It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by zero lift
Interested to hear that you're meeting up with Peter - does his new book deal with the 1960's, or is it another Home Defence book similar to 'The Secret State'?
zero lift
Originally posted by zero lift
I've also been in contact with him over the years whenever I get my mitts on something exotic. I sent him the original declassified docs concerning Macmillan's Nuclear Deputies and the Shakesperian nicknames Mac gave them (Gravedigger 1 and Gravedigger2). I also sent him some of my PYTHON concept docs. I've since gathered quite a bit more material - proposals for PYTHON leaders to use dispersed Bank of England gold to pay for the post- nuclear strike resupply of the UK, Operation CANDID (Protection of the Royal Family in an Emergency), and the initial dispersal locations for the UKSA and NATA components of the PYTHON concept. Very interesting stuff
zero lift
As Waynos pointed out in another thread, this film has the added advantage of showing an aircraft delivered BW attack (albeit using simulants) while at the same time showing a high level contrail. It also shows a militarily useful aspect of Biological Warfare - the fact that the aerosol rapidly disperses thus preventing an enemy to realise that an attack is taking place.
Contrails on the other hand make their presence pretty well known
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Collection of documents relating to Porton Down testing - also alleges public testing carried on until 1975, and that biological warfare testing was done in royal Mailrooms in response to the anthrax scares of 2001 that included the release of live bacillus subtilis
The modified Canberra bomber was capable of delivering about 8 x 1016 bacteria - nearly ten times the greatest amount sprayed from the Icewhale. Development note 67 describes the testing of this aircraft and the release in April 1967 of about 200 gallons of E. coli MRE162. Although not clearly stated, the E. coli was probably mixed with B. globigii spores. The location of the release is not shown in the report but was Tarrant Rushton Airfield, Dorset (near Blandford Forum). This corresponds to a release of about 9 x 10^15 E. coli MRE162, an amount close to the maximum used in the large-scale releases from Icewhale off the Dorset coast.
Note 71 describes two further releases from the Canberra bomber in June 1967, and two in October 1967, at Tarrant Rushton Airfield. The amount of bacteria released appears to have been about 12 gallons (a rate of release of 70 gallons per minute for 10-12 seconds) which is estimated to correspond to a release of about 10^15 E. coli bacteria and a slightly smaller number of B. globigii spores.
In neither of these development notes is it possible to estimate the numbers of bacteria present in the bacterial cloud and it is therefore impossible to estimate the inhaled doses of E. coli and B. globigii around the points of release. The much faster speed of the Canberra bomber compared to the Icewhale should have resulted in a greater dilution of the cloud and it is reasonable to assume that the release of 9 x 10^15 bacteria from the Canberra in the experiment described in Note 67 would have given inhaled doses of E. coli MRE162 outside of the airport that are no greater than those obtained at the coast in the trials from the Icewhale (e.g. MRE Field Trial Report No. 3).
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by zero lift
What constitutes "massive amounts"?
also from here apaprently it had spray nozzles underneath the engine exhausts too - site - but I can't find any pictures that show them
Originally posted by zero lift
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by zero lift
What constitutes "massive amounts"?
Around 200 gallons. This corresponds to a release of about 9 x 10¹⁵ of E. coli MRE 162, close to that disseminated by ETV ICEWHALE during its 'massive crosswind line releases' - hence the use of the word 'massive'.
MRE Field Trial Report No. 6
Five further massive releases of viable E. coli MRE162 plus B. globigii spores were carried out as close as 1 mile off the Dorset coast between November 1967 and January 1968. Each experiment involved two releases of bacteria, separated by about 2 hours, over the same part of the coast. The amount of E. coli in each of the two releases was about half of that in the previous releases; the total amount of E. coli released in the two arms of each experiment was therefore similar to that in the earlier releases.
also from here apaprently it had spray nozzles underneath the engine exhausts too - site - but I can't find any pictures that show them
All Porton ITA related docs only refer to two different types of spray-rakes, aech fixed to the boom: one for BW field trials and one for Icing Research. Absolutely no mention of engine exhaust spray-nozzles.
You might be interested to learn that the IWM Film and Video Archive hold a1972 film of the ITA undergoing its icing research role.
Film Number: MTE 3482
Film focusing on Canberra WV787, a unique aircraft specially modified for trials work, participating in icing trials at the Aeroplane and Armament Expermimental Establishment at Boscombe Down.
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by zero lift
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by zero lift
What constitutes "massive amounts"?
Around 200 gallons. This corresponds to a release of about 9 x 10¹⁵ of E. coli MRE 162, close to that disseminated by ETV ICEWHALE during its 'massive crosswind line releases' - hence the use of the word 'massive'.
It seems like emotive language that is not actualy used in the report in regard to the aircraft release.
MRE Field Trial Report No. 6
Five further massive releases of viable E. coli MRE162 plus B. globigii spores were carried out as close as 1 mile off the Dorset coast between November 1967 and January 1968. Each experiment involved two releases of bacteria, separated by about 2 hours, over the same part of the coast. The amount of E. coli in each of the two releases was about half of that in the previous releases; the total amount of E. coli released in the two arms of each experiment was therefore similar to that in the earlier releases.
So it the word is accurate by association, but I think a better justification would have been the section above and noting that the amounts refered to are of the same magnitude, and that the Canbera was used for ONE such release - and several much smaller ones.
also from here apaprently it had spray nozzles underneath the engine exhausts too - site - but I can't find any pictures that show them
All Porton ITA related docs only refer to two different types of spray-rakes, aech fixed to the boom: one for BW field trials and one for Icing Research. Absolutely no mention of engine exhaust spray-nozzles.
Very possibly they were found to be not much use for the stated purpose - mixing something with jet exhaust seems a good way to seriously skew results!
Originally posted by zero lift
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
Originally posted by zero lift
Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by zero lift
What constitutes "massive amounts"?
Around 200 gallons. This corresponds to a release of about 9 x 10¹⁵ of E. coli MRE 162, close to that disseminated by ETV ICEWHALE during its 'massive crosswind line releases' - hence the use of the word 'massive'.
It seems like emotive language that is not actualy used in the report in regard to the aircraft release.
Nope, I was clearly using the term ‘massive’ in a descriptive manner, as shown by my explanation.
You chose to see it as emotive.
Hmm...how many times have I advised you to always read the original scientific reports (MRE Development Notes 67 &71) . You might discover that the Canberra conducted two 100 gallon releases at Tarrant Rushton, not one.
And if we’re being picky, contrary to the report section highlighted above by yourself, nowhere in MRE Field Trial Report No 6 does it use the word ‘massive’ – that is a description used only by Brian Spratt in his review.
also from here apaprently it had spray nozzles underneath the engine exhausts too - site - but I can't find any pictures that show them
All Porton ITA related docs only refer to two different types of spray-rakes, aech fixed to the boom: one for BW field trials and one for Icing Research. Absolutely no mention of engine exhaust spray-nozzles.
Very possibly they were found to be not much use for the stated purpose - mixing something with jet exhaust seems a good way to seriously skew results!
No, according to MRE Development Notes 67 &71, Porton only ever used the boom mounted spray-rake for bacterial dissemination.