Standing below a 2KT Nuclear Test - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: John Coloccia
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 01:32:58 am
content: Good times.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 01:38:46 am
content: As long as they didn't look directly at the flash, there is no immediate danger. For a neutron bomb the situation would be different.

author: warp_foo
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 02:37:36 am
content: Not a huge amount of detail, but I think the aircraft firing the missile is an F-89, followed by a B-57 Canberra.

author: Mr.B
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 03:50:57 am
content: My Father witnessed nuclear tests at Christmas Island in 1962 while serving with the New Zealand Navy.I cannot remember if they were British or American tests as both were experimenting around the same time.I don't have any more detail than that...I was born in the late 60s... and there is nothing wrong with me...Was that a man in a white coat...?

author: John_ITIC
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 05:17:26 am
content: I was in Las Vegas over the 4th of July weekend. Managed to convince the wife and kids to visit the National Atomic Testing Museum, which is just a few blocks down from the strip. I recall watching one of their movies where they said that they used to have bus tours from the casinos out to the testing grounds so people got to see the spectacle!https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=National+Atomic+Testing+Museum

author: Circlotron
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 05:21:14 am
content: Probably could have tested one in your school playground in those days without undue concern from anybody.

author: ez24
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 05:47:56 am
content: Quote from: John_ITIC on September 24, 2015, 05:17:26 amAh the good old days

author: German_EE
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 08:31:51 am
content: I thought that when a nuclear device went off there was a burst of gamma rays? If so I wouldn't like to be underneath.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 09:59:12 am
content: Quote from: German_EE on September 24, 2015, 08:31:51 amAn online calculator gives 50% mortality (500rem) at 928m, so at approx 3km they should have got 50 rem or so. They were standing up so would have presented minimal cross section and got far less.Lying out sun-bathing under one might not have been a smart idea.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 10:28:25 am
content: Quote from: hamster_nz on September 24, 2015, 09:59:12 amHow far do these rays penetrate through human tissue? Because if they're not attenuated greatly by 1.8m of human tissue, it doesn't matter which orientation you adopt.

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 10:55:13 am
content: They go right through, but the area exposed is the important thing, not the volume. Which gets hotter, a flat plate lying normal to the sun, or a steel bar standing up in the noon sun? Both the same mass of steel, and no wind.It is the radiation on the exposed surface which is the major factor, so standing up under the blast is minimal exposure. Standing 5km away will give a higher dose of whole body radiation, just because it hits almost the whole front of the body.

author: rs20
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 11:28:40 am
content: Quote from: SeanB on September 24, 2015, 10:55:13 amThat's absurd. If the gamma rays go right through you, how can any given cell in your body tell whether it's "on the exposed surface" or not? What does "exposed" even mean in the context of radiation that can go right through you?And this is why your analogy is broken; infrared radiation does not go right through steel, so my argument for why volume matters does not apply to your analogy.Quote from: SeanB on September 24, 2015, 10:55:13 amDisagree. Standing 5km away will induce r^2 attenuation, and the posture of the person is irrelevant if gamma rays go right through a person.Again, if it turns out that gamma raysdon'tgo right through you, then everything I've said is irrelevant.

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 11:39:15 am
content: The exposure is rem per m^2 of presented area, so head on is better. I bet you the nuclear scientists were many 10s of kms away!!If the radiation goes straight through you it won't hurt you. Its the radiation that your body stops and absorbs (and ionises your DNA etc) that is the worry.O0 I use to have straight hair! HiHI

author: Srbel
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 12:09:04 pm
content: 50 Rem? That is about 53,5 Roentgens. In the Soviet Union, 50 Roentgens was the maximum allowed dose for a military personnel to receive during his lifetime. For civilians it was 25. That was considered "safe" ("only" a very small chance of developing cancer).

author: Homer J Simpson
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 02:41:11 pm
content: Did some more reading. For those interested........The plane use for the launch was a F89J.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_F-89_ScorpionThe Rocket was a Genie.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIR-2_GenieThe warhead was a W25.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W25_(nuclear_warhead)

author: Hypernova
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 02:49:11 pm
content: Quote from: Mr.B on September 24, 2015, 03:50:57 amHate to break it to you, but despite what your dad told you, it's not normal for men to have three ballsSometimes I envy those who live in the days when you can buy radium laced glow in the dark paint, those were fun times.

author: digsys
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 03:08:08 pm
content: Ahhhhhh memories ...I remember, in the late 60s, the back pages of comics were full of ads for all sorts of "dangerous" toy kits (including things like X-Ray specs which lied)We bought a 2W die laser kit, boosted it to 10W (10KV xenon flash gun, 100% silvered mirror tube etc etc, die pumped etc etc), It was AWESOME !!Always seemed to be based in QLD, still even now.

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 05:21:14 pm
content: I did business with a concern like that in the '90s. They're still around:http://www.amazing1.comGot plans for railguns, N2lasers, and various other things.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 07:56:17 pm
content: I would have thought volume matters as well, as long as most of the radiation passes right through the body like gamma radiation does?

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 08:11:37 pm
content: Area exposed is the important one, as the flux will be constant per unit area at a particular distance. thus the less you expose to that flux the less the total dose. Volume of the body does not matter, it is the area exposed to the blast that matters.

author: apis
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 09:48:34 pm
content: Yes, but how much of the radiation is absorbed, or cause damage, to the body? Consider the body as several slices of the same thickness, if most of the gamma radiation passes through each layer to the next, all the slices would be exposed to the same flux... it would be essentially the same as if you put all the slices next to each other, then they would also receive (almost) the same flux.

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 24, 2015, 10:07:36 pm
content: Quote from: apis on September 24, 2015, 09:48:34 pmYes, for gamma. But for small bombs that is less of a concern.I once fixed a workstation for a electron beam radiotherapy suite, and got talking with one of the doctors. The damage isn't done by the radiation itself, but by the high energy ions that it form when it interacts with the flesh - you can tune the energy level of the source to control the depth of treatment.I assume it is the same with neutron pulse from the weapon....Quote(http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com/confusion-about-fallout.html)AndQuotehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 09:44:34 am
content: interesting video, 2KT from 3km away? doesn't sound much to me.the initial nuclear explosion would have made X, Gamma and Neutrons but from that distance it would be massively attenuated and it would have been for a fraction of a second (much less than the light flash). Most of the longer lasting nasties would be up in the cloud TBH.would i do the same? Yes i probably would if i had the opportunity!

author: SeanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 09:58:43 am
content: They also had a nice nitrogen tetroxide cloud there, or they made a heck of a lot of nitric acid if there was enough atmospheric water at the blast altitude.

author: GNU_Ninja
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 10:00:25 am
content: They should've done some ironing under that nuke:http://xtremeironing.com/Now that would've been impressive

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 10:01:37 am
content: Quote from: apis on September 24, 2015, 07:56:17 pmyes, but it does all get terribly complicated once you get into it, there are different measurements for exposure (REM, Sievert) and absorbed dose like the Graystart reading here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roentgen_equivalent_man

author: continuo
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 10:28:23 am
content: So, why did they do this? Was it to record a very early episode of "Jackass" or were they send by the Government to do some human trials on them? "It was just beautiful". Yeah. Bet you the poor souls at Nagasaki and Hiroshima thought the same

author: hamster_nz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 10:43:59 am
content: Quote from: continuo on September 25, 2015, 10:28:23 amBest guess - "see - the brass didn't mind getting nuked - if it is good enough for them it's good enough for you!"

author: helius
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 11:35:36 am
content: It was an air-to-air missile. That means it was designed to blow up aircraft in the air. To clear it to be used over populated areas, it needed to be shown to be safe for those on the ground.

author: dexters_lab
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: September 25, 2015, 11:58:15 am
content: Quote from: continuo on September 25, 2015, 10:28:23 amit looked a very low key affair to me, doubtful there was any scientific reason, maybe they just wanted to see it?

author: eas
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 01, 2015, 02:18:33 am
content: Quote from: ez24 on September 24, 2015, 05:47:56 amFear not, the combination of military propaganda and popular entertainment is still alive and well in the U.S.A.!!

author: VK5RC
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 02, 2015, 09:56:36 am
content: @eas ……….and Russia (re Syria) and China (recent military parade down the ?Avenue of Peace) .