Its about radiation and I am very curious

[pkleiss]

For reference only. Yields of nuclear bombs in Megatons from the past - as current yields are kept a secret...

 

Little Boy (dropped in Hiroshima at the end of WW II in 1945) = .015

Fat Man (dropped on Nagasaki 6 days later) = .021

B53 ( US 1958) = 9

"Castle Bravo" ( US 1954) = 15

B41 (US 1961) = 25

Tzar Bomba (Russia 1961) = 50

 

1 Megaton (MT) is the equivalent of 1,000,000 tons of TNT. A ton ton is 2000 pounds, so a 1 MT Nuke is the equivalent of 2 Billion pounds of TNT,

 

Its been 50 years since those nukes were tested. As you can see, the yield rose from 0.02 in 1945 to 50 by 1961. That means that the Nukes from the early 60s were up to 2500 times more destructive than those dropped on Japan in 1945. The Tzar Bomba was originally supposed to be tested as a 100 MT nuke, but was lowered to 50 to reduce the amount of nuclear fallout. It was said that that test release 1/4 of the energy released in the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa. Extrapolating the same increase in yield from that 14 year period over the subsequent 50 years, one could estimate that one of today's Nukes might be the equivalent of 9000 Nagasaki Nukes or 360 Billion pounds of TNT. But that is just a guess.

[falloutperson416]

How do you know so much about nuc3ar bombs?

[phoneyLogic]

The radiation is "wandering". It just mixes with rain and dirt and so on. But in Nakasaki, Hiroshima and ... these Islands in the pacific ocean are still suffering from radiation. Some people call it "the bomb which never ends killing".

 

The game Fallout was intentionally set in these "lies about the radiation". That means the goverment is lieing, companies are lieing...

 

That's why the Vault Boy always is smiling while he is sucessfully surviving an atomic blast under a desk. Well, just duck and cover ^^

 

An interesting read is the article about Edward Teller, a sientist which was a kind of a model for Dr Strangelove.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Teller

[pkleiss]

How do you know so much about nuc3ar bombs?

 

Well, there's a few reasons really. I am 45 years old, so I've been around for a while. I have a degree in Astrophysics, and I use Google and Wikipedia. But the number one reason is that in this and other forums I have seen all too often that many people just don't seem to understand how over-the-top destructive Nuclear weapon actually are. Like with the Gulf Oil Spill, many people were saying "just nuke it"; that's insane. It only takes a few well placed nukes to cause a reduction in global temperature such that crops would fail world-wide and thus, cause a famine that would kill most life on the planet including us. To me, the mere possession of such weapons is a sign of human insanity. But that is politics, which we are not allowed to discuss on these forums.

 

The temperatures in a thermo-nuclear explosion are so high, that they cause fission reactions in other nearby materials that would normally not be radioactive. This adds to the radiation of the event and causes such intense fires that the smoke rises into the upper stratosphere where it can stay for decades and block the suns light. This lowers global temperatures and causes nuclear winter, which makes crops fail and starves the planet. All dead, end of mankind, story over. Is that not insane?

[ecksile]

I actually read while doing some research of my own that that's a bunch of over-exaggerated propaganda left over from the cold war. While nuclear bombs are a huge threat non the less, the fact that it could change the temperature and the environment that drastically is a highly debated topic even now. It said that even if we where to have an all out nuclear war that it wouldn't cause the dreaded nuclear winter that everyone imagines. No matter what anyone says its just a theory and cant be proven until such an event where to happen. Ive actually posted my findings on here once before with my sources and much detail backing my story but who knows how long ago that was...im sure that topic has been lost in time by now swallowed up the ever growing ever hungry forums of the nexus..And unfortunately that was a format or 2 ago so i dont have my sources anymore =[

[phoneyLogic]

Yeah, you are right about that it is a theory. It's based on the dust which is blown into the highest layers of the atmosphere. Once the NASA just calculated that even a small amount of nuklear bombs can cause a nuklear winter. There are even theories which say it could even drop the earth out of its normal rotation. But in fact, it's not only the Winter which is dangerous, the radiation of a nuclear war will kill all the plants and animals anyway for a long period of time. This is not a theory.

 

But the US governement tried to understate the real dangers of the nuclear war. They always tried to convince people that it would be possible to survive it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_Under_Atomic_Attack

But, sadly all of this "facts" are profen wrong.

 

A nuclear war is pretty much the end of human civilisation. There are enough bombs to destroy the whole life on the planet many many times.

[ecksile]

the radiation of a nuclear war will kill all the plants and animals anyway for a long period of time. This is not a theory.

 

I'm not sure about this look at Chernobyl way way way more radiation came out of the Chernobyl accident then Nagasaki or Hiroshima and the plant life though highly radiated is still going strong it turned red for a while buts it never died off as for wildlife there's pigs birds all kinds of animals living with thin the zone.

[Elsarian]

I agree with Evilneko, I mean why are the DC ruins still standing if the bombs were so powerfull? Should they not be leveled into dust like what is seen in the Nagasaki and Heiroshima pictures after the nukes were dropped? And those were just regular atom bombs, we also tested Hydrogen Bombs, or H-Bombs, on some islands and when one went off, it completely vaporized the entire island!!!! So why are the ruins still in such good shape after two hundred years? And there is another thing, would the bombs not have weakend the structure of the buildings to where they would surely fall after two hundred years. Some of this stuff just really does not add up, but hell maybe Bethesda did it just so the Lone Wanderer would have something to look at and explore haha.

[phoneyLogic]

I'm not sure about this look at Chernobyl way way way more radiation came out of the Chernobyl accident then Nagasaki or Hiroshima and the plant life though highly radiated is still going strong it turned red for a while buts it never died off as for wildlife there's pigs birds all kinds of animals living with thin the zone.

Well, the accident happened and everything died because of the radiation. Yes, life came back, but they all came from outside the zone. And especially birds are heavily suffering by radiation which is still there (and will remain). The animals just don't know that there's a danger. They get genetic issues and live not even as half as long as usual, they can't fly because of deformed feathers ... etc. Remember, it was only a short outbrake of radiation. The reaktor has been closed immediately. It's still the weakest argument to say that life came back because the world outside the zone was relatively unaffected - well, this just wouldn't happen in a global war.

[pkleiss]

Another interesting fact about the earthquake and subsequent Tsunami of 2004 that hit the Indian Ocean.

 

NASA scientists using data from the Indonesian earthquake calculated it affected Earth's rotation, decreased the length of day, slightly changed the planet's shape, and shifted the North Pole by centimeters. The earthquake that created the huge tsunami also changed the Earth's rotation.

 

Often times, political organizations and the media will offer contradictions to scientific theories. I generally side with the scientists as they tend to have no other agenda but seeking the truth. That's just my opinion.

 

If you want to see some Youtube videos on Chernobyl, I recommend these: