Subject: Is the theory of an atomic blast at Port Chicago plausible?

Having just passed the 60-yr anniversary (July 17, 1944) of the Port Chicago 
disaster, I've been re-reading works by Peter Vogel (The Last Wave on 
www.portchicago.org) and others (Harry Martin in Napa Sentinel to name one) 
who theorize the explosion on that night was actually an atomic bomb. 
  I must state I'm not one given to believe in too many conspiracy theories, 
and I do not agree with Vogel's assertion that this was an INTENTIONAL test of 
an atomic weapon.  However, being fully aware of post hoc fallacies, there is 
a great deal of circumstantial evidence that at least causes me to ask 
questions.  
  Of course, one of the biggest questions to a "nuclear theorist" would 
be, "what about detectable fallout from a fission bomb?"  One of the answers 
I've read (http://www.sonic.net/sentinel/usa4.html), and I'm greatly 
simplifying, is that the bomb being in the hold of a ship in water (shallow, 
~15') and the atmospheric conditions (very low humidity) would mitigate 
immediate radiological and long-term fission effects. 
  I'm not convinced either way, I just find the topic very interesting and 
would love to hear an expert's opinion.
Regards,
OC 

Re: Is the theory of an atomic blast at Port Chicago plausible?