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.

 

Nuclear fallout question

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Cheers for the book recommendation orange
sounds right up my alley. Is it a free ebook ?




posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
As a former Defence Nuclear Biological and Chemical Warfare Instructor, I think it would be safe to do so.

There is a lot of hype surrounding Nuclear Radiation and I have seen, read and heard so much of it.

It still amuses me that uninformed people can make such bold sweeping statements about "nuclear winters" and "uninhabitable for centuries" when they appear not to know the laws of physics.

For example most of us know, but few understand, Einsteins theory that E=MC2. But how many of you have ever heard about the "7 and 10 Rule"?

This relates solely to the "life" of the radiation (irrespective of source - i.e Strontium 90, U239 etc) caused by a nuclear explosion or meltdown, and partly explains why it is possible for the inhabitants of Nagasaki and Hiroshima to live in those cities without feeling the residual effects.

Detonation occurs at 0800 and produces 1,000,000 cGys radiation.
7 and 10 Rule states as Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decreases by a factor of 10. Therefore:

0800 x 7 = 56 hours (2½ days) and 1M cGys ÷ 10 = 100,000 cGys

Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decreases by a factor of 10

2½ days x 7 = 3 weeks and 1000,000 cGys ÷ 10 = 10,000 cGys

Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decreases by a factor of 10

3 weeks x 7 = 21 weeks and 1,000 cGys

Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decreases by a factor of 10

21 weeks x 7 = 147 weeks (2½ years) and 100 cGys

Time increases by a factor of 7, Radiation decreases by a factor of 10

2½ years x 7 = 21 years and 1

You will note that time is always rounded up and not rounded down.

cGy's are Centigrays - the current military method of accounting for radiation. Civvie organisations still use Rontgens or Rads.



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I looked that book up on Amazon. Its not much in price but very informative for those intrested in that kind of stuff.

Fritz...very intresting post on the decay rates. Not quite for the layman but the overall trend can be understood by careful reading. Great post.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 10 2006 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Cheers Orangetom.

Now the technical bit:

Characteristics of a Nuclear Explosion

1. FLASH. Is brighter than the sun. May last between a fraction of a second and several seconds – depending on the yield of the weapon detonated.

2. FIREBALL. A sphere of extremely hot gas forms at the instant of the explosion.

3. HEAT. A very large quantity of heat delivered within a very short time.

4. BLAST and SHOCK. Very strong Blast (Air and Ground burst) or Shock (Water and Subterranean) waves moves out in all directions from GZ in Positive (Push) and Negative (Drag back) waves.

5. RADIATION. 2 Types – Initial and Residual Nuclear Radiations.

5a. Initial radiation is formed at the instant of the explosion and is mostly Neutron Induced Activity (or NIA) and Gamma Rays.

5b. Residual radiation (Fallout) consists of Alpha Particles, Beta Particles and Gamma Radiation.

6. ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA. Caused by ionisation of the hemisphere and/or ionosphere – will cause communications blackouts and will affect electrical and electronic equipments.

6a. ELECTROMAGNETIC PHENOMENA also known as EMP consists of an ELECTROMAGNETIC PULSE and NEUTRON INDUCED ACTIVITY.

7. CLOUD. All detonations produce a ‘nuclear’ cloud but, depending on the depth of a sub-terranean burst, this too, may produce a cloud. Different weapons produce differing clouds:

For example a nuclear burst over water produces a ‘cauliflower’ shaped cloud whereas a ground burst produces a reddish/dirty brown cmushroom shaped cloud.

An air burst over land or sea produces a ‘doughnut’ shaped cloud initially, with a ‘stem’ rising upwards to meet the forming ‘cap’.

Hydrogen warheads produce closed mushroom ‘caps’ initially as do Neutron warheads – then the familiar ‘mushroom cloud’ forms.

Atomic explosions and Nuclear explosions are the same. It is the size or "yield" of the weapon that varies.

Any questions you want answered - please feel free and send me a U2U.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Hi there,

I cannot tell you why people are still able to live in the bombed Cities,
but I can tell you a bit about nukes and the differences in fallout.
As far as I know There are 8 different types of nukes. (I might be wrong)

1. The Gun Type Bomb (Little Boy)
the most basic Design of a nuke.
Two subcritival masses are shot together to build one critical mass.
Actually it´s quite hard to build because
it requires U-235 wich is much more complex to obtain than PU-239 (Plutonium).
It´s not possible to build a gun type bomb with Plutonium because it would
fizzle before both subcritical pieces join (when shot together).

2. The Implossion Bomb (Fat Man)
In this case a hollow sphere made from Plutonium is symetrically
imploded by high explosives to obtain a critical/supercritical mass.

3. The boosted fission Bomb (Greenhouse/Item)
The same design as an Implossion Bomb with the only difference
that inside the hollow Plutonium Sphere small pieces of a fussionable
material (Tritium/Deuterium) is placed. This doubles the yield of the bomb.
This bomb uses fussion to increase it´s yield, but is not a real fussion bomb.

4. The Alarm Clock/Sloika Design (Orange Herald).
This is similar to a boosted fission bomb. But inside the primary
hollow sphere, there are different layers of Tritium/Deuterium as well as
U-238. This cause several (depending on the design) fission-fussion-fission
reaction. The soviet called this "H-Bomb" before they invented a true
2-Stage H-Bomb.

5. The 2-Stage Thermonuclear Bomb (Ivy/Mike). The real Thermonuclear Bomb.
In this case the bomb consists of two bombs. Usually an implossion btw.
a boosted fission bomb is the "fuse". The enormous amounts of heat
(over 100 Million degrees) produced by this "fuse"cause the second stage
to explode. The second stage usually is a "container" below the fuse wich contains Tritium/Deuterium.

6. The 3-Stage Thermonuclear Bomb (Tsar Bomba)
(I´m not 100% shure on this one)
Same design like the 2-Stage Bomb but contains layers of U-238
around the fussion part of the bomb. The powerfull neutrinos from the fussion reaction can split the U-238 (wich is only possible under such extreme conditions) resulting in a multiplication of the yield.
This design has no limitation in yield !!
The US tested this desing on Redwing/Zuni and the USSR detonated
the largest Nuke ever (Tsar Bomba 50Mt) using this design.

7. Neutron Bomb
A fussion bomb that allows the neutrons from the blast to escape. (I don´t know how they do it). This produces an enormous amount of radiation
in the moment of explosion (not fallout). Those weapons are usually
smaller tactical warheads intended for combat use against armored
vehicle wich would withstand the shockwave of a "normal" nuke in a certain distance.

8. Salted Bombs
Same like a 3-Stage H-Bomb. The third Stage (usually U-238) is replaced by a (non fissionable) layer of Cobalt-59. This layer does not increase the yield,
but the total fallout of the bomb. Wich makes it extremly "dirty".
Probabely never build. It was an idea of Edward Teller to demonstrate
that nukes could destroy the whole planet.
(with 3-stage bombs it is possible anyway)


The fallout depends on several factors.

1. The design of the bomb
There are dirty and clean bombs. This means when a fusion bombs gets
most of it´s energy from the fussion stage it is called a clean bomb (because
fusion doesn´t produce much fallout). When a bomb gets most of it´s yield from fission it´s called a dirty bomb. So you can have a 500kt bomb that produces more fallout than a 10mt H-bomb. But it always depends
on the specific design. You cannot say in general H-Bombs are clean
an A-Bombs are dirty.

2. The height of burst and environment
A nuke that is detonated on the ground sucks in much more soil than an airdrop wich makes it much more dirty ! Also if you detonate a bomb over a city it can suck in much more soil/debris than exploded over an empty
dry lake. For example the (higher altitude) airdrops from the last
US atmospheric operation "Dominic" over Johnston btw. Christmas Island
produced nearly 0 Fallout.

3. The weather.
Depending on the weather (Rain, Winds, Humidity Layers)
the fallout can be focused to an area or spread very quickly.

So you can see, there are very much varibles !!

For more Information you can download the fresh uploaded
DOE Films from Archive.org

www.archive.org...
www.archive.org...
www.archive.org...

These are 3 out of 72 recently declassfied films from the DOE.
Free to download (Public Domain)
More will follow !!

cheers !



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
Here are some of the links i found on this topic when debating another point. I really do not see the world ending due to nuclear fallout.

THE MYTHS OF CHERNOBYL


Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation doses are not too large. As will be explained in Appendix B, a person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being incapacitated.

Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts


The UNSCEAR 2000 Report

he Truth About Chernobyl Is Told

RADIATION VERSUS CANCER

Stellar



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 02:36 AM
link   
the amount of rad fallout has to do more with what type of burst and how big of a yeild the weapon is able to prduce.

air burst = max city damage do to the over pressure the weapon creates this is what the 2 ww2 bombs were suppose to do but they altimeter test was off and the air burst touch the ground.

ground burst = limited damage but heavy fallout rad dirty and dust sucked up by the stem hitting the ground

subterran burst - creats a large crater and medium fall out, the pakistani bomb test shows this reather well.


rad is not good hot soapy water woohoo



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:18 AM
link   
Cherobl had a burning nuklier reactor realeasing heaps of crap into the air and sorounding area.

With a Nuklier bomb, the bomb was a airburst, basicly vaporised, and the things below get set on fire, but won't release to much fallout. (compared to chernobl)
And when that happens i think the air is radioactive.

So, With Nukalar bombs, the fallout shoun't be as bad as a chernobl.
If theres bunkber buster nukes going off, then I think it would be radioactive really bad.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   
You do know that Chernobyl is still burning underneath the sarcophagus they have built around it dont you ??? Also the sarcophagus is detiorating.
I havent looked at the reports in awhile ..does anyone else know if they have reinforced the sarcophagus since???

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
You do know that Chernobyl is still burning underneath the sarcophagus they have built around it dont you ??? Also the sarcophagus is detiorating.
I havent looked at the reports in awhile ..does anyone else know if they have reinforced the sarcophagus since???


Really, I wasn't aware that it was still burning. I know it is still radioactive underneath and that is what appears to be breaking down the concrete.
I'm also aware that the Soviets in tehir infinite wisdom kept on operating the other 3 reactors despite the one which had melted down.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:19 PM
link   
yes..thank you for the clarification...by burning I mean hot...crapped out...still emitting radiation deep in the core.
As I understand it the sarcophagus is detiorating and will need replacing or reinforcing at huge expense. I expect huge loans will have to be taken out to do this.

Thanks again for your clarification.
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Guys, there are a lot of myths regarding radiation.

Most of you (unless you live in a hole underground) get blasted with radiation every single day.

In very hot weather, you may even get mild radiation poisoning - that's called sun burn or heat stroke.

As to the body only being able to take 100 Rontgens a day, that is rubbish.

Radiation effects on the human body are cumlative - i.e their effects add up.

If you are exposed to 400 cGys an hour BUT are protected, then you will not feel any adverse effects.

However, if you are unprotected and you receive the same doserate, after an hour you should be experiencing the following symptoms:

1. Loss of appetite;
2. Nausea;
3. Slight headache;
4. Cold, clammy but reddened skin;

Should symptoms persist, you will also

5. Vomit and suffer from diaorrhea.

Even at this stage, provided you are put under cover, given a cool shower (washes away radiactive particles), given clean clothes and in those rare cases where the effects last, saline solution in a drip, you will survive with no side effects.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Doesnt that exposure amount depend on what type or source the radiation comes??

Like sunburn..is different from nuclear radiation ...though the symptoms can be somewhat similar.

Loss of appetite.etc..etc.

I do believe with some types of radiation exposure thier is also loss of hair. I know a man who was exposed accidently to a cobalt source used in X rays... he took sick as you described. Some hair loss for a time but he recovered eventually. I havent seen him in awhile so I dont know personally of the long term effects but he got his lifetime dose in about a minute.
Most of these sources are weaker radium sources but this one was a heavy shot of very thick metal. Cobalt was used in a very large and heavy transport vessel. It had to be put into place with a crane. When you see them use this kind of source they clear out a huge area..of people to make the shots/x rays.

Also ...100 Rads or 100R is alot of exposure in one sitting. Just one R is alot where I work.
I know a guy who got 5 R in twenty minutes...He no longer works nuclear work.

I also know as a ham radio operator they are concerned with exposure to radiation from electronic emissions..especially as the transmitted frequencys move higher up the scale twords the radar bands..or just above the cellular phones. Cell phone radiation can be harmful if it is above a certain power level and exposures long.

Thanks for another good post,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 03:47 AM
link   
Orangetom, the simple answere is NO.

Irrespective of the source of radiation, be it Strontium, Irridium, Cesium, UV (sunlight) or the unit of measurement - Becquerls, Rads, Rontgens or Centigreys ([cGys] UK military) it is the Dose Rate per hour [D/H] that is important.

Put as simply as possible, if a serviceman (or woman) was exposed to a source whose yield was 400 cGys, he or she would have a Dose Rate of 400 cGys/Hour. That would be irrespective of exposure time. It may be as little as 1 second or as much as the full hour.

He or she would survive but would feel very unwell for a time and may experience the symptoms I listed in my earlier reply.

If that same person was further exposed to another 400 cGys that day, then the total dose rate would be 800 cGys. Dose Rates are always rounded up as the effects are cumlative.

But, if properly treated, that personn with a dose rate of 800 cGys will almost certainly survive. There well may be hair loss but this usually happens at Dose Rates of over 900 cGys.

Make no mistake about this. Our 'casualty' is still very ill. Other factors will dictate his/her survivability. If the casualty was in ill health with a chest infection, then it would probably be touch and go.

Please also remember that I only make references to military personnel. As far as I know, civilian personnel working in the nuclear industry are so well protected with so many safety devices, that exposures can and probably are measured on the Giga Beckerel scale (GBq).

To illustrate a Giga Bequerel, consider the small ammount of radiation say from Trilux luminant paint (Tritium source) used on Sliva compasses or analogue watches.

You would hardly say that these sources represent a militarily significent danger to your health but the Silva compass does have a Dose Rate of 4.5 GBq/Hr and that would be considered dangerous in a civilian environment.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   
Both yes and no:

adiation sickness is generally associated with acute exposure and has a characteristic set of symptoms that appear in an orderly fashion. Chronic exposure is usually associated with delayed medical problems such as cancer and premature aging, which may happen over a long period of time.

The degree of illness (acute radiation sickness) is dependent on the dose and the rate of exposure. For example:

* Total body exposure of 100 roentgens causes radiation sickness.
* Total body exposure of 400 roentgens causes radiation sickness and death in half the individuals.
* 100,000 rads causes almost immediate unconsciousness and death within an hour

The severity of symptoms and illness depends on the type and amount of radiation, the duration of the exposure, and the body areas exposed. Symptoms of radiation sickness usually do not occur immediately following exposure.

Because it is difficult to determine the amount of radiation exposure from accidents, the best indications of the severity of the exposure are: the length of time between the exposure and the onset of symptoms, the severity of symptoms, and severity of changes in white blood cells.

Children who receive radiation treatments or who are accidentally exposed to radiation will be treated based on their symptoms and their blood cell counts. Frequent blood studies are necessary and require a small puncture through the skin into a vein to obtain blood samples.



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   
Your correct,
Civilian standards are more strict than the military. Our limit is less than 500 mr per year. There are options for more exposure under certain circumstances but they try to stay within those limits.
Military personel are not able to use the court system as relief from obvious mistakes so they are considered disposable and expendable by the military political machine. Hence they can be made to pick up much higher doses.

What they are concerned about is the long term effects of exposure and as a result they know that to keep the exposure down to begin with is the way to go across the board. They constantly take tons of data on these exposure levels of people in this field.
One may heal from the initial effects but it is the long term effects like what is happening to the survivors immediately in the area of Chernobyl..for example. These people will be monitored for the rest of thier lives. Lots of documentation here but I think much of it will not be made public.
Yes the effects are cumulative. This is known in the trade.

Proper work practices will help some in this area depending on the elements to which one is exposed. Shielding, anti contamination clothing, pre staging properly for a specific job to keep exposure times down, glove changes, etc etc.

However this does not apply to the people exposed at Chernobyl or in the two Japanese Citys as this was not a controlled exposure. These people were wide open.

As to the compasses and analog watches ..when I began the work I do years ago..the stories circulated about this industry and the women in the olde days who painted the radioactive material on the arms of these instruments. The stories go that the women painted this material on the instrument arms with a fine paint brush ..often wetting the brush on thier tounge after a number or applications. Their tounges rotted..and they took sick before they were told what the source of this was.

I have also seen the photos of this guy who picked up a radium source for X ray when he found it uncontained on a site. He stuck it in his back pocket and walked about doing his job for a couple of hours before turning the source over to someone else. The photos show his backside cheek turning red then purple and finally black as it died/rotted off. I never did hear if he died or suffered long. I expect if he overcame it initially his length of life was cut short.

Oh...another intresting story of note was from a olde man who was a US Navy sailor after the second world war on a ocean going tug boat. He told a number of us hanging around the shop drinking coffee that his crew on his tug had the job of moving a number of war prizes ..battleships and cruisers to a island in the Pacific Ocean. They were accompanied by a number of technology/science types and they moved these ships around a number of times over many months until the tech types were satisfied with the arrangement ...sort of like moving furniture for Mom or your wife. He said they never knew what they were doing until one day they moved thier tug way back away from the island...and were told to lie down on the deck and dont look or get up till they were specificaly told it was alright. When the bomb went off....they knew clearly what they had been doing.
He told me that they did two of these bombs..a air burst and one underwater. Of intrest was that not all the ships sank..some survived..but were very contaminated. They washed them down with fire hoses but it didnt help with some of them.
What we found of particular note...was that he also told us that they shipped in barges of animals...Dogs, goats , sheep and cattle and tied them up on these ships also to see the effects on these animals. He told me some of these survived for awhile too. This part of the narrative I found very intresting.
We were a bunch of loudmouth cocky youngsters when this old man related this narrative...but the reaction on the most vocal of us was pure astonishment...dumbfounded. It really took alot to shut the loud mouths of some of us...but this olde man pulled it off. He was cool and calm as ice..when he related to us his experience. For this narrative and its effects on us I will always respect this olde man.
It was about 15 years later before this information and film was declassified and put on the history channel but it was exactly as he stated in his narrative.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lecter
Isnt radiation supposed to make places unhabitable for hundreds of years? So why are japanese living back in those two cities?


No, this is usually a myth. The effects of nukes are usually exagerated.

When a nuclear bomb is detonated on the ground it throws up tons of dust and debris high into the atmosphere which becomes radioactive. As this dust and debris get blown downwind of the blast it "falls out" of the air and onto the ground. Most of these radioactive particles expend their energy very quickly, making the irradiated area safe for travel and cleanup in about a month. In some cases fallout can be so concentrated that going anywhere near it will fry you, but that would only be localized. Here is more information on this (with pictures showing fallout patterns)

www.radshelters4u.com...

There are some more particles which emit their radiation much more slowly and stay in the food chain for much longer. That is why no matter how cleaned up the area is, there will always be higher cancer and death rates for future generations.


[edit on 20-1-2006 by Kozzy]



posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Seems there are more unknowns than knowns when it comes to nuclear weapons and their effects. It's either that or large groups of people are benefiting by the average citizens mortal fear of radiation of any sort.


HOW HOT ARE DR. HAUGHTON'S RUNNING SHOES?

The running shoes of Dr. Dennis Haughton of Phoenix, pictured on page 1 of The Medical Tribune, July 23, 1986, were

said to radiate at a rate "over 100 times background" afterbeing in Kiev at the time of the Chernobyl accident.This

report is typical of media accounts, which give the radiation rate in units of "times normal."How hot is that? It is

impossible to say.The background in Colorado is "2.5 times normal" if Texas is defined as normal (250 vs 100

mrem/yr).An area near the Library of Congress receives"700 times normal" if normal is defined as what Congress

allows at the boundary line of a nuclear power plant.A whole year's exposure of "50 times normal" is within NRC

standards for occupational exposure.These figures refer to total body irradiation. The volume of tissue irradiated

is crucially important.The safest available treatment for hyperthyroidism -- radioactive iodine -- delivers up to

10,000 rads (10 million millirads) to the thyroid, and about 14 rads to the body. Also, the duration of exposure is

important. A dose of "100 times background" for a week might subject a person to the dose he would have received

from living in Colorado for a year (where the cancer rate is lower than elsewhere.) A meaningful report of radiation

exposure would give the dose (rems, rads, etc). But journalists seem to be more interested in alarming the public

than in enlightening them.

www.oism.org...




Both issues are "hot." Comparison of doses may influence the future foundations of radiation protection

principles and regulations. The report's appendix on Chernobyl (115 pages and 558 references) is obviously

politically incorrect: it denies the claims of a mass health disaster caused by radiation in the highly contaminated

regions of the former Soviet Union.

At the global scale, as the report shows, the average natural radiation dose is 2.4 mSv per year, with a "typical

range" reaching up to 10 mSv. However, in the Annex on natural radiation, UNSCEAR presents data indicating that this

dose range in some geographical regions is many tens and hundreds times higher than the average natural global dose,

or than the currently accepted annual dose limits for general population (1 mSv) and occupationally exposed people

(20 mSv).

No adverse health effects related to radiation were ever observed among people exposed to such high natural doses.

This strongly suggests that the current radiation standards are excessively, and unnecessarily, restrictive.

www.21stcenturysciencetech.com...






Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation doses are not too large. As

will be explained in Appendix B, a person who is healthy and has not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total

radiation dose of more than 100 R can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being

incapacitated.


Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation doses some of which were nearly

fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should realize that to do essential work after a massive

nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible.

Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national

recovery could not be done. For example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-

incapacitating radiation doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from

starvation alone.

The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences, A Thirty Year Study of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and

Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of abnormalities is no higher among children later

conceived by parents who were exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the

incidence of abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents.

The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts




In his presentation at the DDP meeting in Las Vegas, Myron Pollycove, M.D., of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission highlighted the following:

* Aging and cancer result from DNA alterations caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS). Normal oxidative

metabolism causes at least a million such changes per cell every day. Normal background radiation causes about two.
* Low-dose ionizing radiation stimulates the body's enzymatic repair mechanisms. DNA repair is tripled by

exposure to 25 cGy (25 rads). A tenfold increases in background radiation from 1 mGy/yr to 10 mGy/yr stimulates

overall DNA damage control by 20%.
* Total body irradiation or TBI (e.g. 150 r in fractionated doses in non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) has improved

survival compared with chemotherapy alone.
* TBI in mice, especially when combined with chronic caloric restriction, prevents or causes regression of

spontaneous mammary tumors.
* Dr. Pollycove summarized a number of epidemiologic studies that support hormesis, involving populations in

areas with high background radiation; survivors of the atomic bombs or radiation accidents; nuclear workers; and

patients exposed to multiple fluoroscopies. He also presented experimental evidence of life extension effects,

immune stimulation, suppression of malignant transformation of cells, slowing of tumor growth, and reduction in

number of metastases.

``All statistically significant adequately controlled epidemiologic studies,'' he writes, ``confirm low doses of

radiation are associated with reduced mortality from all causes, decreased cancer mortality, and may be protective

against accidental high- dose radiation.'' In US nuclear shipyard workers, for example, those with a cumulative

exposure between 0.5 and 40 cSV or rem had a standardized mortality ratio 16 standard deviations below that of

matched nonexposed workers for all causes, and 4 SDs less than nonexposed workers for all malignancies.

www.oism.org...




The Chernobyl Accident

According to the Committee's scientific assessments, there have been about 1,800 cases of thyroid cancer in children

who were exposed at the time of the accident, and if the current trend continues, there may be more cases during the

next decades. Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to

radiation exposure fourteen years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer

incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. The risk of

leukaemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, not even among

the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of

radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health

consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident. However, the accident had a large negative psychological

impact on thousands of people.

www.arps.org.au...



Stellar



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 03:55 PM
link   
There are four main types of radioactive particles.

Alpha and Beta Particles, Gamma Rays and X-Rays.

Penetration of Matter

Though it is the biggest and most energetic of the radioactive particles, the Alpha particle has the shortest of range (about a few centimetres) because it readily reacts with matter. Indeed, a simple sheet of plain white paper can be used as a shield and is enough to protect against alpha particles.

In human terms, although alpha particles can pass through less dense materiel such as water, it cannot easily penetrate the bare skin.

While Beta particles are emitted by atoms that are radioactive, the particles themselves are not radioactive. It is their energy, in the form of speed, that causes harm to living cells. When transferred, this energy can break chemical bonds and form ions. Having said that, they too have a relatively short range, only about 5 or 6 centimetres.

The electromagnetic Gamma Ray is extremely penetrating, even penetrating considerable thicknesses of concrete. Because of their high energy, gamma rays travel at the speed of light and can cover hundreds to thousands of meters in air before spending their energy. They can readily pass through many kinds of materials, including human tissue. Only the very densest of materials such as lead, can be used as shielding to slow or eventually stop gamma rays.

The X-Ray, we all know about. They too, have a long life and great range and can penetrate even the most densest of materials, even a thin layer of steel. Because of this, X-Rays can be very dangerous, especially in medical applications. Having said that, the lasting effects of an X-Ray is negligable provided you are not exposed continually over a period of time.

I have deliberatley left out UV radiation because we were talking about the ‘military’ events at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.



posted on Jan, 24 2006 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodrul

Originally posted by Lecter
Isnt radiation supposed to make places unhabitable for hundreds of years? So why are japanese living back in those two cities?


its to do with the yield of the actual bomb its self
the bombs used these days are 100 times more deadly and would be more radioactive

i may be wronge


This is completely inaccurated.

Nuclear Fall-out occurs when Dust is kicked into the atmosphere by a Surface blast.

The Nagasaki-Hirsohima attacks were Atmospheric Bursts which have no Fall-out.

Thus calculating radiation hazards for Nuclear attacks there are a big difference depending on Atmospheric Bursts (used on cities due to the wanton destruction) and surface bursts used on ICBM silos because of the need to destroy that facility (which can survive 2 surface bursts, and probably an infinite amount of Atmospheric bursts).

Nuclear Fall-Out is simply irradiated material.

So when an area is irradiated by the Nuclear blast, it becomes "unlivable".

But, because of decontamination, an area can be relivable.

Decontamination can be a number of methods but usually is removal of contamination, such as debris.

Any material used in the fuel of a bomb becomes so unstable that it is not long-lived radioactive material.

I think the Nagasaki bomb was 20% effective (that means 80% of the radioactive material was blown into the atmosphere) and Hiroshima was 17% effective.

Nuclear bombs today are about 98% effective and so have very little Uranium//Plutonium//Tridium hazards.

Thus the only problem is irradiation and that is decontaminable.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join