This is more of a request than anything. Last night my boyfriend was talking to me about some stuff he found that talked about how the government is trying to dispel myths about how harmful Gamma radiation is. Allegedly, being in a building, any building, at the time of the blast, cuts down the radiation so much that you should be able to live through the blast (if you survive the hit and collateral damage I suppose). That's nice to know. But what I really want to know if the government is putting a spin on it. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but when my boyfriend was describing the article to me, he made it sound almost as if the government was trying to get rid of the guilt of using atomic weapons - if the civilians just hid, for example, then there would be no problem. If that's true, than that bothers me a lot.

But I can't tell, because he didn't show me the article. I am now trying to find it. Anyone have any idea what article he read?

It depends on all of the materials between you and the source of radiation. If you're in the center of a building that's a hundred feet wide with foot thick brick walls, you'll be better off than in the center of a 20 foot wide log cabin. If you really wanted to protect yourself from nuclear fallout radiation, you'd probably want a good two and a half feet of dirt on all sides of you.

http://www.ki4u.com/free_book/s73p916.htm

Gamma Radiation Shielding

Not sure what article he found. But radiation is stopped to a certain degree by any materials with a high atomic density. Buildings by nature are pretty solid structures and often incorporate steel and/concrete. So on one level, sure if there is an atomic blast and you are inside a building, you are likely to absorb a lot less radiation.

But what the government failed to mention (judging by what you've told us about the article) is that the atomic blast generates such a massive quanitity of heat and energy - that the radiation it causes is actually secondary. If you are in a building within say, 2km of the initial blast radius - chances are you are toasted long before the radiation will have any effect (along with any building you happened to be in). This is assuming the bomb is of the magnitude 12 to 22 kilotons of TNT (Fatman and Little Boy). And the technology used in these warheads is now vastly outdated. There exists very little documentation on what the current nuclear capabilities of warheads are, all that exists is whether or not certain countries possess the means to create nuclear arsenals.

Atomic blast radii

A lot of the anti-nuclear hype (despite the fact that it is the most destructive man made force available), is that the radiation created lingers for decades afterwards, and it is almost impossible to fully track the damage caused to a population. Since Chernobyl victims are still giving birth to deformed children and congenital diseases are much more prevalent when compared to others. But, like I said, it is almost impossible to measure how much damage has been caused by the radiation.

So, TL;DR - putting yourself in a doorframe during an earthquake is going to increase your chances of survival since doorframes are structurally very secure. But, a nuclear blast is as to an earthquake as a pinprick is to a lethal injection.

Edit: Minimoose makes a good point that dirt is most likely to be your best bet. I had a lecture as part of a History of Science course I did. One module was about the Atomic Bomb. We were shown a poster in which the public were advised to wear 'wide brimmed hats to shield their eyes from the light-blast', and 'to hide in a freshly ploughed furrow in a field to escape oncoming radiation'.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Jan 2 2011, 5:05 pm by Cardinal.

The pressure wave comes first. Then the heat and fire.
The massive change in pressure caused by the explosion is what's knocking down the buildings, blowing out all the windows, etc.

I forget the exact distance, but there were people pretty close to where the bombs in Japan actually exploded and they were okay (well, okay insofar as surviving the blast itself) because they were in the right place at the right time (underground tunnels and stuff). Of course, direct hits are designed to take out whatever is that they hit, but that ends up being a much smaller area than you would think. And we're assuming that the nuclear blast is done a direct surface strike. Over an area that isn't heavily fortified (for example, a city), an atmospheric detonation would be better because it can affect a much greater area instead of making sure one small spot is destroyed really, really well.

Not much has changed and there isn't much need for better bombs. You'll be doing more damage with ten 20-megaton bombs than one 200-megaton bomb. Once the bombs get big enough, it does change into quantity over quality.

Dirt is good because it's cheap and easily accessible, depending on where you live. I don't really have access to sheets of metal and tons of bricks and concrete, but I can dig out my front yard.
It's right that the light will reach you before anything else, but if you can see it, you're probably not in a good place. (expect that window to be in your face shortly after if you're in a car or building)
As for escaping radiation, that advice is terrible. Radiation does damage over time in an area. It's not something that you hide in a ditch from so it passes you over and then you're okay. Though you might want to jump in that ditch for other reasons, such as protecting yourself from the blast and whatever's flying around in it.

I read an article in the New York Times about this sort of thing a few weeks ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html?_r=1&ref=radiation Of course, the article is silent about exactly how many people would be killed due to the actual blast itself.


According to the diagram in the bottom right of this image, you can easily survive a nuclear blast if you stay in the basement long enough to avoid radiation. Even staying in a car can cut the casualties from radiation in half.

Thank you. That must have been the article he was talking about, because I remember him talking about staying in a car.

If that was the case, then hiroshima would not have killed so many people.

About one-third of Hiroshima died because of the atomic bomb. The article says that 50% of people a distance of 1 mile or more from the blast could be saved if they had minimal protection.

ray I'm pretty sure StarBlue was trolling. I hope so.

I know I'm necroing and double posting, but I have a feeling this might become an issue in coming days given the nuclear reactor issues.

I, for one, welcome my new superpowers.

Didn't even notice this was a necro at first

The largest concern in radiation from a nuclear blast or leak is not being harmed by radiation from a distance source ("being irradiated by the blast"). If you're close enough for that, you would also just die from the heat and shockwave. Anything that will stop the shockwave will also stop any gamma radiation. The real radiation concern is that the environment becomes contaminated with radioactive atoms, especially those with long half lives and those which are nutrients to our body, such as iodine. Any decent shelter will protect you from radiation, so long as it is airtight, but as soon as you expose yourself to the environment again, you're at risk.

Even if the reactors in Japan were to all blow up, Chernobyl style, it would take at least 10 days for the radiation to blow over to the US. By the time it got there it will be so dispersed that it really won't be a serious health threat.

Now if you're in Japan, Korea or China (and maybe Hawaii), that's another story.

I was reading about Chernobyl last night (for interest, this hasn't progressed there) and a dude was exposed to so much radiation his eyes changed color before he died.

It was interesting.

I was reading and apparently in Russia (haha loving this tangent, Nuclear problems in japan -> Chernobyl happened in an area that used to be russia (It's ukraine now) -> Russia) they aren't being told with certainty what is going on in Japan. They have media sources telling conflicting information: Japan is fine, Japan is fucked, etc.

Also, IMHO, this isn't a necro because it is constructive, relevant, important, and you are adding something to the topic.

A necro stays a necro, Tikels. What you're trying to say is that this necro is justified.

An excellent description of the situation in Japan:

"Necro" has a connotation of negativity as being looked down upon, which this instance shouldn't be. That was why I said that.

Not really. Necro just has to do with the dead. This thread hadn't been posted in for over two months, so technically, it is a necro. ;o

Philosophical discussions of necroing aside...
That video is pretty amazing, actually. I like how derp Chernobyl boy is.

edit: I've read that they've started asking people in the high risk zone to take iodine, and that there are trace amounts showing up in California. But I'm not concerned. Surprisingly, researching nuclear energy has helped put my mind at ease a lot, when usually that isn't true.