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

61–70 of 118 posts

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

#61

Post by commieneko »

delinka wrote: post #46
kitsune_ wrote: post #19

Operation Plumbbob, troops in front of an exploding nuclear bomb (@2:50): http://youtu.be/7mV0Lt2PUjI?t=2m50s Tactical nuclear artillery being fired (@0:50): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GBjlUOROY&feature=relat...

Holy Hell. That second video really drives home the devastation caused in the blast wave. Paint on vehicles turned instantly to ash and blew away. Wooden structures instantly caught fire. What was unexpected to me (I saw this in the first video which made me aware of it) was the 'backwash' after the initial shock wave. Terrifying.

I grew up in the 1960s and we lived within about 30 miles of 10 Titan II silos. They showed us these films constantly in school. With commentary. I can remember taking a map and using a compass to draw out the overlapping blast circles for a class project.

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

#63

Post by CapitalistCartr »

mynameishere wrote: post #60
delinka wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Holy Hell. That second video really drives home the devastation caused in the blast wave. Paint on vehicles turned instantly to ash and blew away. Wooden structures instantly caught fire. What was unexpected to me (I saw this in the first video which made me aware of it) was the 'backwash' after the initial shock wave. Terrifying.

Actually that second video looked mostly fake. Some of the footage was in "The Day After".

Its real. Many movies have reused stock nuclear footage. I recognize that video. Also, the effects in it are typical of nuclear blasts.

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

#64

Post by bigiain »

archgoon wrote: post #57
bigiain wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm remembering visiting the Nike Missile site just over the Golden Gate Bridge from San Francisco. http://www.nps.gov/goga/nike-missile-site.htm http://nikemissile.org/site_sf88.shtml It's both wonderful and creepy. They've restored some beautiful old mechanical computers which are works of art in my eyes, but they also point out that the missiles were capable of carrying nuclear warheads, "but they neither confirm…

> also pre-targetted at Sacramento… "Just in case" I'm at bit of a loss. Just in case what? Sacramento declares secession? Berkeley radicals march on the capitol? Taken over by Russians? Austrians?

The distinct impression the tour story gave me was "in case of Russian invasion". There was even some explanation about which versions of the Nike missile had sufficient range to get to Sacramento.

Like I said, there's some distinctly creepy bits about that whole thing.

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

#65

Post by ams6110 »

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…

And later, we find that one of them is still alive at age 84, others died at ages 86, 83, 71, 63, and one unknown.

Those ages seem to me like pretty good, even mostly quite long lifespans for someone who was already an adult in 1950s.

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

#66

Post by ams6110 »

derleth wrote: post #59
adavies42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> i'd also point out that it was the 50's and they were probably all smokers.... So were millions of other people, none of whom were subjected to that level of ionizing radiation. It's relatively easy to control for factors like that.

but did they? There's no mention of that in the story.

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

#67

Post by drblast »

mattparlane wrote: post #37

What I'd like to know is why the recording equipment kept functioning -- isn't an EMP supposed to wipe out sensitive electronics? At least that's what the movies tell me...

Wouldn't they have used a mechanical film camera? I don't believe that would be susceptible.

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

#68

Post by ekianjo »

ck2 wrote: post #62

Think about how all our nuclear tests actually raised carbon 14 levels to such a high point it can actually be used as a marker to determine the age of an object anywhere in the world. Then think about our crazy high cancer rates.

C14 exists naturally as well. The reason you can date C14 containing objects has NOTHING to do with nuclear bombs.

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

#69

Post by gcb »

smacktoward wrote: post #7
ars wrote: post #2

18,500 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 sca…

"Ground bursts also produce more fallout, since they dig up and irradiate earth and scatter it to the winds."

don't the produce the same amount of fallout? but the one in the dust is measurable and the air is not as easy to quantify?

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

#70

Post by kragniz »

ekianjo wrote: post #68
ck2 wrote: post #62

Think about how all our nuclear tests actually raised carbon 14 levels to such a high point it can actually be used as a marker to determine the age of an object anywhere in the world. Then think about our crazy high cancer rates.

C14 exists naturally as well. The reason you can date C14 containing objects has NOTHING to do with nuclear bombs.

Nuclear testing did change the levels of C14 significantly [1]. Carbon dating is impossible for dates after the '50s, when large amounts of nuclear testing started.

[1] http://www.sciencecourseware.org/VirtualDating/files/RC_3.ht...

Post reply on HN