German Bomber modified for A Bomb Delivery

[phylo_roadking]

Again, for the 5th time, please post that material.

And the original and author of your material is....?

[phylo_roadking]

Now be so kind as to highlight the actual data they cite

The Thuringian Ohrdruf is under observation ever since nurtured the historian Rainer Karlsch with his book "Hitler's bomb" speculation about a possible nuclear explosion in Hitler's Germany in 1945. Soil samples from the local area - now a military training of the armed forces - have been investigated in recent months by the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB) on behalf of the Second German Television (ZDF). The results of the Radionuklidanalysen are now available. The readings give no indication that sources other than the fallout of above-ground nuclear bomb tests in the 1950er/1960er years, and the reactor accident at Chernobyl in 1986 are responsible for soil contamination. Overall, the PTB measurement results for a nuclear explosion "no findings" show.

The theses of the historian Karlsch did last year even the ZDF perk. Soil samples from the Ohrdruf military training, were therefore transferred to the PTB to investigate this to its contamination with radionuclides. For a nuclear explosion has taken place whenever they could even today be seen in view of the long half-lives of certain radionuclides still detected. A total of eight soil samples were investigated in the laboratories of the PTB according to the rules of mensuration.

Some radionuclides "betrayed" by a typical gamma radiation that occurs during the decay of atomic nuclei. The PTB scientists took therefore first the gamma spectra of the samples under the microscope. The result: All the measured specific activity (number of radioactive decays per unit time, based on the mass of the sample material) are small and mainly come from naturally occurring radionuclides. As an artificial radionuclide produced in the samples could ONLY be detected Cs 137th The nuclide is found for this activity, especially for the reactor accident at Chernobyl, it falls under the ground to be found everywhere in Germany contamination. Just Chernobyl has led in Germany to a large local variations of soil contamination with the radionuclide Cs-137. The load values vary greatly within Germany, depending on how much was Cs-137 leached by rain from the contaminated "Chernobyl" cloud.

According to this analysis, the second step gammaspektrometrischen specifically investigated radiochemically activities of the uranium samples. Background: An exploding nuclear weapon is needed for the highly enriched uranium, would have in the vicinity, the natural ratio of uranium isotopes U-235 and move U-238. (The natural activity ratio indicates that in 1000 decays of U-238 about 46 decays of U-235 coming. After the explosion of a nuclear weapon much more decays of U-235 would be found.) For each sample were, therefore, three subsets of Parallelanalysen carried out by a few grams each. The activities of uranium isotopes were determined by measuring the alpha radiation of the sample preparation. The activity ratios of uranium isotope U-235 and U-238 can safely assess that were measuring for each individual sample extended to several months. Again, the measurements did not indicate any agreement on a nuclear explosion: The measured activity ratios of both uranium isotopes agree within the uncertainty with the natural activity ratio.

The PTB-testing of the present soil samples are thus complete: A total of Radionuklidanalysen showed no indication of a nuclear explosion in the Thuringian Ohrdruf. The soil samples show only contamination stemming in part by the reactor accident at Chernobyl. A scientific rebuttal to the alleged nuclear test at the end of World War II, but can not with this nor any other sample analysis will be provided. A final assessment of the historical context is thus still open

AS said several times before - the ONLY isotope found in ANY quantity above normal background levels was Caesium-137 from Chernobyl....how do we know it's from Chernobyl and not WWII?

And before you say it could have come from ANY "release" of fissionable material at the site - it most certainly could NOT relate to a SECOND WORLD WAR event...

...for as I'm sure you know, its radiological half-life is 30.07 years. If there had been an atomic explosion in the mid-1940s the Caesium-137 from THAT event would have completely decayed into inactivity and non-detection by the mid-1970s. It can ONLY have come from an event occuring SINCE 1975.

So, as scientists were saying a LONG time before Oppenheimer...or Heisenberg - QED.

[HenryS]

In the meantime - I have recieved a reply from Dr Dirk Arnold of the PTB.

He reports that the Report they were asked to prepare from an indepth analysis of the samples given to them from the alleged crater by the ZDF television channel was forwarded in whole to them, along with all measurements etc. It was a commercially-ordered report, and as such all the material therein remains the property of ZDF.

HOWEVER - he WAS able to make one VERY important and pertinent comment...

"The main results and conclusions are the same in the press release and in the written report for ZDF"

Therefore when the Press release says...

Das thüringische Ohrdruf steht unter Beobachtung, seitdem der Historiker Rainer Karlsch mit seinem Buch "Hitlers Bombe" Spekulationen um eine mögliche Kernexplosion in Hitler-Deutschland im Jahre 1945 nährte. Bodenproben aus dem dortigen Gebiet – heute ein Truppenübungsplatz der Bundeswehr – wurden in den letzten Monaten von der Physikalisch-Technischen Bundesanstalt (PTB) im Auftrag des Zweiten Deutschen Fernsehens (ZDF) untersucht. Die Ergebnisse der Radionuklidanalysen liegen jetzt vor. Die Messwerte geben keinen Hinweis, dass andere Quellen als der Fallout oberirdischer Atombomben-Tests in den 1950er/1960er Jahren und der Reaktorunfall in Tschernobyl im Jahr 1986 für die Bodenkontaminationen verantwortlich sind. Insgesamt zeigen die PTB-Messergebnisse für eine Kernexplosion "keinen Befund".

...it means - THEY mean - there was NO evidence found of a nuclear explosion at the site. The situation cannot be any clearer than that.

Phylo, do you really know what this says? It says they did soil tests but it does not say how, how deep or what the results were. It makes an implicit mistake in history, saying " heute ein Truppenuebungsplatz". This "Truppenuebungsplatz" is and always was a troop exercise yard before the war with the Kaiser's Army, during the war, after the war for the Soviets/DDR and today for the Bundeswehr. It says the"measurements give no proof" but utterly fails to say what those measurements were. This is important because the try to blame surface testing of nuclear weapons in the 1950s and 1960s as well as fallout from Chernobyl. Soil tests at any depth below a few inches would negate this. They go on to say that there is no evidence for a fission explosion (Kernexplosion) but never address fusion.

The issue of fusion was, repeat WAS raised in the report I posted (which evidently nobody ran through their google translator). That was the point of posting it. You people totally and completely missed the boat. Someone said fusion was out of the question. Like the situation with deutsche Flugscheiben, that is a show of inattention and/or lazy research or just plain sleeping for the last 15 years.

[David Thompson]

If this is all we have to offer our readers, there's not much more to say. This is the last call for sourced information to prove the claim of at least one, and perhaps three, Nazi nuclear explosion tests at war's end. If no such sourced information is forthcoming, I'll lock the thread as an unproductive waste of everyone's time.

HenryS -- Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof for your unsourced claim to other posters to refute it. Either you have sourced, verifiable information which you are willing to produce for our readers to examine, or you don't. If you can and will produce it, step right up. If you can't or won't, step right down.

[phylo_roadking]

It says the"measurements give no proof" but utterly fails to say what those measurements were.

Let's see - the natural activity ratio of uranium isotopes U-235 and U-238? They even said what they DID with the samples to measure against that base standard -

For each sample were, therefore, three subsets of Parallelanalysen carried out by a few grams each. The activities of uranium isotopes were determined by measuring the alpha radiation of the sample preparation. The activity ratios of uranium isotope U-235 and U-238 can safely assess that were measuring for each individual sample extended to several months. Again, the measurements did not indicate any agreement on a nuclear explosion:

Or -

The PTB scientists took therefore first the gamma spectra of the samples under the microscope. The result: All the measured specific activity (number of radioactive decays per unit time, based on the mass of the sample material) are small and mainly come from naturally occurring radionuclides.

You are saying they don't given details on their experiments or base stadard for measurments - they clearly do! The natural radioactive decay rates of heavy elements are VERY PRECISELY KNOWN.

[HenryS]

If this is all we have to offer our readers, there's not much more to say. This is the last call for sourced information to prove the claim of at least one, and perhaps three, Nazi nuclear explosion tests at war's end. If no such sourced information is forthcoming, I'll lock the thread as an unproductive waste of everyone's time.

HenryS -- Do not attempt to shift the burden of proof for your unsourced claim to other posters to refute it. Either you have sourced, verifiable information which you are willing to produce for our readers to examine, or you don't. If you can and will produce it, step right up. If you can't or won't, step right down.

Oh, there is plenty more. Here is a summary of two witnesses but there is more.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/30/books.italy

[David Thompson]

HenryS -- You wrote:

Oh, there is plenty more. Here is a summary of two witnesses but there is more.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/30/books.italy

Produce it. Our readers shouldn't have to sit through a multi-page "dance of the seven veils" for the proof they came here to see.

[HenryS]

HenryS -- You wrote:

Oh, there is plenty more. Here is a summary of two witnesses but there is more.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/30/books.italy

Produce it. Our readers shouldn't have to sit through a multi-page "dance of the seven veils" for the proof they came here to see.

That is a direct link. I'll be citing you and saying "produce it" quite a bit, if you don't mind.

Here is another one with the testimony of Clare Werner and Heinz Wachsmut. For clarification, when Werner says "Burg" she means Wachsenburg, the castle overlooking the Jonas valley and the troop exercise yard.

http://www.nuclear-free.com/deutsch/pflugbeil.htm

Luigi Romersa's eyewitness account was published in Defensa, Number 76-77, August-Sept. 1984 and translated into German in Gestern Nachricht, Heute Geschichte "Die Geheimwaffen von Hitler etwas mehr als (nur) Phantasie"

There is the Office of Strategic Services 7 Nov. 1944 report number 5985 discussing not only atomic bombs built by the Germans but strategic atomic bombs (smaller ones) which is found on page 236 of Friedrich Georg's Heitlers Siegeswaffen Band 2; Amun Verlag, Schleusingen, Germany and in English as Hitler's Miracle Weapons, second book in the series, see Amazon.

You might also check Rainer Karlsch's book, Hitlers Bombe in which he found a German patent for a plutonium bomb. (personally, I don't read Karlsch) but I know the patent information is in there.

[David Thompson]

HenryS -- You wrote, quoting me:

HenryS -- You wrote:

Oh, there is plenty more. Here is a summary of two witnesses but there is more.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/30/books.italy

Produce it. Our readers shouldn't have to sit through a multi-page "dance of the seven veils" for the proof they came here to see.

That is a direct link. I'll be citing you and saying "produce it" quite a bit, if you don't mind.

Direct links and sourced quotations are always acceptable. The "produce it" directive was to your allusion of "more" and "plenty more" sources, which you did not identify. Thank you, on behalf of our readers, for following that up by promptly giving specific references. This gives the posters something to discuss, and it helps readers who want to learn more about the subject.

[Simon Gunson]

The findings of Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt for elevated levels of Caesium -137 and almost undetectible levels of Uranium 235 exactly mirror soil samples taken from the fallout zone at Hiroshima cited in a report on soil samples taken there in 1983.

That report was in the Journal of Radiation Research, Vol.24 , No.3(1983)pp.229-236, by JUN TAKADA, MASAHARU HOSHI, SHOW SAWADA and MASANOBU SAKANOUE of the Research Institute for Nuclear Medicine and Biology, Hiroshima University, Kasumi 1-2-3, Minami-ku, Hiroshima.

This report noted that from the observed blast size equivalent to 12.5 kilotons, it could be deduced that only 700 grams of the 60 kilogram Uranium A-bomb was actually burned by fission. The remaining 59.3kg of U-235 therefore was blasted from the warhead and should have been distributed as fallout in a 19 x 11 kilometre fall out zone northwest of the city where black rain fell.

In essence, that report said that the level of U235 was in fact almost undetectible. It noted that the U235 detected at Hiroshima was equivalent to 1% (one percent of the naturally occuring U-235 locked in granite from the area.

The report then went on to note that the elevated levels of Caesium -137 however were uncharacteristic of the Nagasaki fallout zone and indeed of other fall out zones due to Plutonium A-bomb explosions.

The Hiroshima blast however was caused by a Uranium A-bomb and there, elevated C-137 levels were characteristic of a uranium A-bomb explosion.

I would add in my own words Phylo, that there is nothing in the PTB report which disproves a WW2 nuclear blast at Ordruf. Rather it actually confirms it if anything.

The PTB-testing of the present soil samples are thus complete: A total of Radionuklidanalysen showed no indication of a nuclear explosion in the Thuringian Ohrdruf. The soil samples show only contamination stemming in part by the reactor accident at Chernobyl. A scientific rebuttal to the alleged nuclear test at the end of World War II, but can not with this nor any other sample analysis will be provided. A final assessment of the historical context is thus still open

That is not an accurate rendering of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt report Phylo which you cited to us earlier on Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:24 pm. You appear to have taken liberties and stated things which the Report itself did not say.

In the translation which you provided for us Phylo you cited the report saying:

A scientific rebuttal to the alleged nuclear test at the end of World War II, but can not with this nor any other sample analysis will be provided. A final assessment of the historical context is thus still open.

You also drew your own wrong conclusions about Caesium -137 which the report itself did not say.

And before you say it could have come from ANY "release" of fissionable material at the site - it most certainly could NOT relate to a SECOND WORLD WAR event...
...for as I'm sure you know, its radiological half-life is 30.07 years. If there had been an atomic explosion in the mid-1940s the Caesium-137 from THAT event would have completely decayed into inactivity and non-detection by the mid-1970s. It can ONLY have come from an event occuring SINCE 1975.

In the first place Phylo a half life of 30.07 years does not mean ipso facto that after 62 years there would be no Caesium-137 left. It only means that for any given quantity of Cs-137 it will be reduced by half after 30.7 years and then by half again after another 30.7 years and then by half again by a further 30.7 years and so forth.

Your conclusion that WW2 Caesium-137 would be undetectable is thus factually incorrect

The result: All the measured specific activity (number of radioactive decays per unit time, based on the mass of the sample material) are small and mainly come from naturally occurring radionuclides. As an artificial radionuclide produced in the samples

Witness account of the 1945 blasts suggest the yield was extremely low, suggesting actually a fizzled explosion. Never the less, another study by Imanaka T, Endo S, Tanaka K, & Shizuma K. of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation as a result of joint efforts by Japanese, US and German scientists, called the Dosimetry System 2002 (DS02) was developed as a new means to evaluate individual radiation dose to atomic bomb survivors in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

That study determined some benchmarks for other ways to detect evidence of blasts from elevated neutron levels in other elements like Copper and sulpher in the soil. I am surprised the PBT did not apply the DS02 standard test.

Their DS02 study established that for very low yield explosions the neutron yields would be too low to reach the threshold for disruption of neutron decay in Sulpher and Copper in soil samples. The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt report does not even appear to have attempted to perform a standard DS02 evaluation of neutron levels in Sulphur or Copper in the soil samples. Something which a proper study should have attempted.

The DS02 standards have also established that other factors can prevent proper neutron dosage of soil under a nuclear explosion. First is the slant angle of the blast. Next is the intensity of neutron flux. Lastly is the moisture content of soil at the time of the blast. If the Ordruf blast area was wet from rain or snow melt along with a low yield blast then there would be no appreciable evidence of neutron dose detectable.

The DS02 research also established that exposure rates decreased rapidly by a factor of 1,000 1 day after a blast, and by a factor of 1 million 1 week later. Induced radiation decreased also with distance from the hypocenters, by a factor of about 10 at 500 m and a factor of three to four hundreds at 1,000 m. Consequently, a significant exposure due to induced radiation is considered minimal to those who entered the area within one week after a nuclear explosion. We are now talking about 65 years after the event. No surprise that radiation is almost undetectable now.

All the PBT report proves I think is that there is too little evidence to discount a nuclear blast and if anything, according to elevated Caesium -137 levels that possibly there was one.

[phylo_roadking]

The PTB-testing of the present soil samples are thus complete: A total of Radionuklidanalysen showed no indication of a nuclear explosion in the Thuringian Ohrdruf. The soil samples show only contamination stemming in part by the reactor accident at Chernobyl. A scientific rebuttal to the alleged nuclear test at the end of World War II, but can not with this nor any other sample analysis will be provided. A final assessment of the historical context is thus still open


That is not an accurate rendering of the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt report Phylo which you cited to us earlier on Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:24 pm. You appear to have taken liberties and stated things which the Report itself did not say.

It is 100% accurate. If you follow the link provided MUCH earlier in this thread and find the report yourself on the PTB website....then click on the automatic Microsoft translation toolbar that will appear across the top of the page - you'll find the above is a DIRECT cut and paste from the translated report. It still even contains the automatic translator's excreble syntax errors and failures to translate highly technical terms

Perhaps I should provide a SCREENPRINT to prove this???

In the first place Phylo a half life of 30.07 years does not mean ipso facto that after 62 years there would be no Caesium-137 left. It only means that for any given quantity of Cs-137 it will be reduced by half after 30.7 years and then by half again after another 30.7 years and then by half again by a further 30.7 years and so forth.

Your conclusion that WW2 Caesium-137 would be undetectable is thus factually incorrect

and if anything, according to elevated Caesium -137 levels that possibly there was one.

But I ALSO made the point several times AND it is mentioned in the report that the RATE of decay of activity in the Caseium-137 in the samples provided calculated back mathematically indicate that the creation of the isotopes can only date from the period of atmospheric tests after the war at the earliest. THIS is where mathematics kills the theory/pipedream...the Caesium-137 cannot PRE-date this period I.E. it cannot date back to 1944/45.

Their DS02 study established that for very low yield explosions the neutron yields would be too low to reach the threshold for disruption of neutron decay in Sulpher and Copper in soil samples. The Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt report does not even appear to have attempted to perform a standard DS02 evaluation of neutron levels in Sulphur or Copper in the soil samples. Something which a proper study should have attempted.

You're really not reading the thread, are you The PTB carried out the tests they were REQUESTED to by the television channel PAYING for them

Ever think that as they were procesing samples provided to them by non-experts as opposed by the PTB's own staff....there may not have BEEN appreciable quantities of sulphur or copper in them to work with???

Witness account of the 1945 blasts suggest the yield was extremely low, suggesting actually a fizzled explosion.

Hmm. Perhaps you should also go and do a little research on the "uranium-gun" type devices??? This low rate of conversion and low yield WAS a known issue with them...

[Simon Gunson]

In the first place Phylo a half life of 30.07 years does not mean ipso facto that after 62 years there would be no Caesium-137 left. It only means that for any given quantity of Cs-137 it will be reduced by half after 30.7 years and then by half again after another 30.7 years and then by half again by a further 30.7 years and so forth.

Your conclusion that WW2 Caesium-137 would be undetectable is thus factually incorrect

and if anything, according to elevated Caesium -137 levels that possibly there was one.

But I ALSO made the point several times AND it is mentioned in the report that the RATE of decay of activity in the Caseium-137 in the samples provided calculated back mathematically indicate that the creation of the isotopes can only date from the period of atmospheric tests after the war at the earliest. THIS is where mathematics kills the theory/pipedream...the Caesium-137 cannot PRE-date this period I.E. it cannot date back to 1944/45.

Absolute bunkum Phylo. You don't even understand the maths yourself... You have no grasp whatsoever of what radionuclide half life means Phylo. For example if the Caesium 137 was deposited in 1945, then the material remaining would be:

1945 100%
1975 50%
2006 25%
2037 12.5%

If material were deposited by Chernobyl in April 1986 it would be reduced to 50% in 2016 and to 25% by 2047.

If the samples came from Soviet nuclear tests in the 1950s then Plutonium would be detectable in appreciable quantities.

You can't cite or claim anything about the age of Caesium 137 present in samples unless you mathematically compare it with the ratio of Caesium 137 decay products also present in the exact same sample and PRB carried out no such test. It is the ratios of decay products to their parents which mathematicians calculate and the PTB study quotes no decay products to compare the Caesium 137 with.

If Caesium 137 came from chernobyl you would find for every 100 atoms of radioactive Caesium 137 present, another 85 atoms of non radioactive Caesium 133 present, plus 23 atoms of Caesium 135. You would also look for the ratios of Xenon 135 present as decay products.

Post Script:

To expand on ratios, all nuclear materials decay but each at uniquely different rates (half lives) by loss of neutrons which alters them either to different isotopes or sometimes to entirely new elements. By comparing the ratio of known decay products with their parent (donor) elements, then you can do the maths. the PTB report provides no raw data on decay products.

For Caesium 137 present to have come from Chernobyl, there would have to be detectable quantities of Caesium 135 present. Earlier this year I wrote to the PTB in German asking whether they had detected any Caesium 135 in the samples from Ohrdruf. They would not respond.

Caesium 135 only comes from nuclear reactors. It is never formed by nuclear explosions. Caesium 135 has a half life of about 3 million years so would be detected if present. The absence of Caesium 135 or Xenon 135 at Ohrdruf rules out Chernobyl.

[LWD]

... Caesium 135 only comes from nuclear reactors. It is never formed by nuclear explosions. ...

Source please.

[Simon Gunson]

... Caesium 135 only comes from nuclear reactors. It is never formed by nuclear explosions. ...

Source please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenon-135

Caesium -135 derrives almost exclusively from decay of Xenon 135 which itself only comes from decay in nuclear reactors. 95% of 135Xe itself originates from the radioactive decay of Iodine 135 (with 6-7 hour half life). Xenon 135 has a 9 hour half life. Xe-135 first transmutes to 136Xe before decaying back to 135Cs. This decay chain is too complex and time consuming to occur in a nuclear explosion.

To obtain Caesium 135 you must first irridate Iodine 135 for about 40-50 hours. No nuclear explosion lasts for 40-50 hours. A nuclear blast is over in micro-seconds.

Caesium 135 for all practical purposes is unobtainable from direct transmutation of heavy elements in a nuclear explosion because it's cross section is too small.

If there is no Caesium 135 at Ohrdruf then ipso facto it is not fall out from Chernobyl.

Once created the Caesium -135 is detectable for 2.3 million years. Had any fall-out at Ohrdruf been there resulting from the Chernobyl disaster you can bet your boots you could still find itfor 2.3 million years. It's absence from the PTB survey virtually proves Caesium -137 fallout is unrelated to Chernobyl. You can't find 137Cs fallout without 135Cs present unless of course the source was from a Uranium bomb. Only in a Uranium bomb is it near impossible to transmute other elements to Caesium 135.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesium-135
http://www.idealist.ws/fissionchart.php

Xenon-135, which has a half-life of 9.17 hours, decays into cesium-135 with a half-life of 3 million years.

http://www.idealist.ws/nokonuketest.php

134Cs has also been used in hydrology as a measure of cesium output by the nuclear power industry. This isotope is used because, while it is less prevalent than either 133Cs or 137Cs, 134Cs can be produced solely by nuclear reactions. 135Cs has also been used in this function.

http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/cs_iig.html

[Ironmachine]

Caesium -135 derrives almost exclusively from decay of Xenon 135 which itself only comes from decay in nuclear reactors. 95% of 135Xe itself originates from the radioactive decay of Iodine 135 (with 6-7 hour half life). Xenon 135 has a 9 hour half life. Xe-135 first transmutes to 136Xe before decaying back to 135Cs. This decay chain is too complex and time consuming to occur in a nuclear explosion.

As a matter of fact, one of the sources you have provided says otherwise. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesium-135:

Its precursor Xenon-135 has a high fission product yield, such as 6.3333% for U-235 and thermal neutrons, but also has the highest known thermal neutron neutron capture cross section of any nuclide, so much of the Xe-135 produced in current thermal reactors (as much as >90% at steady-state full power [1]) will be converted to stable Xenon-136 before it can decay to Cs-135. Less or no Xe-135 will be destroyed by neutron capture after a reactor shutdown, or in a molten salt reactor that continuously removes xenon from its fuel, a fast neutron reactor, or a nuclear weapon.

Also, what follows contradicts what you have stated (the emphasis are mine):

Following North Korea's second nuclear test in May 2009, South Korea, Japan and the U.S. conducted sampling of the air downwind of the North Korean test site - when N.K. wasn't shooting off test missiles into the air! - and tried to detect traces of radioactive xenon, a common byproduct of a nuclear explosion. However, they couldn't find the 'signature' gases from North Korea's test for unknown reasons. Some speculated that it was a faked test. Or N.K. succeeded in a rare 100% containment of the gases.
What is this 'gas signature'? It would have probably been a mix of two Xenon gaseous isotopes, Xenon 133 and Xenon 135, in a specific 'activity ratio' (i.e., so many parts per million of one gas per parts per million of the other gas). After a 2-week (or so) period (when most of the Xenon-135 converts into Cesium 135), that activity ratio, because of the uneven rate of decay of the two isotopes, soon resembles that of the Xenon gaseous mix produced worldwide by nuclear power plants, which are continuously emitting a myriad of radioactive gases into our atmosphere. (Read more about radioactive gases in the grey boxed-feature and learn why most aren't used to detect nuclear explosions (hint: most are too short-lived)) A second method, using the ratio of detected Xenon-133m and Xenon-131m, can also be used to detect emissions from a leaked subsurface nuclear test.

About 8 percent of the elements created in the fission explosion comprise radioactive noble gases of krypton and xenon. These gases include:
[...]
Xenon-135, which has a half-life of 9.17 hours, decays into cesium-135 with a half-life of 3 million years.

http://www.idealist.ws/nokonuketest.php