Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#218,500 feet is 3.5 miles. So is there a different between being 3.5 miles under a bomb vs being 3.5 miles away from a bomb?
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#318,500 feet is 3.5 miles. So is there a different between being 3.5 miles under a bomb vs being 3.5 miles away from a bomb?
Average air density between you and it would be higher or lower depending on exactly what you mean by 'away'.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#4That looks like an episode of "McHale's Navy" with all the dimwits standing around.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#518,500 feet is 3.5 miles. So is there a different between being 3.5 miles under a bomb vs being 3.5 miles away from a bomb?
I think the main thing is that at that altitude there are few particles to rain radiation upon you. On the ground there is dust, debris, ash etc. which will carry the radiation and land on everything.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#6This image needs to become one of the standard meme images.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#718,500 feet is 3.5 miles. So is there a different between being 3.5 miles under a bomb vs being 3.5 miles away from a bomb?
Yes. Studies of nuclear explosion impact effects distinguish between "ground burst" and "air burst" detonations. Ground bursts typically have a smaller overall radius of damage, but do more intense damage at or near ground zero. Air bursts spread their effects across a wider radius, but damage is relatively more evenly distributed. Ground bursts also produce more fallout, since they dig up and irradiate earth and scatter it to the winds.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#818,500 feet is 3.5 miles. So is there a different between being 3.5 miles under a bomb vs being 3.5 miles away from a bomb?
The initial radiation and heat wave is likely more intense because there's no ground to shield between you and the blast but, as someone else said, most radioactivity is from induced activity in ground material sucked up in the blast, so from that perspective air bursts are much less "dirty" as the fission products rise into the stratosphere and are dispersed in the winds. Definitely it would be better than being 3.5mi downwind of a ground blast, but probably not compared to being upwind.
The shock wave is probably also less damaging because it comes from straight above so it won't pick up objects and throw them at you.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#9Now we know why no one is afraid of the North Korean nuclear program.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#10It's amazing how these men have went on to live such long lives.
As someone who has only cursory knowledge of atomic explosions and radiation damage, I was always under the impression that standing under an explosion such as this would almost guarantee a death during or shortly after.
I suppose it's a lot like HIV. Unprotected sex with an HIV positive person doesn't * guarantee* disease contraction, which is the impression I was always get. Not worth the risk, by any means, but still different than I had always been taught.