I think you’re placing far too much emphasis on Truman.
If you read the history closely, I think you may agree that he gave general approval to the use of the A bombs but left the tactical decisions to his military people.
Just been playing with my nuclear bomb effects computer. For a 12kT nuclear initiation, you would have to be within 1 mile to get a dose of greater than 100 Rem (100 Rem being the cut-off point for any form of radiation sickness), and if you’re within 0.75 miles then you get a dose of 1000 Rem which seems to equal instantaneous death.
The counterpart to these numbers are the thermal figures. At 1 mile, thermal exposure is about 15 Cal/cm^2 going up to about 30 Cal/cm^2 at 0.75 miles. The roughtly 4 Cal/cm^2 will give first degree burns (similar to sunburn) while 7 Cal/cm^2 will give second degree burns. IMHO this suggests that everybody within the 1 mile radius will have very serious (i.e. fatal) burns unless they were lucky enough to be shielded totally from them.
For blast figures, if I’m reading it correctly the peak overpressure will be around 5 PSI with peak winds of 160 mph. This implies that only reinforced concrete buildings will survive.
In other words, to be “lucky” enough to live long enough to die of radiation sickness after Hiroshima you had to be within 1 mile of the blast inside a reinforced concrete building which protected you from the thermal pulse and blast overpressure. However, concrete is an excellent material for protecting anyone inside it from Neutrons (there is a LOT of water in it, which acts as a moderator). In other words, there will be very, very few people in Hiroshima who died of radiation sickness.
Interesting what kind of programs exist in the world out there :mrgreen:
I have a little addition however. As far as I remember the medium fast neutrons are more dangerous than the faster or slower ones when it comes to biological effectiveness. So the fact that the concrete moderates the initially faster neutrons (can’t remember exactly, but weren’t they ~ 5 MeV typically) wouldn’t that be rather counterproductive?
The japanese were “lucky”, that they didn’t have more concrete buildings than their paper huts. The radiation type effects would’ve been much more numerous if the nukes had been used in a european settlement.
Another interesting point for the discussion is probably that while the threshold for lethal radiation sickness (ld10/30 10% dead in 30 days) is 1 Sv the accepted threshold for somatic short and long term effects is only between 200 and 300 mSv and the experts are arguing over the statistics for less than that, specifically when it comes to cancer.
It is open to some debate as to whether they were actually planning to use chemical weapons. But what is not open to debate is that there was significant stockpiles, planning, and research conducted on the the use of chemical weapons by the US Army Chemical Corp. I think the projections I heard (last Friday, there was a documentary on one of the Discovery Channels on this very topic) were that up to five million Japanese could have died had the prolonged usage of such weapons occurred. Granted, TV documentaries are often play fast and loose with the facts and usually err on the side of the hyperbolic. But there was some interesting stuff in there…
Indeed. US and Filipino forces were still engaging small units of Japanese into the late forties…
http://www.wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html#china
There’s a website somewhere that I’ve read that offers very intricate details somewhere, but I can’t find it…
No. The only “point” it proves is that the American command, Truman in particular, was sensitive to the political considerations of suffering high casualties, and they were willing to use every means possible to avoid suffering the hundreds-of-thousands of dead and wounded that were projected to die - by affecting a quick Japanese collapse.
“Nazi-type” commanders do not have to worry much about public opinion. Truman did!
It’s actually a circular slide rule out of the back of my copy of The Effects of Nuclear Weapons published by the United States Atomic Energy Commission in February 1964.
My lecture notes have the total energy being carried away in Neutrons from a single U235 fission being ~5 MeV, and an average of 2.5 neutrons per fission. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons gives a rough energy spectrum for the neutrons of ~5% greater than 3 MeV, ~12% between 1.5 and 3 MeV, ~23% between 750 keV and 1.5 MeV and the rest between 200 eV and 750 keV. This is presumably taking all neutrons under 200 eV as not existing being as they can’t practically be measured (or couldn’t with the technology of the time - foil coated with materials like Sulfur or Neptunium-237 which are activated by neutrons above a certain energy). Interestingly, over short distances (a mile or so) the spectrum doesn’t really change indicating that the air is having little or no moderating effect.
My notes have the following values for weighting factor:
Photons (X and gamma rays) 1
Electrons and Muons 1
Neutrons <10 keV 5
Neutrons 10-100 keV 10
Neutrons 100 kev - 2 MeV 20
Neutrons > 2 MeV 5
Alpha Particles 20
From this and the neutron spectrum I’ve quoted we can take a guess that maybe 10% of Neutrons are going to be greater than 2 MeV in energy and so possibly made more dangerous by moderation. At a guess maybe 60-70% are going to be between 2 MeV and 10 keV and so will benefit from moderation. This is of course rather inexact data to base things on, but I hope you can see what I’m driving at.
See above. Personally I think the concrete would have been beneficial. Remember also that if you’re in the zone where radiation is a problem for that size of weapon you’re facing sufficient overpressure that anything except reinforced concrete is going to be flattened (and probably on fire as well).
Yep, the numbers I quoted were for 100 Rem (1Sv). Range for a 13kT (Hiroshima size) initiation to have 20 Rem is 1.3 miles. At that range the thermal pulse is still easily enough to cause extensive second degree burns if you’re exposed (~8 Cal/cm^2), overpressure is around 3.5 PSI and max wind is about 120 MPH. 3.5 PSI will cause heavy damage to most “ordinary houses” and will probably flatten most Japanese construction from the time.
You can tell it’s an old slide rule - quoting everything in Rem, miles and PSI 
Just spotted something else in my notes. They have a threshold of 0.5 Sv as that below which there will be no effects (“except possible minor blood changes”), and no deaths anticipated for exposure under 2.2 Sv. That’s a range of 0.95 miles for a Hiroshima initiation.
All: Who controls the British crown?
Who keeps the metric system down?
We do! We do!
:lol:
Well my friend- you could calculate whatever you want - but if your calculations are contraduct with the statistic - YOU R conclusions could be wrong;).
However i enough agre with you about the radiation medium stream( i mean the netrons, a, gamma and ets particles) in the MOMENT of explosions.
You absolutly right ONLY tiny part of victims ( about 1-3% i suppose) died from the hit damaging and had received the death-level of radiation from what they died immediatelly. Meanwhile the MOST of victims - died later ( during the first 5 years about 70% of victims). those peoples has got the radiation sicness from the consequences of the first radiation infection ( they drink the water , eated the food , weared the radio-infected closhes and ets).
So you right about the stream of radiation in caclulations but you CONSIDERED ONLY the tiny part of the radiation action in the moment of explosion.
Cheers.
Again Nick. Truman thought ONLY about biased the american domestic oppinion. He absolutly do not waoory about the world oppinion caused the enourmous deat-rate in Hiroshima.
Stimson records in a memorandum that he raised certain pragmatic concerns with the area bombing of Japanese cities being carried out by the US Air Force: “I told [Truman] I was anxious about this feature of the war for two reasons: first, because I did not want to have the United States get the reputation of outdoing Hitler in atrocities; and second, I was a little fearful that before we could get ready the Air Force might have Japan so thoroughly bombed out that the new weapon [the atom bomb] would not have a fair background to show its strength. He laughed and said he understood”
Stimson, Henry. Henry Stimson Papers, Sterling Library, Yale University. Available at the National Security
What did Truman understand?
Really did he so worry about the public oppinion Nick?
I think you’re placing far too much emphasis on Truman.
The Truman was in the head the comitee who accepted the FINAL agreement.
So he is the first face who is responsible for decision.
…
Despite the reference to not concentrating on a civilian area, the committee explicitly rejected the use of the bomb first on a purely military or uninhabited region, as some of the scientists who had worked with the panel recommended…, the Truman administration not only decided to use the bomb, but did so with evident glee. Truman famously declared that he did not lose a night’s sleep over the decision. According to one account, when he heard the news about Hiroshima while crossing the Atlantic, he declared, “This is the greatest thing in history,” and then “raced about the ship to spread the news, insisting that he had never made a happier announcement. ‘We have won the gamble,’ he told the assembled and cheering crew”
Offner, Arnold. Another such victory: President Truman and the Cold War, 1945-1953, Stanford University Press, Stanford: 2002. p. 92.
Cheers.
They don’t contradict me - statistically very, very few if any people died purely of radiation sickness after either the Hiroshima or Nagasaki bombs. A number died while suffering symptoms of radiation sickness, but the majority of these were in the process of dying from blast or burns at the time.
That’s because fallout is an insignificant source of radiation for an airburst fission bomb. You only get enough fallout to cause measurable levels of injury/death when the weapon is either a groundburst or you’re using a multi-stage fusion bomb with a U-238 jacket. For an airburst, the majority of radioactive material will be blown high in the air and end up downwind, in this case being blown out to sea.
But hey, just like the Holocaust you know better than people who have spent large fractions of their lives studying the subject :roll:
Well if someone spends the majority of life for something - how could he be the objective to admite the critic;)
I don’t know about you, but I’m immersed up to my neck in the scientific method. That means that if a critic has an alternative theory you set up a test which will indicate which of the two theories are correct. You then carry out this test, and chech the statistics to see which is true.
In the case of fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this test has already been done. It shows that your theory that huge numbers died because of fallout is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter cr*p.
What a “science method” do you use.
Are you kidding;)
you USE the SIMPLE model that ROUGHTLY modulated the radiation’s processe DURING the DEVIDING( explosion).
You try to prove the fallout radiation was too unsignificant.
Perhaps, but the radiation danger IS not just fallout ( as you told us above).
In the case of fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this test has already been done. It shows that your theory that huge numbers died because of fallout is, not to put too fine a point on it, utter cr*p.
What has tests in Hirosima been done?
I.e immediatelly and soon died 70 000 from of the about 250 000 – 300 000 of whome died later after the 1945. i.e the minority.
All those peoples died from the consequences of radiation ( not only fallout, but also from the irradiation ). The most tupical reason of death was the cancer.
So the anyway the Bombs killed not as much by the explosions as the radiation consequences ( follout, irradiation and ets)
Data here comes from a very large number of postwar nuclear weapons tests on the Nevada test range involving very similar weapons. The test range was fully instrumented so the yield of the weapon, instantaneous and delayed radiation, etc. are very precisely known. From this testing it is known that the radiation risk due to fallout from small fission weapons airbursting (i.e. the weapon initiates at a sufficient height that the fireball does not touch the ground - this happened at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is negligible. We know this because we’ve had people wandering around with Geiger counters and taking samples for analysis.
Indeed, I stated that very little if any of the radation danger was fallout. Instead it all comes from the Neutron and Gamma Ray flux those near to the initiation were exposed to
I.e immediatelly and soon died 70 000 from of the about 250 000 – 300 000 of whome died later after the 1945. i.e the minority.
All those peoples died from the consequences of radiation ( not only fallout, but also from the irradiation ). The most tupical reason of death was the cancer.
So the anyway the Bombs killed not as much by the explosions as the radiation consequences ( follout, irradiation and ets)[/QUOTE]
Ummm… from what I can tell, you’re inventing figures now. The USDOE statement only claims that “some” people will die later - and the figures I posted above don’t contradict this but only point out that this will be a small number. Either post a credible source for the 250-300,000 deaths or retract the statement. Oh, and by “credible source” I mean peer-reviewed work from a proper journal like The Lancet which can make some reasonable claim to accuracy.
By way of comparison, the IAEA reckons that roughly 4,000 people will die of all radiation-related causes after the Chernobyl accident. In terms of dose received, my estimate would be that there are far more people exposed to a far higher radiation dose after Chernobyl than there were with survivable injuries after Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were exposed to dangerous radiation doses.
You are wrong in here
The release at 08:15 (Hiroshima time) was uneventful, and the gravity bomb known as “Little Boy”, a gun-type fission weapon with 60 kg (130 pounds) of uranium-235, took 57 seconds to fall from the aircraft to the predetermined detonation height about 600 meters (2,000 ft) above the city
In the picture you could see the down near the land the cloud of dust - the inevitable fallout.
Tru this is not a much however you could not to say that fireball does not touch the ground.
BTW even the a-explosions that were detonated in the height over several killometers was able to cause the cloud of radioactive dust.
Indeed, I stated that very little if any of the radation danger was fallout. Instead it all comes from the Neutron and Gamma Ray flux those near to the initiation were exposed to
What is the difference what was the main factor of radiation sicness of peoples- fallout or not?
The main thing is thet the radioactive products caused the over ABSOLUTE majiority of deaths.
Ummm… from what I can tell, you’re inventing figures now. The USDOE statement only claims that “some” people will die later - and the figures I posted above don’t contradict this but only point out that this will be a small number. Either post a credible source for the 250-300,000 deaths or retract the statement. Oh, and by “credible source” I mean peer-reviewed work from a proper journal like The Lancet which can make some reasonable claim to accuracy.
Really i/m inventing figures now?
And what about the overal 500 000 of victims in both Hirosima and NAgasaki since the 1945 that were preciselly calculated by the japanes medics?
Are those figures i/m inventing too?
By way of comparison, the IAEA reckons that roughly 4,000 people will die of all radiation-related causes after the Chernobyl accident. In terms of dose received, my estimate would be that there are far more people exposed to a far higher radiation dose after Chernobyl than there were with survivable injuries after Hiroshima and Nagasaki who were exposed to dangerous radiation doses.
Well this is old story with the understating of figures of victims of Chernobyl by the international organisation
http://www.social.kharkov.ua/index.php?m=single&id=612
According to the data of the ministry of Labor and social policy in the Ukraine as a result of emergency on CHernobyl perished already 17 448 people, However the report of UN in given number - 59 be killeden (among them 9 children) and 3 additional 940 such, which can die.
I don’t know why the UN or IAEA is understating the figures of victims - probably this is politic or money.
Howeve NOBODY in Ukraine or Russia believed in their figures 4 000 of perished.
That’s just dust created by the shockwave combined with smoke from the instantaneous combustion of much of the target area. Only that material which was within the fireball is likely to become radioactive (under Neutron bombardment), and the fireball didn’t touch the ground. Furthermore, the majority of dust in that plume is sucked up into the high atmosphere by the intense heat of the nuclear initiation, where it gets blown out to sea.
To be precise the amount of material in that cloud is almost exactly equal to the amount of material in the weapon. A few tonnes spread out over several thousand square miles does not a health hazard make. The overwhelming majority of fallout risks come from ground-bursting hydrogen bombs, where up to 100,000 tonnes of earth could potentially be contained within the fireball. THAT is a health hazard.
The difference is that it is possible to show by calculation that very few people will have suffered from radiation sickness due to Neutron/Gamma bombardment from the nuclear blast. Fallout is known to have been negligible (unless you accept the rather strange argument that one black and white photograph invalidates a decade of properly instrumented test data). That only leaves long term effects of the initial radiation (cancer, etc.) - and we simply don’t have any very good way of telling what the casualties from that are. As an example, back in the 1950s there was a major fire in the British nuclear reactor at Windscale, used to produce plutonium for the British nuclear weapons project. Estimates for the long term deaths from that event vary between zero and 20,000. It should be noted at this point that last I heard one of the men who climbed inside the reactor to fight the fire was still alive and healthy in his 80s last I head.
If not, post a link to or otherwise identify the paper when they made this claim. Numbers like that do not fit with my knowledge of nuclear engineering or with the textbooks to which I have access. I note also that you STILL haven’t posted any information about where you got those numbers from. When you get implausible and unsourced figures cropping up, they have to be treated as suspect.
So again, you’re assuming without anything beyond anecdotal evidence that a properly conducted study is wrong. There are one hell of a lot of causes of cancer and related diseases, but with incidents like Chernobyl people will always take the opportunity to blame the incident for their illness. The human mind does not like attributing suffering they experience to random chance - it is always easier to blame someone else.
… screw you Gauss 
Single examples are useless and you know that, why do you use it 