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.

 

How many nukes would it take to destroy a city?

page: 8
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by zero lift

The main danger in radioactive fall-out (and a full nuclear attack on the UK would produces enormous fall-out levels of gamma) is exposure to very high levels of high-energy gamma radiation.Please try and understand the following, its not hard - No NBC suit in the world can prevent this type of radiation. You need many feet of concrete, or earth, or steel to give adequate protection form gamma radiation.


Actually the graph provided earlier shows that you may need 'several feet' ( which means more than two) feet of concrete. Gamma radiation is a line of sight prompt weapon effect phenomenon so even those in direct line of sight shielded by modern building materials are likely to escape serious dosages and will be far more likely to be overcome by blast and thermal effects. Those that are further away without the benefit of buildings or such nearby will escape serious prompt radiation exposure by being in 2-3 meter deep fortified OPEN trenches given they are crouched and far enough away to escape the same old blast and thermal effects. Gamma radiation is not going to kill you if you have a meter or two worth of sand between you and explosion.



All very interesting, but unfortunately irrelevant to my post.





When I served in the Royal Observer Corps (part of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation) the maximum wartime dose of gamma radiation was 150 roentgens. UK Government peak estimates of the radiation rates expected in a global nuclear exchange were 20,000 roentgens per hour.


How can it be measured in per hour amounts when Gamma radiation does not persist and when blast effects are far more likely to kill those before the Gamma/neutron ever get the chance?...

...Why are you obsessed with Gamma fall-out? Of all the things you could worry about why have you chosen, presuming that you aren't just parroting the JIC nonsense, this ?




For some reason, as yet unclear, you appear to be ignorant of the existence of gamma producing fallout but still claim expertise concerning the effects produced by a thermonuclear burst.


Its incredible that you pontificate about others failure to comprehend, and yet you've made the most basic of errors - you've failed to understand the nature of fall-out.

In short StellarX, during the 1960s and 1970s, the ROC used the following gamma radiation measuring devices, both of which measured gamma fallout dosage (roentgens per hour).




The ROC Training Manual describes this device:

"The fixed survey meter is a battery operated instrument designed to measure gamma radiation dose-rate. The range normally covered by the instrument is 0.1 roentgens per hour (rph) to 500 rph, but the upper unit can be increased to 5,000 rph or more by shielding the probe unit."

And if that one broke....




"The radiac survey meter No 2 is a portable battery-operated instrument for the measurement of gamma radiation dose-rate over the range 0-300 roentgens per hour (rph).
It is issued to ROC posts for use should it be necessary to measure radiation away from the post and as a reserve instrument in the event of failure of the fixed survey meter."


This equipment formed the backbone of the Royal Observer Corps during the 1960s and 1970s. It was standard issue in circa 800 underground three-man reporting cells and circa 26 Group Headquarters (situated in protected accommodation - some fully underground, some semi-sunk).

Post attack, the main priority of the ROC was the monitoring and reporting of the enormous amounts of gamma-producing fallout which would cover the UK.

To give you an idea of the danger presented by gamma-producing fallout, bear in mind that the dangers presented by this fallout prevented any Government accretion for 30 days post-strike. Even then it would have been a case of a quick dash to the surviving accretion centres, such as the Corsham facility, followed by another hunkering down in the protected accommodation for a further 30 days.

Btw, you might find it of interest to realise that the ROC were not issued with NBC suits - for the simple reason that they are useless in protecting the wearer from gamma-producing fallout.



zero lift




posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Gamma radiation is a wave form , similar to x-rays ; ergo there is no fallout - those meters measure alpha and beta radiation , and whilst they can be stopped by paper (alpha) and a hseet of glass) beta , they are both very very dangerous - even more so from the fast moving gamma;


why?

gamma passes through the body rapidily and whilst it does effect cells because of the `speed` of pass through damage is less - on the other hand alpha radiation being the larget in reletive size is also the slowest and has time to do masssive damage - if you inhale alpha radiation , especially within a short time after the explosion , then being under ground doesn`t matter - as you will likely die from poisoning.



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


I think i am giving up on the Gamma fallout front as i clearly don't have the mental capacity to explain this to him. I would appreciate it if you could use your actual honest to god degrees in physics ( not something i can brag about ) to clarify and or explain to him why Gamma radiation is the LEAST of our worries in a nuclear exchange.

Good luck.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
the `fallout` from a nuclear explosion is dirt and dust (and people , cars , buildings that sort of thing) irradiated with alpha particles (hellium-4) and beta particles (electrons or positrons) - gamma ray is an electromagnetic radiation with a frequency (actually slightly above x-rays - something around 10 picometers)


think of this - at one end of teh scale is radiowaves , do they leave `fallout`? well no not really , you then working along the scale have visable light , UV , X-Rays then gamma rays - in fact the top end of the x-ray scale overlaps with the bottom end of the gamma ray scale

it has a very short wavelength , is very penetrating but is also a wave.

and lets not even go to delta or epsilon radiation (delta being an electromagnetic wave of high energy ionized electrons emitted from an alpha particle knocking them out of there atoms - `knock on electrons`)

its alpha and beta particles which make fallout so dangerous - as the name says particle meaning its somehing tangible you can `pick up`

[edit on 15/10/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:01 AM
link   
Let's find out...One. One nuke to destroy a city.

If a city gets hit with a nuke, any nuke, everyone in the city and surrounding area will leave. City destroyed. Its not the type of thing people will stick around to see if it happens again.

[edit on 15-10-2008 by bruxfain]



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 11:41 AM
link   
Let clear this up...

for those not in the know.

Nuclear Blast: massive amounts of gamma radiation release and neutron flux. These are two most dangerous components of being near the blast and shortly after detonation

The gamma radiation comes from fission/fusion chain reaction processes as do the neutrons

Fissions caused by splitting of large atoms. When they split the resulting Fission products isotopes are the primary radioactive components

The neutron flux can cause other non bomb material near the site of the explosion i.e soil, water, salts to become radioactive through neutron capture.

There are three types of radiation emission.... Alpha Beta and Gamma.

Alpha is a heavy helium nuclide that can't penetrate skin.... it's dangerous if ingested or breathed in...

Beta can pentrate skin and is equally dangerous

Gamma is a high energy shortwavelength wave..... penetrate most things except lead, thick walls, etc

Once fallout settles on the ground, it is in the form of the fission products from the bomb and secondary irradiated materials through neutron capture (NOTE: there is no Alpha, Beta or Gamma rays floating around.)

Each radioactive element has a different half life i.e the amount of radiation it emits over time


For example:




Iodine-131 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 8.07 days (specific activity 124,000 curies/g) Its decay energy is 970 KeV; usually divided between 606 KeV beta, 364 KeV gamma. Due to its short half-life it is most dangerous in the weeks immediately after the explosion, but hazardous amounts can persist for a few months. It constitutes some 2% of fission-produced isotopes - 1.6x10^5 curies/kt. Iodine is readily absorbed by the body and concentrated in one small gland, the thyroid.



Given Iodines short half life, people would assume after 30 days in a bunker the danger has subsided BUT because Iodine accumulates and builds up in a single small gland in the body any exposure makes it more potent as a cancer risk than assumed

So radiocontaminants lie in the soil, on buildings and in water and they constantly radiate one, two or a mix of these types of radiation...all are dangerous but it's the combination of the half life, it's decay rate (how quickly it releases it's radioactivity) and it's biological properties have to be considered

Saying Gamma radiation being released shortly after the blast and is a wave so it doesn't persist is rubbish.. Alpha and Beta radiation are attenuated shortly after they are released too. They lose their energies to the surrounding environment...thye don't float around like jelly fish waiting to irradiate you, this also goes for Gamma radiation.

If you are in any doubt about this, Cobalt60 is a really nasty radionuclide, with a single beta and double gamma ray release when it decays with a half life of 5 years... A long and potent Gamma risk for many years

Cesium is probably the most common mid/long term radionuclide risk.

Cesium-137 is a beta and gamma emitter with a half-life of 30.0 years (specific activity 87 Ci/g). Its decay energy is 1.176 MeV; usually divided by 514 KeV beta, 662 KeV gamma. It comprises some 3-3.5% of total fission products - 200 curies/kt. It is the primary long-term gamma emitter hazard from fallout, and remains a hazard for centuries.

Some medical studies have pointed out that short intense bursts of radiation (no-lethal levels) aren't as dangerous as longer term exposure to mid or lower levels of radiation

Some things to consider when talking about nuclear weapons and fallout



posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 12:08 PM
link   
endofworld.net...


^^ in conclusion that is so true



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   
The Medical Implications of Nuclear War (1986)
National Academy of Sciences - Institute of Medicine

"Local fallout is the early deposition of relatively large radioactive particles that are lifted by a nuclear explosion occurring near the surface in which large quantities of debris are drawn into the fireball. For nuclear weapons, the primary early danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation."

Still reckon an NBC suit would protect you from gamma producing fallout?

zero lift



[edit on 16-10-2008 by zero lift]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift

For nuclear weapons, the primary early danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation.
"

Still reckon an NBC suit would protect you from gamma producing fallout?

zero lift


Even when it's right in front of you you just can not accept it for what it is. Doesn't it clearly say primary EARLY danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation? Where did i ever say that a NBC suit could protect you from prompt gamma radiation? Since those affects are very quickly dissipated your going to have to deal with PARTICLE fallout which IS something well maintained and cleaned NBC suits can deal with.


I mean it's not like i trust the NAS to relay the fact's when it's politically unacceptable but what more do you really want? Is it this hard for you to admit that highly intelligent people managed to fool you into thinking that defense and survival was impossible when it suited them to have you believe otherwise? It's this type of ignorant arrogance that allows those who have control to keep it; i mean who can fool someone as smart as you?

bah.

Stellar

[edit on 16-10-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by zero lift

For nuclear weapons, the primary early danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation.
"

Still reckon an NBC suit would protect you from gamma producing fallout?

zero lift


Even when it's right in front of you you just can not accept it for what it is. Doesn't it clearly say primary EARLY danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation? Where did i ever say that a NBC suit could protect you from prompt gamma radiation? Since those affects are very quickly dissipated your going to have to deal with PARTICLE fallout which IS something well maintained and cleaned NBC suits can deal with.


I mean it's not like i trust the NAS to relay the fact's when it's politically unacceptable but what more do you really want? Is it this hard for you to admit that highly intelligent people managed to fool you into thinking that defense and survival was impossible when it suited them to have you believe otherwise? It's this type of ignorant arrogance that allows those who have control to keep it; i mean who can fool someone as smart as you?

bah.

Stellar

[edit on 16-10-2008 by StellarX]




Now you're just embarassing yourself StellarX. You've mis-read the quote!

Try re-reading my post, or better still go to the National Academy Press website and view the full report - you might get a better understanding of nuclear weapons fallout.

Mind you, the word 'fallout' should have given you a clue.

Its pretty straightforward - the NAS statement "Primary early danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation." is not a reference to the initial prompt gamma ray burst.

It is a reference to the fact that the primary early danger is the deposition of local fallout, which contains gamma-emitting particles (also known as first-fallout)

Particles which no NBC suit can give protection from, however clean.


StellarX, you really need to understand that fallout contains large amounts of gamma emitting particles. Do a bit more research; you'll get there eventually.




zero lift

[edit on 16-10-2008 by zero lift]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 06:56 AM
link   
NBC suit means you just don't ingest or breath in any radiocontamination or get it on your skin.

They don't stop radiation or neutron streams, they just offer a barrier to stop you coming into actual contant with fallout particles

But you can't live in a NBC suit for weeks, months or years wearing a gas mask. You have to eat and drink too



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 07:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
Now you're just embarassing yourself StellarX. You've mis-read the quote!


Where?


Try re-reading my post, or better still go to the National Academy Press website and view the full report - you might get a better understanding of nuclear weapons fallout.


Don't ask me to prove something that you can not prove yourself. Do your own work towards proving a point or stop trying.


Mind you, the word 'fallout' should have given you a clue.


You should talk about clue's...


Its pretty straightforward - the NAS statement "Primary early danger from local fallout is due to gamma radiation." is not a reference to the initial prompt gamma ray burst.


Which lasts for i think up to 650 seconds from secondary emitters, yes. Feel free to find a source that indicates the exact danger from Gamma waves in terms of how long it's a threat and exactly how much of a threat it is.


It is a reference to the fact that the primary early danger is the deposition of local fallout, which contains gamma-emitting particles (also known as first-fallout)


No, there is not such thing as gamma emitting particle; the effect is induced as i understand and unless you can provide sources i will go with what logic dictates.


Particles which no NBC suit can give protection from, however clean.


Depending on what the suit is made from.... Since i will presume that there are means to prevent gamma rays without massive cement shielding that proved to be 'too expensive' i will just advise that the worse effects of gamma radiation can be avoided by staying inside a shelter for a few minutes.


StellarX, you really need to understand that fallout contains large amounts of gamma emitting particles. Do a bit more research; you'll get there eventually.


It does not hence the fact that there is nothing to understand here. This is simply a question of reading you refuse to do because you can not accept that this too will come to pass without the world as we know it ending for everyone.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
NBC suit means you just don't ingest or breath in any radiocontamination or get it on your skin.


Yes, i know.


They don't stop radiation or neutron streams, they just offer a barrier to stop you coming into actual contant with fallout particles


And by far the fast majority of damage is done by particle's on the skin or , god forbid, inhaled. If those two routes are blocked the passive radiation can be relatively easily controlled by working outside a increasing number of hours per day as effects subside over the first days and weeks.


But you can't live in a NBC suit for weeks, months or years wearing a gas mask. You have to eat and drink too


Yes, things you can do in your ventilated bunker's clean room. As you are once again presuming that no such thing exists because the host nation chose to build ballistic missile submarines and aircraft carriers instead of nice cosy shelters i can understand where your coming from. I am sorry to have to disappoint but that is not the case in every country and especially not those who in fact spent the money over time to be ready.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The US EPA good enough for you?



"What kind of contamination is in fallout?

Fallout typically contains hundreds of different radionuclides. Some of these persist in the environment for a long time because they have relatively long half-lives. Some have very short half-lives and persist in the environment for only a few minutes or a few years. Some produce high levels of radiation. Both long-lived and highly radioactive materials pose potential human health and environmental risks.

Some of the more important radionuclides detected by EPA's RadNet include:

americium-241
cesium-137
iodine-131
strontium-90"


www.epa.gov...


Cesium-137 undergoes radioactive decay with the emission of beta particles and relatively strong gamma radiation. Cesium-137 decays to barium-137m, a short-lived decay product, which in turn decays to a nonradioactive form of barium. The major dose from cesium-137 is from the barium-137. The half-life of cesium-137 is 30.17 years. Because of the chemical nature of cesium, it moves easily through the environment. This makes the cleanup of cesium-137 difficult.

www.epa.gov...


As Unknown Perpetrator quite rightly pointed out:

"It [cesium 137] is the primary long-term gamma emitter hazard from fallout, and remains a hazard for centuries."






zero lift



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by zero lift
 


americium is an alpha emmitter and also can be found in smoke alarms (and is also a propposed engine fuel and its a silver/white metal) , iodine and strontium are both beta emitters

i too can make a list - and just put on it each of a certain class of emitter - doesn`t mean a thing.

edit: to me alpha and beta radiaition is far more damaging , as they move far more slowly and thus have more `time` to cause destruction than gamma - a strong enough gamma source isn`t stopped by anything

delta radiation scares the bejesus out of me more than gamma ever does.

[edit on 17/10/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Question, is it not obvious that the enemy would attack the US strategic reserves with a ground burst?


If they could ascertain where they were with any great accuracy. This could easily be prevented by having many smaller reserves which logically can be made smaller in value than the warheads aimed at them. Either way the presumption that such sites can be known with any certainty is another one of those popular myths related to spy satellites and 'spying' in general.


Although some of these salt caverns are 1000m below ground, a dirty ground penetrator would render the crude oil supplies useless not to mention the close by refineries being destroyed ??


A ground penetrating warhead has no capability, beside it's induced shock effects, to penetrate anything more than a few meters ( hardening becomes all but impossible thus destroying the warhead) to damage deeply buried targets. It most certainly can't 'irradiate' them.


Does anybody know how much refined product the US military has in stock at any one time and how dispersed it is?


I don't think we can or do but that does not mean it has to be a whole lot. Either way there are hundreds of millions of barrels in private hands all over the continental US and there is no imaginable way in which all wells could be prevented from operating presuming independent power supplies. Again this is a matter of preparation and admittedly the US armed forces/ civil defense forces do not seem in many ways ready for such a war.


If sizable military reserves are stored on bases then surely they will destroyed too?


How? They really don't have a infinite amount of warheads and it would be all but impossible to attack well distributed supply dumps in short order.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
Wrong? I don't think so. I'm countering the poisiton of some idiots round here that think we can pop out of underground bunkers after 30 days and start planting potatos and growing cucumbers to feed ourselves and then build new power grids and so on like nothing ever happened.


Well we can leave shelters after a few minutes if we are ready to accept certain risks and almost everyone could work outside of their bunkers for normal workdays ( 8-10 hours) after thirty days provided that there were no follow on strikes with nuclear weapons. As for planting foods deep ploughing ( 30 cm's) will bury any affected top soil ( presuming that fallout effects were serious) thus allowing immediate planting of at least certain crops. If additional nuclear strikes are expected greenhouses or netting will prevent particle pollution if the blasts are not close enough to destroy such above ground structures. Obviously a fully prepared nation could encourage such structures ( tax subsidies) at homes or in close proximity to small cities thus allowing a safe means of producing food.

As for power grids there is little doubt that EMP induced effects are going to wreck havoc on power distribution but as blast damage will be localized there is no reason that at least the distribution network could not be rebuilt provided sufficiently stored supplies and skilled labor; it's just a question or preparation and protecting as many citizens with skills as possible.


Yes, fireballs and overpressure will kill billions, nobody is arguing that


There is no way for a nuclear war to kill billions unless the warheads of the various nations are targeted at every population center on the planet to kill as many as possible. As the nuclear war will be mostly limited to western Europe, European Russia and North America there is little chance that even a billion people could die.


but any attempts to 'start again' will be hampered by mid/long term cancer effects, mutation of the next gererations and crop failures due to environemental damage.


As my earlier sources have indicated long term cancer effects have been proven to be negligible in even unprepared populations and the majority of effects can be defeated quite cheaply. Mutations in the next generation never happened in Hiroshima/Nagasaki and crop failures all over the world is not a given. The majority of the worlds grain production is currently being fed to livestock which is hopelessly inefficient ( factor of ten) and would certainly not persist in such situations. The world is also under producing food stuffs by hundreds of millions of tons which water and ground resources are currently going towards cash crops like tobacco and cotton. If such ground resources in the third and developing world is put towards food production the first world could be fed provided they have built up reserves to maintain population numbers for a year or two.



The people that underestimate the potential of nuclear war do poo--poo the power of the bombs themselves


You don't have to do that at all. Firebombings and massed raids were no laughing matter either but targeted nations soon developed passive and actively measures to counter these effects


but the real gotcha is the frailty of our transport, agriculture, economic, water, technological and medical systems. This is the achilis heel of or current predicament.


And there is no doubt that this is largely to do with being prepared or not. Food can be stored, water runs off( and can be filtered) and our medical system could have concentrated on providing service instead of making vast profits.


Your average Russian is more likely to have a better stab at starting over given the hardships they've encountered pre/post communism in fending for themselves, growing their own food , repairing broken old systems etc.


The average Russians is going to survive a nuclear war not because they are more hardy ( lol) but because they were better prepared mentally and industrially to contend with the prospect of a nuclear war.


Your overweight American couch potato who lards about in sweat pants and drives around in a 6 liter SUV couldn't put a spade in the ground and thinks a courgette is a sports car!


Well that very same overweight American had could have bought one less sports car ( or just one less room in their house) and put that money towards building a underground bunker fit for a king with independent power supply, air and water filtration and storage, fuel/food stores for years. You wouldn't have to dig, move around much or frankly do anything but survive if you liked provided that you considered the threat large enough not to spend all your resources on buying consumer goods that serves no purpose.


Electric car enthusiasts scoff at the affordability arguments. They point out that at the same time the EV1 was dropped, GM was busy promoting the most expensive and biggest gas guzzler of them all - the Hummer.

DAVE BARTHMUSS: I know that there are charges that we killed the electric vehicle program in order to create the Hummer, or be able to afford and pursue the Hummer program. Again, there is no conspiracy to cut off the electric vehicle because we wanted to pursue heavier and larger vehicles. People did not demand the EV1 from GM in large enough numbers, for us to pursue it.

CHRIS PAYNE: The Hummer was the ultimate SUV. And in fact, when it came out, you could get up to a $100,000 tax deduction if you were a small business owner for owning one. So the government gave a message to the people. The message was - buy these huge monstrosities. Meanwhile, the electric car, when they were on the road, the maximum tax credit you could get was $4,000. So this is how government shapes the future, and unfortunately the American Government was pushing Hummers and no wonder in some ways the car companies walked away from the EVs and concentrated on these Hummers.

news.sbs.com.au...


So imagine if the US government gave the fifty-five thousand dollar tax break to those who would construct a independent shelter to government specifications? You don't think that would have encourage survival? In fact what about that Pentagon budget applied toward building deeply buried nation wide shelters for all Urban citizens? Sure this never happened in the US but that was NEVER my point! This is deliberate disarmament and it's sad that you can't see that.


I think the Nuclear weapons detractors watch too much Jericho!


Sure; i mean your opinions are clearly worth something.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 17 2008 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by zero lift
 


americium is an alpha emmitter and also can be found in smoke alarms (and is also a propposed engine fuel and its a silver/white metal) , iodine and strontium are both beta emitters

i too can make a list - and just put on it each of a certain class of emitter - doesn`t mean a thing.

edit: to me alpha and beta radiaition is far more damaging , as they move far more slowly and thus have more `time` to cause destruction than gamma - a strong enough gamma source isn`t stopped by anything

delta radiation scares the bejesus out of me more than gamma ever does.

[edit on 17/10/08 by Harlequin]




My point harlequin, was to demonstrate that, for whatever reason (and contrary to StellarX's constant assertions), fallout particles do emit gamma radiation (e.g. the decay of cesium137).

The danger presented by this gamma radiation obviously prevents search and rescue measures to be conducted for at least two weeks, as any would be rescuer would rapidly exceed the recommended wartime emergency dose (75 roentgens, although some earlier ROC briefings had used a figure of 150 roentgens).

By the time it would be safe to start search and rescue, anyone needing rescuing would have already received a fatal dose of radiation thus negating the need for a S&R service.

Thats why the UK Civil Defence S&R Corps were disbanded, along with the WRVS emergency kitchens, mobile police columns, etc.; not for some uncaring reason or to save money, but for the simple fact that the coverage of the UK by radioactive fallout would prevent S&R efforts and subsequent evacuation.






zero lift



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift

The US EPA good enough for you?


If it's based on physics as we know it, sure. I mean you can see that the EPA is doing a bang up job of protecting the American environment so we can clearly trust them when it comes to important issues.




"What kind of contamination is in fallout?

Fallout typically contains hundreds of different radionuclides. Some of these persist in the environment for a long time because they have relatively long half-lives. Some have very short half-lives and persist in the environment for only a few minutes or a few years.


atmidtedly so. What concentrations are we talking about here? Are short term or long term radionucli's more prevalent and how many weeks does it take before the remaining concentrations of long term emitters ( lets include Cesium-137) have neglible affects in terms of our bodies capacity to counteract DNA damage?



Some produce high levels of radiation. Both long-lived and highly radioactive materials pose potential human health and environmental risks.


Potential health risks? Under what circumstances? With our without a individual that can monitor dosage/exposure rates and administer help?



Cesium-137 undergoes radioactive decay with the emission of beta particles and relatively strong gamma radiation.


Relatively strong as compared to what? The official vastly overstated safety standards commonly employed today or in accordance with the comparably very high background radiation many people live in without apparent adverse affect? In what concentrations and under what conditions will these decay products be spread?



Cesium-137 decays to barium-137m, a short-lived decay product, which in turn decays to a nonradioactive form of barium. The major dose from cesium-137 is from the barium-137. The half-life of cesium-137 is 30.17 years. Because of the chemical nature of cesium, it moves easily through the environment. This makes the cleanup of cesium-137 difficult.

www.epa.gov...



Caesium-137 (also spelled cesium) is a radioactive isotope of Caesium which is formed mainly by nuclear fission. It has a half-life of 30.23 years, and decays by pure beta decay to a metastable nuclear isomer of barium-137 (Ba-137m). Barium-137m has a half-life of 2.55 minutes and is responsible for all of the gamma ray emission. The ground state of barium-137 is stable.

Caesium-137 is water-soluble and extremely toxic in minute amounts. Once released into the environment, it remains present for many years as its radiological half-life is 30.23 years. It can cause cancer 10, 20 or 30 years from the time of ingestion, inhalation or absorption provided sufficient material enters the body. [1]

en.wikipedia.org...


The secondary link doesn't work but either way this can help to explain what the NAS was on about. As these exact materials were released in the Chernobyl incident we know that it isn't nearly as destructive to life as previously suspected. Having said that precautions will obviously have to be taken , in certain areas, ( and certainly soon after the event) to prevent inhalation, absorption and ingestion from causing the type of cancers that are difficult to treat



As Unknown Perpetrator quite rightly pointed out:

"It [cesium 137] is the primary long-term gamma emitter hazard from fallout, and remains a hazard for centuries


In terms of absolute danger posed per particle perhaps but comparatively the amounts are minute and thus not as serious a threat. Either way you have not once mentioned or discussed what proper precautions will allow us to do and or survive. Until those points are addressed all i hear is 'doom, doom, doom' , the sentiments of a typically uninformed/misinformed mind.

Stellar

[edit on 18-10-2008 by StellarX]



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by zero lift
My point harlequin, was to demonstrate that, for whatever reason (and contrary to StellarX's constant assertions), fallout particles do emit gamma radiation (e.g. the decay of cesium137).


And since Cesium seems to do just that i can admit such a error if you can show that the persistent presence of minute amounts of Cesium ( how much is distributed in the fission process) effects are in any way comparable to the massive prompt effects.


The danger presented by this gamma radiation obviously prevents search and rescue measures to be conducted for at least two weeks, as any would be rescuer would rapidly exceed the recommended wartime emergency dose (75 roentgens, although some earlier ROC briefings had used a figure of 150 roentgens).


The 150 Roentgens is still quite low as compared to what can be treated without long term health effects resulting; it is the bottom line ( in terms of a accumulated weekly dose) for a expected safe recovery. I have a few reasons to suspect that these numbers are still set artificially low but either way it is not made clear how high the background radiation was and how much were prevented by protective clothing.

www.radshelters4u.com...


By the time it would be safe to start search and rescue, anyone needing rescuing would have already received a fatal dose of radiation thus negating the need for a S&R service.


You can work outside right after the event but obviously for MUCH shorter spaces of time to prevent permanent damage. As the UNPROTECTED firemen and power station personal proved you basically have to be shoveling sand on the reactor without wearing protective clothing( inhaling and ingesting) to get killed very quickly or at all. You should go back to the earlier sources and consider the report as prepared by the International Atomic Energy Agency.


Thats why the UK Civil Defence S&R Corps were disbanded, along with the WRVS emergency kitchens, mobile police columns, etc.;


No, that's not what they were disbanded as much as it was a pretext to redirect that amount of money towards offensive weaponry which could most certainly offer the citizens of the UK absolutely no protection.


not for some uncaring reason or to save money, but for the simple fact that the coverage of the UK by radioactive fallout would prevent S&R efforts and subsequent evacuation


In fact if the effects were so severe the SAR personal numbers would have to be vastly increased ( less exposure times with fewer hours outside) with far more and better equipment to ensure higher mobility and thus less exposure. To disband the defense because higher attrition is expected is as ridiculous a thing as i ever heard. The the Germans or Japanese surrender when they could no longer effectively counter allied air raids or did they under wartime conditions move their industries and built more and deeper shelters?

This is why any discussion with unreasonable people are largely fruitless and why i am doing this merely a public service to those reasonable enough to reach.

Stellar



posted on Oct, 18 2008 @ 08:24 AM
link   
it seems to me that there are a number of people arguing all sides against the middle - a common concenus has allready been reached , and now its arguement for its own sake.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join