Talk:Effects of nuclear explosions

message: How big is a average nuclear blast? And how far can the radiation travel from impact?
(Federal111 19:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no "average".  A pure fission blast can range from 10 tons to 500 kt.  A blast with a fusion stage (and possibly a third fission stage) can vary from 100 kt to 100 Mt.  The Prompt radiation intensity (gamma and neutrons) are generally halved for every 162 m of air, so prompt radiation is difficult to find more than a mile out where intensity is 2^-10 (one millionth) that it close to the bomb.SkoreKeep (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question? 

message: The Flash Burn topic in this article should be a totally independent article because it is a phenomenon that many people are not familiar with yet it is a strong topic by itself.
Machpovii3...Holla Atcha Bezzle, Kid! 15:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments and Suggestions 

message: This article seems to start with the history, then got into some applications without first describing what a nuclear explosion is concisely. May I add this as a first paragraph and move the history to the history section?
"Surviving A Nuclear Blast, A Historical Perspective" Paradigmbuff 18:44, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
Is anyone aware of the source of :Image:Blast positive and negative.gif? 119 00:35, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout 

message: There is a peer review now occurring for this page, please join in and contribute! This page could be a featured article, if we just  put our minds to it, so if you see anything you can help fix as they review it, jump in! Judgesurreal777 01:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reviewing all the scientific-quality nuclear weapons effects data in the public domain at http://glasstone.blogspot.com - feel free to use data and links to reports from there.  Nigel 172.212.202.81 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: The "Summary of the effects" table is poorly formatted. After the yield/height of burst the following rows of the table are quite confusing. What do the numbers mean? My assumption is that for 1 MT/2.0 km warhead the "Urban areas almost completely levelled (20 PSI)" value is in kilometers meaning that everything in 2.4 km radius is pretty much obliterated. -Khokkanen 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two measures don't depend on each other. Lethal dose comes from the near-instantaneous flash of radiation from the nuclear reaction, and destruction comes a bit later from the force of pressure. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Summary of the effects" table 

message: What's wrong with just "nuclear explosion" (which is currently a redirect)? Fredrik Johansson 21:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article name was changed for accuracy purposes; see the peer review on the discussion page. Judgesurreal777 01:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All I see is that the article has to be called "effects of" because it doesn't deal with the causes of nuclear explosions. The problem is that the current lead section is misleading: it claims to be about the concept of nuclear explosions when it is in fact just about a specific property of nuclear explosions. We should definitely have a non-redirecting article called nuclear explosion, but I think modifying this article would be better than creating a separate article with a "main article" link pointing here, since the effects are the most interesting property of nuclear explosions. Fredrik Johansson 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It was moved here because of the articles content. It's true, the lead needs rewriting, so lets rewrite it. Judgesurreal777 00:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article already is about more than just "effects of". With your approach, we'd have to throw out content and create a separate article for nuclear explosion. But that article would have to include much of the content of this page, thereby making this page essentially redundant, or utself be a fairly short article that points here, which is worse for readers since they'll have to visit two pages to find what they are looking for. Fredrik Johansson 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what the peer review said when it was called Nuclear Explosion : "This article apparently isn't attempting to treat the causes of a nuclear explosion, e.g. the design of an atomic weapon or the related physics. So it might be worth renaming it to something like Effects of nuclear explosions, or any name that better reflects exactly what this article is about. Another point: I'd like to see a little more on the applications, which are mentioned in the lead but not again. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you much. Although I am not an expert on this topic, I have given it some attention and will work on improving it :) Judgesurreal777 22:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Re-Review and In-line citations 

message: This article's GA status has been revoked because it fails criterion 2. b. of 'What is a Good Article?', which states;
::(b) the citation of its sources using inline citations is required (this criterion is disputed by editors on Physics and Mathematics pages who have proposed a subject-specific guideline on citation, as well as some other editors — see talk page).
LuciferMorgan 21:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for GA Delisting 

message: Most sources I have studied mention 50% to 60% for blast and 35% to 45% for the thermal radiation (e.g. Carey Sublette's Nuclear Weapon FAQ). The significantly wider ranges given at the top of the article should be substantiated by sources. However, the wider range for the thermal fraction would (at least partially) explain the longer duration of the glowing and larger radius of the fireball with respect to the cube root scaling-law (Glasstone & Dolan 1977 state that the fireball light curve vs. time scales with about W0.4 instead of W1/3 like the blast range) which, under the assumption of equal effective surface temperatures, would violate the conservation of energy.--SiriusB 18:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for energy distribution 

message: I am wondering about the radiation levels persisting at ground zero, owing to the fallout. If these effects are negligible in the long term, then this should be stated in the section on "Indirect Effects".  What is needed are some ball-park numbers about the rate at which cities such as Hiroshima can recover from the "effects of nuclear explosions".  Currently, this article discusses the effects with not enough reference to a long-term timeline.  Mebden (talk) 13:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't recover "per se". Japan is a tiny island considering its 125 million population and most of the middle is made up of big mountains. They simply had no suitable empty space to relocate either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Chernobyl, however, gives a good insight of what kind of habitation denial a three-phase (Pt-239 or U-235 to Li-D to U-238 or Th-232) salted nuke would cause. That is really a terror-only weapon, way too powerful for any logically imaginable military aim in war. 91.83.4.250 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long-term effects 

message: The image :Image:Soviet super test.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Soviet super test.jpg

message: "All American and Russian backup communications systems are tube (UK "valve") operated to ensure effective operation during or after a nuclear incident.[dubious – discuss]"
Where does this statement come from? I can find no references for it past or present. It seems highly unlikely as the military has methods to "harden" it assets against EMP. Are tubes even manufactured anymore? Wlmg (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tubes?? 

message: Table claims that 1000 times more powerful nuke (1kT vs 1Mt) does 10 times more damage. I almost believed in that lol.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.60.210 (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jokes or what

message: The way I heard it, the Manhattan Project scientists had not been worried about a nuclear reaction of two nitrogen atoms but starting a global chemical reaction between the atmosphere's nitrogen and oxygen. However, this could be a chemistry teachers' conspiracy to teach students about activation energy.
: I understand this is one of the problems they worked on during the initial planning at Los Alamos (the Nuclear Primary time).  Hans Bethe was assigned to look into it and reported in the negative.  A short paper by Teller, C. Marvin, and EJ Kopinski (http://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/doe/lanl/docs1/00329010.pdf) was submitted in 1946, possibly as a CYA that some due diligence had been done on the question, and declassified in 1970.  That apparently didn't keep the physicists from joking about it at Trinity. SkoreKeep (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Atmosphere ignition

message: Isn't this strictly incorrect? With a thinner athmosphere there's just not enough air to combust to form a fireball. Additionally the same amount of radiation is produced, it's just not absorbed as much by the thinner athmosphere and consequently creates a weaker shockwave and the radiation travels much farther. But I can't say I'm 100% sure about this. 79.223.156.40 (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The nuclear fireball is not air combusting. Though there is some of that (at least oxidation of some nitrogen), the fireball is 99+% air simply heated to millions of degrees by absorption of soft x-rays and everything higher in the spectrum. If there is no air, the x-rays become radiation-at-a-distance, and the heat pulse (which is light and some infrared) is simply not present, because there is no fireball. Yes, the same amount of radiation is produced, but its not absorbed and re-emitted as light close to the explosion.  SkoreKeep (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  at high altitudes, where the air density is low, more energy is released as ionizing gamma radiation and x-rays than an atmosphere-displacing shockwave. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Effects of nuclear explosions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706161001/http://www.usuhs.mil/afrrianniversary/events/rcsymposium/pdf/Millage.pdf to http://www.usuhs.mil/afrrianniversary/events/rcsymposium/pdf/Millage.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006140135/http://en15.rian.ru/img/118575033_free.html to http://en15.rian.ru/img/118575033_free.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Watching footage of the Hiroshima explosion, I saw a white cloud that overtook the mushroom cloud and continued expanding outward horizontally while disappearing from around the mushroom cloud. After Googling the phenomenon, I found this article which explains the effect as the condensing of water vapor in the low pressure and therefor cooled wave following the shockwave. It also called them Wilson clouds. As this phenomenon is not mentioned in the article, I found it worth mentioning.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.5.104.20 (talk) 01:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilson clouds 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Effects of nuclear explosions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150329105730/http://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm to https://fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Just to let you know the section on Survivability needs to be checked, also it should be in Sv not rems as it isn't an SI unit. Some of the data is wrong, people have survived higher than 2 Sv, Burgowski (though not whole body dose) survived a thousand times this, Yokokawa survived 3 Sv. Also may want to not only focus on deterministic effects but look at stochastic as well. Khukri 22:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survivability 

message: The section states,
50% of the 460–600 rems group will die within one to three weeks. If the group is exposed to 600 to 1000 rems, 50% will die in one to three weeks.
Note that the same range (50% in one to three weeks) is given for two different doses. Zeligf (talk) 04:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in “Survivability” section