pdf - WHALE

power plant. 38 So the elements were subjected to chemical and
presumably other types of analysis, such as spectroscopy. One may
even speculate where they were analyzed: close by in the Los
Alamos lanoratories, one of the few facilities in the country at that
time, and certainly the only one in New Mexico, capable of
handling and analyzing such exotic and radioactive material.
It is in this context that the third odd feature becomes evident,
for the isotopic form of uranium - U 235 - is clearly specified,
suggesting that the necessary technique of analysis employed was
precisly spectroscopy, since chemical analysis cannot separateisotopes
of the same element. We may also assume that this analysis
indicated a high degree of purity, since one of the concerns of the
scientists involved was precisely that the uranium could be used for
a bomb, which means that it was of weapons grade purity. And we
may likewise safely assume that the plutonium present was Pu 240
the stable plutonium isotope. 39
With this in mind, a question immediately repsents itself: Why is
there an ambiguity when it comes to "thorium isotope material"
Was this because it was an unknown isotope Unlikely, since
precision is indicated in the case of the uranium, and implied in the
case of the plutonium. Was it therefore not specified for some other
reason We will never know.
This leads to yet another oddity. There is a peculiar blend
evident throughout this list of very precise, and very ambiguous,
descriptions that, given the importance of the subject matter, should
not be glossed over. It may be the case that there was not sufficient
time to test and analyze everything precisely, but surely the
presence of "thorium isotope material" merited further precision. In
this respect, note once again taht uranium tetrafluoride and uranium
hexafluoride are both precisely indicated, but again, with an
imprecision: what was the isotopic form This ambiguity is perhaps
most evident in the mention of "water," for one is left to guess
whether this is ordinary water, or heavily deuterized or tritiumized
38
39
Ibid., p. 74, par. 18.
Another factor now should be noticed. The presence of these two
elements without any mention of proper shielding indicates a serious technical
flaw in the document, notwithstanding its external indicators of authenticity.
300