@edunuke I worked on underground nuke weapons testing at the NTS in the modern era. That being post 70's The idea that a 10% leak of radiation was acceptable is interesting. It also would have shut down testing long before it was. To shield out all the gamma and X radiation from a Nuclear explosion one would have to spherically surround the device with more lead than we have the ability to move. The purpose for the testing, aside from stockpile verification, was research. A whole other subject
@jerdeb4evr I appologize I meant near 90% particle radiation. Gamma rays do escape with higher probability than particle radiation but still they used an iron ore backfill to attenuate most of them.
most of the radioactive yield of the bomb stayed buried underneath so radiation dosage from the underground blast from these products is minimal...all that earth blasting up is just located at the near surface and driven by the pressure wave created in the explosion.
It is a bit more complicated than that with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and how Russia might react. But as the world's supply of nuclear weapons get older we may be forced with either further testing or abolishing them completely. But then you have Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, India & Pakistan have them already while dozens of others are pursuing nukes, that means defying the ban is more likely than abolition.
No, but radioactive PARTICLES are affected by the wind. You don't want them blowing onto your position where they come into direct contact or inhaled, that is the greatest danger. In a nuclear detonation as well as tons of radioactive particles forming, prompt radiation like X-rays, Gamma rays and Neutrons are radiated though at this distance it the radiation is reduced to safe levels due to inverse-square law and atmospheric absorption. Only the eyes would need protection.
Reminds me of the pyroplastic flows on 911. Look at the way the flow except on 911 they went upwards and mushroomed out at ground level then spread just like this weird.
@gueratomik Unlike the fundamentalist crazies in Iran, we've actually, you know, progressed as a society. We have tested a nuclear weapon for decades. Get with the program.
Oh they DO care...but matters is how they react to what others think. Its not a "free for all" in the world and EVERY nation knows that. However Korea is pushing it
Iranian president never said Israel should be wiped off the earth. That is a mistranslation(yes, it is). Of course it is easier for western medias to show Iran as a caricature, to show Iran as the Evil on earth, that'll make an attack more justified for the public opinion, but it is not the case. Just give me the name of a single country deliberately attacked by Iran ... By the way, I went to Iran, at least I know what the country looks like, far from the caricature you built in your mind ...
The power and the glory!!
I take that back...It actually isnt a nuclear bomb but it is a scale test to study how nukes can help with digging operations
@edunuke I worked on underground nuke weapons testing at the NTS in the modern era. That being post 70's
The idea that a 10% leak of radiation was acceptable is interesting. It also would have shut down testing long before it was. To shield out all the gamma and X radiation from a Nuclear explosion one would have to spherically surround the device with more lead than we have the ability to move. The purpose for the testing, aside from stockpile verification, was research. A whole other subject
@jerdeb4evr
I appologize I meant near 90% particle radiation. Gamma rays do escape with higher probability than particle radiation but still they used an iron ore backfill to attenuate most of them.
most of the radioactive yield of the bomb stayed buried underneath so radiation dosage from the underground blast from these products is minimal...all that earth blasting up is just located at the near surface and driven by the pressure wave created in the explosion.
NEAT.
It is a bit more complicated than that with the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and how Russia might react.
But as the world's supply of nuclear weapons get older we may be forced with either further testing or abolishing them completely.
But then you have Iran and N. Korea developing nukes, India & Pakistan have them already while dozens of others are pursuing nukes, that means defying the ban is more likely than abolition.
No, but radioactive PARTICLES are affected by the wind. You don't want them blowing onto your position where they come into direct contact or inhaled, that is the greatest danger.
In a nuclear detonation as well as tons of radioactive particles forming, prompt radiation like X-rays, Gamma rays and Neutrons are radiated though at this distance it the radiation is reduced to safe levels due to inverse-square law and atmospheric absorption.
Only the eyes would need protection.
Reminds me of the pyroplastic flows on 911. Look at the way the flow except on 911 they went upwards and mushroomed out at ground level then spread just like this weird.
"..shield 99% of Gamma Rays...." Interesting, just what type of backfill do they use to shield the gamma rays?
i didnt even notice the people at the bottom of the screen
ground didn't "wave". there would have been no one standing there and there is no way that was nuclear
@gueratomik Unlike the fundamentalist crazies in Iran, we've actually, you know, progressed as a society. We have tested a nuclear weapon for decades. Get with the program.
If they stay upwind they should be fine, but I'd want to have a car ready to get out of dodge if the wind changes.
and the 4 people later died from radiation...
Oh they DO care...but matters is how they react to what others think. Its not a "free for all" in the world and EVERY nation knows that. However Korea is pushing it
where the shockwave?
How my god, this iranian nuke test is such a crime ... oh, sorry, it is american ...
It's not atomic explosion!
from about 0:12 on that looks alot like the twin towers collapse
Iranian president never said Israel should be wiped off the earth. That is a mistranslation(yes, it is). Of course it is easier for western medias to show Iran as a caricature, to show Iran as the Evil on earth, that'll make an attack more justified for the public opinion, but it is not the case. Just give me the name of a single country deliberately attacked by Iran ... By the way, I went to Iran, at least I know what the country looks like, far from the caricature you built in your mind ...