How the Atomic Tests Looked Like From Los Angeles

I think HN is probably biased towards a subset of the population that is perennially interested in nuclear explosions. They surely occupied a much greater part of the public consciousness in the 50s than they do today (and certainly much greater than a few years ago, before a nuclear power invaded Europe).

It’s right next door to Hollywood and many common film shooting locations.

Also, smoking like a chimney. Also, the whole nuclear bomb test/downwinder stuff.

It’s not just direct exposure either - thyroid issues are common in the generation that grew up when this was happening, and many of them drank milk, ate cheese, etc. from cows grazing on grass that got this contamination on it.

Nobody likes to talk about it because good luck quantifying it at this point - and the gov’t does a lot to avoid blowback succeeding. National Security and all.

Just how nuclear waste polluted is Nevada?

Surely ~1000 tests in one place can't be good. Wouldn't be surprised if people around there do get cancers.

What is the source for that?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film)#Filming

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_testing_in_the...

Then there was that thing where RAF bombers pretended to bomb US cities... which had to be hushed up as it made it clear that US air defence systems weren't nearly as good as the public had been told.

The wife's family lived in Omaha, Nebraska at the time. A lot of cancer in her family. But then a lot of smokers as well. So who knows.

Regardless, that one was a major fuck-up that seems to have kind of put the kibosh on "underground" testing of that sort.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sedan_(nuclear_test)

There is plenty of articles, books and every other media from that period of time with people expressing horror at the sheer power of these weapons, not to mention the pervasive belief that a nuclear war is just a matter of time, with kids in schools being taught how to hide under their desks and face away from a nuclear blast should one happen. There definitely was a "morbid" fascination in the sense that people wanted to see the blasts that could obliterate their cities without a warning. There was hope and belief that we'll have nuclear powered everything within couple decades at most, but people weren't building and buying nuclear shelters out of hope for the better nuclear future.

>>Stop trying to foist your "modern" ideals on people many years ago.

I think that's an unnecessary remark, especially given that you are also attributing a certain belief to everyone of that era when it very clearly wasn't universal.

> 1. What happened to the deadly radioactivity?

It mostly decayed out. Generally speaking, 8 half-lives mean that it's essentially decayed to "gone". High-level atmospheric tests usually cause it to spread out and depending on wind patterns can dissipate enough to be essentially harmless - though with precision instruments you can measure the differences throughout the whole world. Steel from shipwrecks from before the first explosion can be desirable for some of this equipment.

With explosions closer to or below ground level, there can be longer-lasting elements baked into the ground, like Trinitite (a green glass like material) that can have trace amounts of cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years, which going by the 8 times rule means that it'll be "dangerous" for ~240 years.

Also the type of bomb matters to what is left behind. A uranium bomb will leave different radioactive byproducts than a plutonium bomb.

To break it down to layman terms, nuclear explosions are also designed to emit energy extremely fast, meaning the radioactive chain reaction "burns" through elements very fast. This is different that the fuel in a nuclear reactor, which is designed to burn hot and slow, meaning there are more longer-lasting byproducts left over and why Chernobyl is a no go zone for thousands of years, but we can live in Hiroshima.

> 2. Would exploding the equivalent amount of TNT look exactly the same?

No. It wouldn't produce anywhere near the amount of heat/light. The TNT equivalent is usually used to measure the destructive force equivalent of the explosion.

> 3. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?

The US may "fake" having a number operating bombs ready, etc. But obviously there's no need to fake it as the US destroyed 2 cities at the end of world war 2 and exploded hundreds of test bombs since.

> 4. What happened to the deadly radioactivity in Japan?

The bombs dropped were exploded high in the atmosphere to spread the explosive force of the bombs. Most of the radioactive material was carried away by the winds and/or had a short half-life. Most radioactive material from the bombs decayed away and there is no longer a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

> 5. What is carpet bombing?

It's when you have a fleet of bombers drop massive amounts of traditional bombs on a city, as was done to Germany and Japan during world war 2 (and by the Germans to a few cities like Rotterdam).

> 6. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?

Same as question 3.