Discussion in 'Atomic Bombs In the Pacific' started by PzJgr, Aug 20, 2009.
Some really nice photos I have not seen.
Hiroshima, 64 years ago - The Big Picture - Boston.com
I wonder why many of the trees appear to have minor damage when buildings and vehicles near them were completely destroyed?
Good find Ike.
Very nice indeed.
I was reading some of the comments on that link. Good grief what is being taught these days?
those were great pics......but ya some of the comments were crazzzy
I thought the same thing. All our children are taught is that they were dropped and the plane that dropped them. It is all buttered up. I specificly remember that I got into an argument with one of my high school history teachers (who had gone to school to teach Math by the way) who told us that the Enola Gay had dropped both bombs and that both the Pilot and Co-pilot had commited suicide over the atrocious acts they commited. It wasn't a good argument, though I won
Amazing photos, Ike. The destructive power of this one weapon was incredible. I remember see photos similar to these back in the 50's when I was in elementary school. I believe they were in Life magazine. It's hard to imagine what it must have been like.
I was disturbed by some of the comments too.
You would think that it was the US who started the war and only wanted to kill civilians.
But as I have learned in my political science classes, you cannot debate people who think like that. They just dont process facts, and are like finger puppets as they spew the same old propoganda.
Sorta weird when you compare the size of the bomb to the size of the area it obliterated. A 10'x2' bomb killed 80,000 people. By the way, does Nagasaki or Hiroshima still have any radiation left in it? Or has it fully recovered?
I suspect that it's still a bit above the prewar background. On the otherhand it's probably lower than some other areas which suffered minimal exposure to atomic weapons. Mountain tops for instance.
This article: Question #12
implies it's at back ground but doesn't note that back ground radiation varies tremendously from place to place.
Both cities recovered fairly quickly. Days in fact.
Most of the contaminating radiation was in the form of short lived radionuclides. And we're 65 years removed from the events, which is many many many half lives for those particles.
Thats interesting. My friend that worked for the Atomic Museum told me that people are not allowed to take the "trinitite" glass from the Trinity test site here in NM. For one, because they want to preserve it, and two, because it still gives a small dose of radiation. They sell 'fake" trinitite in the gift shop, but its made in a different way.
I know they built up all around their ground zeros, but would the ground beneath it all still have particles you woundn't want to have around you for very long?
Something else to keep in mind is the distance from the ground the explosions took place. The one in New Mexico was only about a hundred feet above the desert floor, those in Japan were closer to 2,000 feet above the surface.
This might very well have impacted the "amount" of radiation trapped in the "trinitite" glass from the Trinity site. I believe I read that this was one of the reasons the scientists changed the height of the detonation to the distance that they used. They believed it was possible that the radiation detected at Trinity would not be able to make it to the ground if detonated at that altitude. It was suspected that the "fireball" itself might very well consume the radiaiton before it got to the ground.
Of course what anyone knew for certain about radiation from non-natural occurring isotopes was limited at best.
Ok, that would seem to make sense. I think I remember that the height they did detonate the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was calculated to make the shock wave come in to have maximum blast affect. They perfected this technique at the Nevada test site over the years.
The physics are incredible, not only for detonating the bomb itself, but also in regards to how to get as much destruction out of it as possible!
If you look at the picture here" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_(nuclear_test)
of the trinity test it's pretty clearly a ground burst (if the label is correct). Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both air burst. I.e. the fireball didn't touch the ground. Air burst tend to produce much less fallout and residual radiation. The fallout that is produced by an airburst also tends to have much shorter half life on average as well.
The burst at Trinity was on a tower about 100 feet up, not really a "ground" burst, but not a real "air" burst either. Origianlly they were going to put the dang thing in a steel container called Goliath, this was in case it didn't go off, but fizzled out. That way they could recover the plutonium that wasn't ruined.
Good thing that wasn't tried, can you imagin the shrapnel problem that might have created?
Here is a good link to the test.
My understanding is that it's considered a ground burst if the fireball touches the surface. If it's completely above the surface it's an air burst and if the top of it doesn't touch the surface it's a underground burst.
Checked it to make sure:
The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1977: Descriptions of Nuclear Explosions
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
The Nagasaki bomb had a fireball ~100m in diameter. I'd assume the trinity bomb was pretty close so if detonated at 100 ft it would indeed be a ground burst as the films seem to indicate.
Point taken "lwd", I was only making a statement that the shortness of the tower which suspended the "gadget" was close to the earth, not sitting on it exactly. But, I see your point and acknowledge its correctness.
I know what the Japanese did were bad, but in my mind NO country should ever deserves this, but great thread