Not odd at all. If you scroll down there are links to other articles. The last one is a photo of the catacomb mummies. Your fead reader simply chose the wrong photo from those on the page.
I'm always surprised by people who view the most powerful job on earth as an entry-level political position. The hubris and/or naivete indicated by their belief in their qualifications is enough to disqualify them from earning my vote, however much I otherwise agree with their opinions.
But is an expert "politician" what we really need in office? It's true that you need some political acumen and clout though. Anyway, we certainly don't want Carly Fiorina there either.
The bomb that was tested during Trinity was a plutonium, implosion device, completely different from the uranium, gun-type device dropped on Hiroshima. The designers were so confident of the latter that it was never tested before being deployed.
As I underestand, it was not purely confidence, it was also that there was a major war going on and the expected production rate was low, so the risk of failure in the field was judged a lesser cost than the using up another bomb in testing.
It took basically the entire Manhattan project to create enough U-235 for that single bomb dropped on Hiroshima. There was no more U-235 coming, at least not any on a scale or timeline for the war.
It probably would have been more efficient to dilute the U-235 into reactor grade and use it to manufacture weapons grade Plutonium. However at the time the U.S. only had two bombs (the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki) and it was probably judged politically expedient to drop two instead of one.
Well, there were basically a few different strategies to produce U-235 during the war. For Hiroshima, most of the Uranium came from a very temporary but quicker to setup using an electromagnetic process at Y-12 in Oak Ridge, and that ended with the war. The gaseous diffusion plant at K-25, also in Oak Ridge, came online in 1945 and ended up being the main enricher for much of the cold war; it was a construction marvel, and the fact it was built in 2 years is still remarkable. The US definitely would have been ready to produce many more in not too long for the war had it been needed.
All of these processes were brand new at the time and mostly untested. Plutonium enrichment at the Hanford site used a reactor design that was validated well into the construction of the site. The Manhattan project already had a lot of risks, and they weren't going to attempt chaining projects for something unproven. Real experiments came after the war.
Apollo 12 retrieved a Surveyor 3 camera that had been on the Moon for over two years and contained Streptococcus mitis bacteria that survived in a dormant state and were recultured back on Earth. Pete Conrad, Apollo 12 commander, said, "I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole...Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [anything] about it."
As much as I WANT to believe, and I did for a long while, that Strep was on the moon for years, it's possible that this was a false positive. That being said, I think this is still an important event and is a good starting point for experimentation.
"One of the implements being used to scrape samples off the Surveyor parts could have been laid down on a non-sterile laboratory bench, and then was used to collect surface samples for culturing. It is, therefore, quite possible that the microorganisms were transferred to the camera after its return to Earth. Furthermore, the Surveyor 3 camera was returned from the Moon in a nylon duffel bag, and was not in the type of sealed airtight metal container used to return lunar samples in the early Apollo missions. It is therefore possible that it was contaminated by the astronauts and the environment in the Apollo 12 capsule itself. The bacterial test is now non-repeatable because the parts were subsequently taken out of quarantine and fully re-exposed to terrestrial conditions."
First alternative: take photo of receipt using phone's default camera app, e-mail photo to yourself putting tags in subject line, file in "Receipts" folder of your e-mail app on PC. No need for this or any other app you don't already have, and no risk of exposing your info to third party (any more than you already do with e-mail).
Second alternative: throw receipt away and record info in Quicken/Quickbooks/etc. when you get your monthly statement. Assumes you can remember details at that time and that you use credit card for all but insignificant expenses. You could also save receipt just long enough to enter details as above ahead of your statement.
What?!? In the UK Inland revenue can demand your receipts for the past 7 years. To say that you've thrown them away is a great way to ensure you get a very thorough investigation.
