Science desk
< July 15	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 16[edit]

Radiation from handling nuclear weapons[edit]

I had a discussion with some friends a while ago about Soviet-era attack submarines with nuclear torpedoes, and if it was likely that the crew slept near the torpedoes. Some argued that it was impossible due to the long-term effects of radiation, some that there was probably some radiation but not more than what was acceptable to the Soviet Navy.

General question: what are the dangers of handling nuclear weapons to the ammunition specialists as of today? And more specific: what is known about Soviet-era nuclear weapons and the dangers from handling them? Sjö (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most submarines of that era were nuclear-powered but didn't have nuclear torpedoes. They had nuclear missiles. The article Soviet submarine K-19 gives a pretty good account of some of the hazards the crew experienced. The main article on submarines has other details and links. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:12, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear torpedoes - that is, torpedoes with nuclear warheads - definitely existed, and were deployed by both sides during the Cold War.

The Soviet submarine B-59 came perilously close to firing its nuclear-tipped T-5 torpedo during the Cuban Missile Crisis. (T-5s had been deployed aboard Soviet submarines starting from 1958, and it is known that there was a flotilla of four T-5-armed subs in the waters around Cuba.) The USSR later developed the ASB-30 warhead, which could be swapped for the conventional high-explosive warhead on 533 mm torpedoes by the sub's crew while at sea. Eventually, it was not unusual for Soviet attack subs to carry up to four nuclear torpedoes. For example, the K-8 was carrying four nuclear torpedoes when it sank in 1970.

While I'm having trouble finding good sources that specifically discuss radiation exposure from proximity to (unfired) nuclear weapons, I'll note that the risk was probably relatively low. The plutonium or uranium cores of fission weapons principally emit alpha particles, which have little penetrating power; they are handily stopped by a coat of paint, to say nothing of the metal casing of a torpedo. Both are most hazardous when ingested or (especially) inhaled—which really shouldn't happen with an intact warhead. The low-level gamma radiation that might escape the weapon's casing and irradiate nearby crew members would be more in the you might get cancer thirty years from now range, and much less the you're going to be puking your guts out by the end of the voyage levels. As you suggest, there were far bigger risks to the health of Soviet nuclear sailors. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my past experience (including at an AWE), assembled nuclear munitions are safe to handle (in the correct manner) and be around, it's only when they are being assembled, or disassembled, that they're hazardous. Dropping pieces of Pu on the floor is to be avoided, as a colleage of mine discovered. [He suffered no long-term effects, but spending many unplanned hours in heavy-duty PPE while decontamination is performed around one is quite debilitating.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.177 (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The US Navy was worried enough to have a special low-radiation grade of plutonium: supergrade. Fgf10 (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Being on a submarine, protected from the sun, it is possible that the sailors are experiencing less radiation. This is not to say that all radiation is equal. But, solar radiation is dangerous. Removing that from daily life is a benefit that may counter the extremely tiny risk of an errant subatomic particle flying by. It is also possible that the condensed population of humans is a radiation hazzard because humans emit radiation as well. When I worked at Los Alamos, I held a nuclear battery for long-distance satellites. It is highly radioactive on the inside. On the outside, it emits less radiation than the person holding it. Is anyone going to bring up those deadly bananas? 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:38, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for subject experts for the List of Domesticated Animals[edit]

I've been trying to delete dubious entries from the List of domesticated animals (in the second table, which is "tame and partially domesticated animals"). Some I can do pretty easily (eg "Yeah, the Wikipedia page makes no mention of this being kept in captivity, away it goes"--our standard, to avoid edit wars, is that to go on the first table the Wikipedia page for the animal needs to have some version of the word "domesticated", and/or the domesticated version needs to be a different species; for the second table, the Wikipedia page just needs to make some concrete mention of both its use by humans and at least some indication that they are captive bred, with elephants being the special exception because of our *long* relationship with them).

But some of them are about as clear as mud, in terms of figuring out if the animal is ever captive bred, and/or is kept in captivity extensively enough to count (zoos and wildlife reintroduction programs don't count, nor does, eg, a single rich eccentric having one as a pet). And some of the cases where there were multiple species (to keep the list from getting overlong, we group closely related species with other listed characteristics in common) and I deleted some of them, I'm not sure if the picture being used is of one of the species that is still on the list.

In particular, I could use an expert on snakes (for the rat snake and king snake entries), fish (for the carp and betta entries), and birds (for the cockatoo entries). But, honestly, any animal experts willing to take a glance at the list and go "Yeah, no, that's not captive bred/widely used by humans at all" would be appreciated (though, again, this page has had a *lot* of edit wars, please propose entries for deletion on the talk page, and I or someone else will actually delete them if no one objects after ~ 2 weeks)

Thank you. Tamtrible (talk) 23:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the same verifiability requirement as elsewhere on Wikipedia, namely that reliable sources classify the species or variety as (being) domesticated? --Lambiam 06:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...because it's a big honking table, and so unless someone links to an outside source (you'll notice many/most of the entries don't have any outside sourcing whatsoever), people trying to clean up the (sometimes) complete nonsense that other people have added need a criterion they can check in a minute or 2. Which pretty much means "it says so on the Wikipedia page". Tamtrible (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Zebra finch is a model organism and a popular pet, as its article says. It sounds like you consider "pet" to qualify as domesticated, although given people's propensity to try to make everything into a pet, that seems a pretty low bar. But anyway, they're certainly captive-bred all over the world, for science, so you should probably reinstate that one. I also found musk ox domestication. And Cassowary#Relationship with humans says they were partly domesticated once. Card Zero (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what the OP's concern is regarding the cockatoo entries. As an Australian, I would suggest that it would be correct to actually add some more, such as the Galah and the Corella. HiLo48 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because, as per their respective pages, they are mentioned as pets, but *not* as being in any way captive bred. Something that is captured from the wild as a pet, but not actually captive bred to any nontrivial degree (eg not just one dude managing to get a single pair to breed), does not count as any flavor of domesticated. If you can back up your assertion, go for it. Tamtrible (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed that line, thank you. Or it may have been added since I did that nuke, a year ago. If you would be willing to add it back in, Card Zero, that would be lovely. Tamtrible (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...also, "pet" only counts *if they are also captive bred*. A lot of animals (especially, afaik, birds and reptiles) that are sold as pets are wild-caught rather than captive bred to any extent. Tamtrible (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An important distinction I have heard is that individual animals are tamed, species are domesticated. Taming involves taking an individual animal and raising it so it is acclimated to humans. Domestication is a long, multi-generational process of breeding a species of animals for use by humans. Just about any animal can be "tamed" or even bred in captivity, but only a relatively small number of such animals have been domesticated. This video by CGP Grey provides a decent overview of the distinction. --Jayron 32 11:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jayron and Lambiam's comments. Emmer wheat, for example, was the archetype of modern domesticated varieties. I don't suppose anyone keeps wheat as a pet! The crucial aspect is that domesticated species, whether plants or animals, have developed phenotypes that make them more useful to humans. The process continues: for example in the way we breed racehorses and dogs by artificial selection. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the domestication of species takes centuries, if not millennia. Most (if not all) of the species we think of as "domesticated" occurred during the many centuries of the Neolithic Revolution. I'm not sure we have any historical examples (as in, since history started, i.e. not ancient pre-history) in the same way that, say, maize has been domesticated from teosinte or that cattle were domesticated from aurochs. There are some animals, like Norway rats and the house mouse, that might qualify as recently domesticated, though really these animals are accidentally domesticated as they basically co-evolved with humans over millennia to live alongside us; we just caught a few and bred them for specific purposes (lab rats and pet rats), but that's not the same as taking a wild species and domesticating them. I'd dare say that there aren't any modern domesticated animals that we can document the domestication of, with the possible exception of the experiments done in the 20th century on the Domesticated silver fox, but there are a LOT of questions as to the nature of domestication there... Although perhaps under some definitions, given the short life cycle, laboratory strains of Drosophila melanogaster may be "domesticated" for our purposes here. --Jayron 32 17:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason the table has been split into 2 sections, and all of the disputed entries are on the second section. Domestication is a process, and things in the second table are probably *somewhere* in the process, just not all the way there yet. But, for example, if a species is almost *extinct* in the wild (as crested geckos were at one point thought to be), but still sold in pet stores fairly regularly, it's got to qualify as at least a little bit domesticated, right?... Tamtrible (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Domesticated" is also a legal term. Many locations have laws banning certain pets. They rarely ban domesticated pets. I witnessed this sort of legal battle over a hedgehog. The owner claimed the hedgehog was domesticated, so it was legal to keep as a pet. Animal control argued that it was not domesticated, so it fell under exotic pets and was not legal. It came down to a judge to decide. The reason I remember this case is because I completely disagree with the judge's logic. Because the hedgehog is capable of surviving without a human owner, it is not domesticated. No need to complain that the judge's ruling is idiotic. I know. But, I feel this brings a whole new viewpoint into the discussion of domesticated vs non-domesticated animals. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 12:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the judge was erring on the side of humaneness. While a "normal" hedgehog" could of course survive in the wild (for a time – wild animals often fall prey to "nature red in tooth and claw" at much lower ages than as a protected pet), a tamed hedgehog (which may even have been born in captivity, though I don't know that detail) will not have learned standard "hedgehog survival skills", and would likely be unable to find sufficient and appropriate food and shelter, or avoid predators. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.199.169.199 (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]