Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 118 posts

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#31

Post by Tichy »

adrianwaj wrote: post #27
yanowitz wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the saying goes (roughly): "correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's a good place to start looking". Are cancer incidence rates higher among those around nuclear explosions? Yes. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-ex... Is there a plausible mechanism by which radiation exposure leads to cancer? yes. http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_... These two facts greatly…

I've heard from anti-vaccine advocates that a number of diseases were on the decline, and that vaccine use was insignifcant in that decline. But the vaccines were introduced anyway so you could say it was the vaccines that did it but other factors were at hand. Sometimes I think correlation not only doesn't equal causation, but counters causation, like a son doing well not because of his overbearing mother, but in sp…

Just because on popular pseudo-scientific theory was successfully debunked doesn't imply that all theories can be debunked. Arguing with the vaccination case here boggles my mind, it's so misguided.

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#33

Post by FuzzyDunlop »

yanowitz wrote: post #20
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #18

> "Quite a few have died from cancer," he told reporter Bill Broad. "No doubt it was related to the testing." Is there really no doubt? I didn't see any more details in the article pertaining to the deaths, but for the sake of not implying that correlation == causation, I would point out that most cancer patients were never involved in nuclear testing (and, conversely, the cameraman who said the above also shows cont…

As the saying goes (roughly): "correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's a good place to start looking". Are cancer incidence rates higher among those around nuclear explosions? Yes. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-ex... Is there a plausible mechanism by which radiation exposure leads to cancer? yes. http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_... These two facts greatly…

On the same tack of radiation, but a different situation, Nick Davies' Flat Earth News describes the Chernobyl aftermath. I can't remember the complete substance of his argument, but it was generally that the effects of these things was vastly overstated in the media.

Not that I'm trying to controvert your point. This is just an allusion to an enterprising journalist's research.

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#34

Post by bjornsing »

> Some of you may have noticed the nuclear missile video says the explosion took place 10,000 feet above our group of soldiers. Apparently, the video is wrong. The Natural Resources Defense Council checked the numbers and says the explosion, part of Operation PLUMBBOB, was actually at 18,500 feet.

Well, there's actually some pretty good proof here that the explosion was closer than that: I count the time between light and sound to be slightly less than 13 seconds (and voices sound right so I'm assuming the recording is accurate in that respect). That would mean the explosion is about 14 000 feet away from the camera.

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#35

Post by adavies42 »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #18

> "Quite a few have died from cancer," he told reporter Bill Broad. "No doubt it was related to the testing." Is there really no doubt? I didn't see any more details in the article pertaining to the deaths, but for the sake of not implying that correlation == causation, I would point out that most cancer patients were never involved in nuclear testing (and, conversely, the cameraman who said the above also shows cont…

i'd also point out that it was the 50's and they were probably all smokers....

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#36

Post by mturmon »

ars wrote: post #16
iamdann wrote: post #10

It'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 impr…

No, it's nothing like HIV. HIV is a statistical thing: It's random chance if an infective particle travels. A nuclear bomb like this is deterministic. Based on the distance, altitude, size (power), and type (fission, fusion, specifics of the design - especially the tamper) of the bomb you can calculate exactly what and how dangerous the effects will be. The military was trying to show that they are able to make these…

Well, it's deterministic, until you get surprised:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Flat#Baneberry

and then perhaps you wish you had not shelved your "irrational" fear.

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#38

Post by pjscott »

justinatjustat wrote: post #29
jackpirate wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a former nuclear submarine officer, and current complete pacifist, I completely agree that the threat of nukes is WAY overblown. For example, much bigger threats to the modern world exist in the forms of uncontrolled small arms trading.

and so, in fact, you see: this toxic sludge is actually quite good for you.

No. Stop it. There are degrees of badness, and degrees of risk; decapitation is worse than getting a scraped knee, and car accidents are more common than cases of people being devoured by sharks. If we want to do right by everyone, and prevent horrible things from happening, but we have limited resources, then we've got to focus on things that are bad, common, and at least partially preventable.

If you understate some risks and overstate others, then you misallocate resources -- and if those resources are substantial enough to make a difference, this means that people get hurt and die because you were wrong about the severity and probability of risks. This is something where you can and should try to be right.

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#39

Post by dhughes »

bjornsing wrote: post #34

> Some of you may have noticed the nuclear missile video says the explosion took place 10,000 feet above our group of soldiers. Apparently, the video is wrong. The Natural Resources Defense Council checked the numbers and says the explosion, part of Operation PLUMBBOB, was actually at 18,500 feet. Well, there's actually some pretty good proof here that the explosion was closer than that: I count the time between ligh…

Me too!

distance = 1,116.44 feet/second * 12 seconds = 13,397.28 feet

Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb

#40

Post by pjscott »

ars wrote: post #16
iamdann wrote: post #10

It'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 impr…

No, it's nothing like HIV. HIV is a statistical thing: It's random chance if an infective particle travels. A nuclear bomb like this is deterministic. Based on the distance, altitude, size (power), and type (fission, fusion, specifics of the design - especially the tamper) of the bomb you can calculate exactly what and how dangerous the effects will be. The military was trying to show that they are able to make these…

You can calculate some effects, like intensity of radiation and pressure waves, but others, like lethality, and trickier. Within a certain range of radii, your chances of survival depend strongly on where you are and what you're doing. Are you in a building sturdy enough to not collapse on you? Is there anything heavy that might fall on you? Are you near a window? Will the building catch fire?

A lot of this stuff made its way into building codes, after some nuclear tests to figure out what worked.

Post reply on HN