> Consider this:
> 
> http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1997/nd97/nd97albright.html
> 
> Apparently a real nuclear test in 1979 and they are still not sure which
> country/countries were responsible and where exactly it happened.
> But South Africa and/or Israel and/or Taiwan are
> suspected. And the fallout effects were minimal and disputable.

That's hardly a reassuring article.  I was laboring under the belief
that nuclear
tests, anywhere on Earth, are fairly easy to pick out due to released fission
products, radiation, and seismographic readings.  Apparently not so.

> Blasting a mountain for a hydroelectric project, they say. Which doesn't
> address the type of explosion, of course, as Marc suggests. I imagine an
> atmospheric test would be far less visible seismically than an underground
> test.

That claim doesn't hold much water IMHO.  What goes up must come down,
and I find it hard to believe any responsible engineer anywhere in the world
would sign of on a single tremendous explosion for the purpose of moving an
entire mountain.

OTOH, http://www.snopes.com/critters/disposal/whale.htm

Mike H.
_______________________________________________
http://www.piclist.com
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist