Surviving an Atomic Blast

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by madanthonywayne, Oct 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Yeah, like this guy:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    He survived the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki only to die of cancer a mere 65 years later.

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. john smith Tongue in cheek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    833
    Oh right. I suppose the chernobyl victims dont suffer from any cancer either. Jesus christ, get with the times. Are you actually stating that theres no link with cancer (of different forms) and atom bombs, if you are you carzy. Why when they did the Island testing of the atom bombs, did 80% of the soilders who were ordered to sit with their backs to the blast, 25 miles away, contract some form of cancer? Get a grip.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. john smith Tongue in cheek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    833


    This, therefore states what i previously said.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. madanthonywayne Morning in America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,461
    Of course I'm not saying there's no link with cancer. I'm just saying that survival is not imposible and taking the oportunity to highlight the story of the guy who actually survived not one but two atomic attacks.

    Regarding your guys 25 miles away, did the wind blow fallout onto them, or what? Also, over what time period did they contract cancer? Was it at a rate greater than the general population? Most people will eventually did of either cancer or heart disease whether they're 25 miles from a nuclear blast or not.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    The fact is that the Hiroshima bomb wiped out 30% of Hiroshima's population.

    If our current bombs are hundreds, even thousands of times larger are you trying to delude yourself into thinking that your chance of survival in a city is significant?

    The hiroshima bomb covered 4.4 miles, what do you think a modern nuke would cover? Im betting more than 20 at most.

    If you think your chances are better than 1 in 250 within 1,000 feet of the blast you are an idiot.
     
  9. john smith Tongue in cheek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    833
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    There is an inverse relationship between Thyroid cancer and distance from Chernobyl.
    The people with the higher doses got less.

    http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/chernobyl.html

    (see figure 1)

    The other problem with Thyroid cancer is that it is HIGHLY prevalent but asymptomatic, thus if you look for it, you will find it.

    But besides the problematical issue of Thyroid cancer, no, there has been no relationship seen between Chernobyl and Cancer rates.

    If you have evidence of this, outside of the inverse relationship shown, provide data.

    Also provide data on the 80% claim as I can find nothing to back that up either.

    As to the figures, yes we know there is a SLIGHT relationship between radiation exposure and incidence of cancer,

    BUT

    You have to put those numbers in perspective.

    For instance, Leukemia one of the cancers most susceptible to inducement by radiation, still only went from 1.27% of people to 1.84%.

    An increase yes, but a modest one.

    As to your chance of dying from cancer going up 8%, the combined rate for men and women is 21.4% over their lifetime (women being about 4% lower then men because they don't smoke as much), so an 8% increase takes it to 23.1%, again a modest increase, particularly when you consider that ~80% of cancer deaths are in people over 65. So the reality is the radiation that for the majority of the Nagasaki/Hiroshima people who survived the initial effects, the radiation doesn't seem to have had a very significant impact on overall life expectancy.

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 25, 2010
  11. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    OH really? Well will that 150 megaton nuke vaporize the 800 feet of mountain over my head?? Whats the chances they will decide to nuke my bomb shelter lol, not very good eh. Well if they nuke the closest population center that puts me about 50 miles outside blast radius.. but even if I was 5 miles out I would be comfortable underground.

    And in a big city 1/250 will still give you lots of survivors and is worth ducking and covering in the best possible area if you have time. And if they launch big megaton missiles we will have time to run and take cover.

    I tell you what you can kiss your butt goodbye, I'll stick to my bomb shelter and if my odds are over 1/250 I'll pour out some liquor for you.

    ANyway the only place I would be assured of death is inside the nuclear fireball where you get vaporized. a 50 megaton bomb, for instance the tsar bomba had a nuclear fireball 2.3km wide fatman was .1km wide. Also the airburst design would mean underground facilities may provide some protection even inside the fireball radius. You go underground a good ways you have a shot even with a direct hit.
     
  12. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Which is completely consistent with my statement that 7% of the people close to the blast survived. What's your point?
    No, that's the total of people killed by the blast and by radiation shortly afterward.
    http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/MED/med_chp10.shtml

    Note that at 0-1000 feet from the blast, mortality was 93%.
    Yeah, so what? What percentage of the population of a city and surrounding metropolitan area do you imagine is in a skyscraper at any given time? I guess you think there's no point in wearing a bullet proof vest, because if you get shot in the head you'll die anyway?
     
  13. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    The Hiroshima blast killed zero percent of the people who were two miles away. A modern 750kt (like are actually deployed) nuke would only kill about half the people within 3 miles of the blast. Even a ridiculously big 25 MT nuke, many times larger than is deployed by anyone, would only kill 50% of the population within about 10 miles of the blast. The New York metropolitan area is about 6700 square miles.
     
  14. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    I call bullshit. Either provide a credible historical reference or GTFO.
     
  15. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Nah, that's not really how it's done any more. Airburst attacks (like the bombings of Japan) were the way it was done in the early days when missile guidance was drastically less able than today. So in the early days of nukes, the strategy was to make them very high-yield (10's of megatons) and then air-burst them over target areas, wiping out everything around.

    These days, however, advances in stuff like missile guidance, warhead miniaturization/MIRV and so on have shifted the approach in favor of much smaller warheads that detonate at or below ground level. The major targets in nuclear war planning being the enemy's nuclear missile silos, command-and-control bunkers and so-on, rather than the major cities as in the public scare scenarios. And those are all easily hardened against the sort of airburst detonations that were favored early on - what you want is a whole lot of small nukes that detonate as close as possible to the (underground) structures you're targetting. By the time you'd even consider airburst attacks on entire cities, you'd have already destroyed the opponent's capacity for nuclear retaliation, and so already won the war. You can expect an opponent to surrender in that scenario, since you're in a position to wipe him out with impunity.

    Or at least that's how the US does it now. Certain other nuclear powers with much less sophisticated guidance and miniaturization technology still favor the high-yield-airburst approach.
     
  16. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    To illustrate your lack of knowledge, there is no 150 megaton nuke, the largest one is 100 megatons while the largest one detonated is 50 megatons.

    And you tell me:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfoQsZa8F1c

    If detonated close enough there is little to nothing you can do about it.

    Oh please, don't make me laugh. Your at work for chances are around 8 hours a day, you sleep anywhere from 6-10 hours and chances are your away from home anywhere from another 30 minutes to 2 hours. and that is maybe on a normal basis. And chances are you would only be in a position to actually recieve any sort of warning for a slim 1-3 hours in which you can get to your shelter.

    you spend the majority of your day either away from your precious shelter and even if you are close enough chances are you are in no position to recieve a warning.

    Do you honestly delude yourself to think the Russians would launch the nuke during the day? They would launch it at night because they know you will still be counting sheep when that mushroom cloud rips that precious roof of yours off.

    You want to know how to increase your chances of surviving a nuke? You can't, if you live you live, if you die you die. The only factor is random, dumb luck.

    I was estimating for a city of the size of Hiroshima in World War II and based off of the atomic bomb's blast radius.

    If you get hit by a modern nuke that number skyrockets to 1 in the tens, even hundreds of thousands.

    Because it can catch a good thousand people in a building no sweat.

    Hiroshima is a Japanese city, that city had buildings professionally made to withstand an earthquake, and the vast majority of those buildings were levelled.

    What makes you think any city that has even weaker buildings could stand a chance?

    Ha, I live in central Texas, there's so many hills and valleys here I doubt the blast will even reach me.

    Unless you sleep, eat, crap, and work in your shelter the chances you can even get to it are less than 45%.

    No you don't you idiot. Do you know what NORAD is? The protection it has? Against a 100 megaton bomb it is worthless. It was built with the idea that the guidance was so innaccurate on a nuke that a direct hit was neigh impossible. That's not the same today, a direct hit from a multi megaton nuke will destroy NORAD.

    And in case you don't know, airburst bombs are innefficient. A TON of that energy is directed downwards, elementary physics, the casualty rate of the Hiroshima nuke to the hospital it detonated over was 90% for the doctors in the initial blast.

    If your below it you are dead.

    Your completely delusional. Your numbers and facts are pathetic, laughable, LOOK IT UP BEFORE YOU POST IT.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You see that?
    That is the Tsar Bomba's fireball. They detonated it high enough to keep it from touching the ground.

    That fireball is 5 miles in diameter, 8 km in total. and that is the fireball, not the destructive radius.

    The Trinity test's fireball was 200 meters wide (.2 km) .016 seconds after detonation. It left a radioactive crate .33 km wide.

    The Tall Boy's total destructive range was about 1 mile and it spread fires for 4.4 miles.

    And since you OBVIOUSLY don't know this, Fat man was larger than Trinity or Tall Boy, so if you can think logically, you can figure out that it was a much larger fireball and destructive radius.
     
  17. dhcracker Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    196
    Did you scroll down and look at this??

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Right under your picture it tells you exactly how big the nuclear fireball was...

    Maybe you should use your own advice and I just used 150 megatons as silly big number so what lol. Its not like they couldn't build one there is no limit to the size of a nuke you can build actually.

    And I live in eastern kentucky also hilly region, I own a machine shop that I built beside my house and thats where I work. I sleep with the television on so if an emergency broadcast bleep comes i'll wake up I'm certain those things are loud and annoying. I also have stockpiles of food and my home and workplace are reinforced concrete. The old drift mine out back is just an emergency flood or storm shelter really but it is under 800 feet of mountain and I did some work in there for kicks.

    Your quoting blast damage numbers not nuclear vaporization radius, thats the nuclear fireball bud thats where you have almost no chance if you are caught outside.

    And your right that modern nukes are mostly small and designed to hit the ground.. u know why? To limit collateral damage and not kill entire cities and irradiate the country. That is a good thing for survival because they won't target new york city they will target maybe wallstreet, DC, military bases, and things that can hurt them. They won't target civilian targets it will motly be infrastructure facilities, communication hubs, and defense or command facilities. That increases your odds not makes them less Mr. smarty pants insults alot.

    from wiki's tsar bomba article you obviously also visited to skim your point from

    That means when it hits you your less likely to survive, but it also means its less likely to hit you unless you are working at the pentagon or near a missile silo or base or something vitally important for war.

    Also I'm not sure there isn't a nuke that big do you think they would tell us?

    nuclear weapon yield wiki article

    Also a 15 megaton bomb like castle bravo detonated on the ground left a crater 250 ft deep and like 6,000 ft wide, underground is a safe bet mostly baring a direct hit of a big payload. Smaller yield devices mean underground is even more important.
     
  18. Mr MacGillivray Banned Banned

    Messages:
    527
  19. john smith Tongue in cheek Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    833
    Look it up yourself fuckstick
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Ok, I did.

    Too bad it doesn't AT ALL agree with your post.

    http://www.bntva.com/health/nrpb_w27.pdf

    It is concluded that overall levels of mortality and cancer incidence in UK nuclear weapons test participants have continued to be similar to those in a matched control group, and for overall mortality to be lower than expected from nationsl rates.

    First paragraph, page ii

    Arthur
     
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2010
  21. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    How can I look it up when it's just a bunch of retarded bullshit that you made up? Where am I supposed to look, your ass? Since that's where you pulled it out of, I'm guessing it's the only place I'd find it...
     
  22. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    I guess that those who see no benefit in ducking under a desk also follow these principles:
    1) Never bother with a seat belt. Your car will be crushed to a pulp in any accident.
    2) Wearing a life preserver as an ineperienced water skier is pointless, since after falling and knocking yourself unconscious the boat will chop you to pieces with its propellor.
    3) Don't move inshore if the sea retreats suddenly. You will never outrun the tsunami.
    4) If you hear gunfire in the street ahead of you just keep heading that way, there are probably gunmen in all directions.
    5) etc
     
  23. Skeptical Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,449
    The concentric circle picture gives a better idea of damage, assuming no wind.

    Radiation is less of a threat than most people realise. At Hiroshima, the dose of radiation people received was calculated after the event, and their subsequent health problems monitored. Final conclusion is that everyone who got 80 millisieverts or less were not harmed. That is : their subsequent cancer rates were no higher than the general Japanese population.

    Background radiation averages at about 2.4 millisieverts per year globally, meaning that a dose in one hit of 33 times that is OK. Most of the people living in a city that is hit with a nuclear explosion who receive more than 80 millisieverts, will also be within the blast radius, and be severely injured or killed.

    In other words, your main risk is physical trauma - not radiation.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page