeable people in case what NR printed makes more sense than it sounds like.

Does anyone here know what Porzel (and NR) were talking about?

 

[pupdog]

Sounds like hogwash, because what needs to be tested is something suitable for use as a destructive weapon. A chain reaction that produced only heat (but was unnoticeable?) would not likely be helpful (we understand the basics; what we need to verify is the bomb design, full scale).

 

[uneasy]

Maybe by explosion, they mean bringing together radioactive material causing a burst of radiation to be released? Like a "neutron bomb". I think this could be done without anyone noticing. Until later when radiation sickness started.

create the beginnings of a fission reaction by bringing two metal hemispheres of highly reactive, beryllium-coated plutonium close together.

Historical reference:
http://www3.sympatico.ca/lavitt/louisslotin/movie.html

 

[Correa Neto]

Well...

I can hardly imagine of something more "encapsulated" then the underground atomic tests, OK, at least they were "encapsulated" by something more then sand and snow. And they could be detected and located by the seismic waves the blasts generated.

But if someone detonated a nuke a few meters from me, chances are I would become radioactive atomic dust well before my brain could proccess any information of what is going on. Possibly, even before any data gathered by my sensorial organs could reach my brain. So, he´s right about that part...

Or perhaps a very very very tiny nuke...

 

[headscratcher4]

or simple ice and snow (

Sounds like cold fusion....sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[arcticpenguin]

Well I guess you wouldn't know about it if it blew you to bits.

 

[Nova Land]

I did a google search on "francis porzell" and came up with this interesting result: a site run by his son called: "intuitive healing"

According to the site, Porzell was founder of something called unidynamics, which I think might be this site

That's as far as I've gotten. I'll delve further late tonight if time permits.

 

[Crossbow]

The official nonsense about nukes can be inundating.

One of the reasons President Reagan gave for not signing a Nuclear Weapon Test Ban Treaty with the USSR in the 1980's was that Edward Teller told him that the Soviets would dodge such a treaty by secretly testing their nukes on the dark side of the Moon.

So this means those sneaky Russkies would somehow be able to set up some sort of very sophisticated space based monitoring system on the dark side of the Moon, and all of the communication and supplies that would entail, then they would start blowing up nukes there, and us poor Americans would never be the wiser as what was going on.

Oh yeah, such a thing would be as easy to conceal as blowing up a nuke under a snow pack.

Ugh!

 

[tracer]

One of the reasons President Reagan gave for not signing a Nuclear Weapon Test Ban Treaty with the USSR in the 1980's was that Edward Teller told him that the Soviets would dodge such a treaty by secretly testing their nukes on the dark side of the Moon.

Hopefully, Teller actually said "the far side of the Moon," not "the dark side of the Moon."

Unless he was a Pink Floyd fan.

 

[Crossbow]

Hopefully, Teller actually said "the far side of the Moon," not "the dark side of the Moon."

Unless he was a Pink Floyd fan.

Yes, come to think of it, I think he did use the term "far" as opposed to "dark", but they mean the same thing: the portion of the Moon that cannot be seen directly from Earth.

 

[patnray]

How a nation could disguise a nuclear test explosion was actively debated during the 70's and 80's as momentum built for a comprehensive test ban treaty. Those opposed to the treaty postulated that the Russians could cheat if they built an underground test facility on an active geological fault and detonated the device during an earthquake. Of course, they would have had to have a device ready to trigger within seconds 24 hours a day 365 days a year. The device would have had to have a very low yield to remain masked by the earthquake (the magnitude of which they could not know in advance), plus they would have to separate the effects of the earthquake from the effects of the explosion when analysing the data. Many seismologists insisted they could still tell the difference. The argument was so absurd that I never thought those promoting it really believed it -- it was just a scare tactic to delay negotiating a true and comprehensive test ban. Not quite as absurd as the far side of the moon argument, but another example of embracing any argument, no matter how implausable, to justify a political position.

 

[BTox]

This is something I found recently in a back issue of National Review

The notion that there is a right-wing, or left-wing science, is absurd.

 

[Nova Land]

Here is what Francis Porzel's daughter Michele wrote about him on her web site.

(In a previous post I mistakenly referred to her as his son; I apparently misread Michele as Michael.)

Years ago, at my father’s knee so to speak, I learned and accepted as a given of life ... that everything in this world of matter, of thought, of emotion, [is] interconnected. From the early 1950’s, he was developing the five basic assumptions of Unidynamics: Universality, Optima, Impotence, Existence and Algebra. He believed that all the natural law can be derived from and all the natural structure be explained by using ideas from Generalized, Non-linear, Statistical Hydrodynamics. Through his discussions at the family dinner table, my siblings and I absorbed the concept of the interrelatedness, which I will refer to as the interrelated web of life.

This understanding of the interrelatedness of all that exists is an outcome of Dad’s work at Los Alamos Laboratories in New Mexico, where he and other physicists were responsible for Atomic and Hydrogen bomb tests. The profound experience they had, of knowing and seeing the terrifying power that they had unleashed, led many to deeply regret their role in bringing nuclear power into reality. It is no secret that Einstein recommended to President Truman that we use nuclear power. He regretted that support to his dying day.

In my father, this experience led to a driving need to bring the world to peace; to a tremendous awe and wonder of life on this planet; to an equal distress of how easily we could now destroy it, and thereafter of a life purpose to explain through Unidynamics how interconnected we all are. His purpose was to write these understandings so clearly that he could stop the world from destroying itself. He proved his theory through mathematical formulas and prose. My father was the rarest of finds and yet, one that is really the most natural - that of both philosopher and of scientist. He developed a theory from his heart and his mind, and proved it through physics. His turning point of understanding was first delineated in his book, Song of the Promised Land, a self-published book that describes in prose his hopes and fears for humanity. Humanity and the H-Bomb completed his explanation. At his death, he handed over his Unidynamics work to me to write. I am not a physicist, so I am writing from my experience of trying to live in an awareness of the interrelated web of all life.

From this, it sounds as if Porzel was the kind of sentimental peacenik that National Review was more inclined to make fun of than to cite as a source.

I was able to locate a copy on-line of Porzel's "Song of the Promised Land". It is a really really really really really long anti-war poem which he is said to have written between 1956 and 1959 in reaction to the first hydrogen bomb. In the Preface to the poem, Mr. Porzel says:

The writing of SONG OF THE PROMISED LAND really began when an address Mike Shot-Crossroads for Mankind was given to the American Military Industrial Conference in early 1956, a realistic appraisal of thermonuclear weapons, repeated at the invitation of the Army War College the following week.

Many of the ideas were thought out in a detailed book Humanity and the H-Bomb written in 1956 and 1957. About 40 adresses of that general nature have been made since to a wide variety of military, civic and religious audiences, about half at the invitation of military people.

The Song includes ideas from other short papers with titles such as: Walter and the A-Bomb; Atomic Blast-Patterns for Survival; Shelters; War and the Woman's Point of View; and Testimony of A Witness.

I have been unable to locate any of these items on-line, but will look for them next time I am able to get to a good library. However, from the material in the poem, I am puzzled by what Porzel could have said that would have appealed to the people at William F Buckley's National Review. It seems like what they would normally dismiss as the soft-hearted sentimentalism of some communist dupe.

However, while Porzel was writing the poem from 1956 to 1959, it was not published until 1960. It is possible that the people at NR were unaware in 1959 of Porzel's actual views.

My guess is that Porzel made some speech, gave some interview, or published some paper in 1959 which gave NR the idea that nuclear explosions could be easily shielded from detection, and that NR had no actual contact with Porzel. What it is that Porzel could have said to give them that impression, and why they didn't bother to fact-check such a stunning idea, are things I am still very curious about.

It seems to me unlikely NR had any direct contact with Porzel. I suspect that NR was simply passing on (with their own spin added) something they had picked up by skimming contemporary news stories. If so, then there is a fair chance that the story, or some reference to it, appears in a 1959 newpaper or magazine and is indexed. It will be a while yet before I can get to a good library, but I will check more on this then.

 

[tracer]

Yes, come to think of it, I think he did use the term "far" as opposed to "dark", but they mean the same thing: the portion of the Moon that cannot be seen directly from Earth.

They most certainly do not mean the same thing.

The far side of the moon is the side facing away from the Earth.

The dark side of the moon is whichever side is not currently exposed to sunlight. During a full moon, this is the side facing away from the Earth. During a new moon, this is the side facing toward the Earth. During a first quarter moon, it's the side facing half way away from the Earth toward the west.

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy page on the subject:
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/dark_side.html

 

[Nova Land]

I was able to get to the library twice during the past month to check on this, albeit too briefly each time.

1. Back in December I was able to drop by Tech in Cookeville for a little under half an hour -- long enough to do a quick check in the New York Times Index and the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature for 1959 and several years surrounding, but not much more. I was a little surprised to come up completely blank. (National Review was not yet indexed in RGPL, which is why the item I began this thread with did not turn up there.) I did not have time to search an index of science journals or the citations index, and still have not had a chance to do that, so that will probably have to wait at least a couple weeks more.

This leaves me quite puzzled as to how and where National Review came up with their item. It seems unlikely, based on the impression I am getting of Porzell as being anti-war and left-leaning, that Porzell would have approached NR, but it is also hard for me to picture the people at NR poring through technical journals and coming up with this that way. Unlikely things do happen, which is part of what makes life interesting, but I wish I knew which unlikely thing had happened in this instance.

2. While in Austin, Texas, for the holidays I was able to drop by the UT library briefly and found indexed in their catalog an extremely interesting-sounding book: Unified Theory of Explosions by Francis B Porzell, published in 1972 by Naval Ordnance Laboratories in Silver Springs, Maryland. Unfortunately the book itself was shelved in the engineering library, which was closed that day.

The title sounds very promising! If Porzel did have some strange theory about undetectable nuclear explosions, it sounds like he might refer to it here. I am still puzzled why no one other than NR seems to have picked up on it back in 1959 (if only to take a potshot at Buckley and co. for printing the item in the first place) but seeing that this book was published in 1972 indicates Porzel was active for another 13 years after the NR item and that it may be worthwhile to check more of the intervening years for news stories.

It will be a year before I get a chance to visit Austin again, but I may be able to find the book at UTK next time I visit Knoxville. (If not, I might try to find someone at Tech willing to get the book for me on inter-library loan) (although I am generally reluctant to do that so probably will put it off instead...)

[timid voice] Are there any JREF folks in the Austin area who might be willing to go to the UT library, look up the book, and see if it contains any information relevant to the NR item? [/timid voice]

 

[corplinx]

I guess 1959 was the Art Bell year for National Review. Still its more exciting than a Buckley article about buying a good wristwatch.