Fukushima Has Leaked 168 Hiroshima Blasts of Radiation
61 replies, posted
[QUOTE]
[IMG]http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/4/2011/08/fukhiro.jpg[/IMG]
We've known Fukushima's been hemorrhaging radiation steadily since the disaster began in March. But now we've got a horrid new way to quantify it: the amount of terribly dangerous cesium-137 released by the plant is [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html"]equal to 168 nuclear bombings[/URL].
The Guardian reports that the Japanese government's own calculations put the release of cesium-137—a particularly lethal isotope—at 15,000 tera becquerels. That's an esoteric unit of measurement, but you can ignore it. Just think of it this way: the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima released 89 tera becquerels of cesium-137 when it leveled the city.
Now this isn't an entirely apt analogy. The destruction of a nuclear bomb is inordinately greater than that of a plant meltdown, because the former is a weapon designed to create a massive explosion and release of heat. Fukushima did [URL="http://gizmodo.com/5781293/terrifying-video-of-nuclear-power-plant-explosion-in-japan"]explode[/URL], yes, but with nothing resembling the blast of a nuclear bomb. Fukushima's release is slower—more insidious. A deadly leak that's seeped into the [URL="http://gizmodo.com/5831441/toxic-nuclear-sludge-found-60-miles-away-from-fukushima-reactor"]earth[/URL], [URL="http://gizmodo.com/5784764/japanese-vegetables-and-milk-banned-from-import-to-us"]water[/URL], [URL="http://gizmodo.com/5789030/japanese-fish-dangerously-contaminated-by-fukushima"]food[/URL], and [URL="http://gizmodo.com/5815765/fukushima-residents-peeing-out-radiation"]urine[/URL] of Japan. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima obliterated civilization within a radius of several miles—the evacuation zone around Fukushima is considerably wider. [[URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/8722400/Fukushima-caesium-leaks-equal-168-Hiroshimas.html"]Telegraph[/URL]][Gizmodo]
[/QUOTE]
Holy shit. That's a lot of nukes.
Shit...
At least people have been evacuated...
Oh really, 168 times the 40's Hiroshima bombing?
That's just a stupid comparison. Because if you blow up 168 modern a-bombs, there wouldn't be anything left of our planet.
Well thats a rather bad situation.
Yeah, but it isn't like all of this radiation escaped in the timeframe of a few seconds like an actual nuke.
Did you read the whole thing?
[B][I]Now this isn't an entirely apt analogy. The destruction of a nuclear bomb is inordinately greater than that of a plant meltdown, because the former is a weapon designed to create a massive explosion and release of heat. Fukushima did explode, yes, but with nothing resembling the blast of a nuclear bomb. Fukushima's release is slower—more insidious.[/I][/B]
168 Nukes is a great way to fear-monger if you play the cards right. When a nuclear weapon detonates, often the power is not in the blast, but the radioactive dust cloud which fucks up everything around it to kingdom come. Now, the nuclear plant we have had no giant radioactive dust clouds its far more localized and the highest levels of radiation are detected within ground zero. Albeit the situation over there is still bad, media fear monger only serves to make it worse.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;31955713]Atom bombs generate a lot of destruction but on a limited area, you would need over a million atom bombs to annihilate all life, and Gizmodo is known for hyperbolating their news. (And publishing news completely unrelated to gadgets)[/QUOTE]
I call shenangians. I'm quite certain that it's entirely feasible to annihilate all life on the planet (several times over at that) with our current nuclear arsenal.
Nuclear fallout is a bitch.
Laughed at the people thinking this also meant the actual explosions.
@Dysgalt
Can we stay on track? And did you finish reading the article? This the second time now
[I][B]Now this isn't an entirely apt analogy. The destruction of a nuclear bomb is inordinately greater than that of a plant meltdown, because the former is a weapon designed to create a massive explosion and release of heat. Fukushima did explode, yes, but with nothing resembling the blast of a nuclear bomb. Fukushima's release is slower—more insidious.[/B][/I]
[QUOTE=Chickens!;31955753]Laughed at the people thinking this also meant the actual explosions.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there are much of those :v:
Wouldn't a 168 nukes explosion blow down like, half of japan?
If you guys want to learn about the first hand experience of radiation sickness, read Hiroshima.
Although no one's face will be melting off and shit radiation sickness is just god awful.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;31955755][img]http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/nukes_550.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
Doesn't take nuclear fallout into account, which can reach a hundred miles in a matter of hours.
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ea/Fallout_G%26D77.JPG[/img]
[QUOTE=ducky5;31955754]@Dysgalt
Can we stay on track? And did you finish reading the article? This the second time now
[I][B]Now this isn't an entirely apt analogy. The destruction of a nuclear bomb is inordinately greater than that of a plant meltdown, because the former is a weapon designed to create a massive explosion and release of heat. Fukushima did explode, yes, but with nothing resembling the blast of a nuclear bomb. Fukushima's release is slower—more insidious.[/B][/I][/QUOTE]
I was just comparing the radiation spread of the two, I'm not stupid enough to think it of as an actual explosion, I'm just thinking about how the radiation is spread when looking at the two mediums and why the article can easily be seen as fear mongering if picked up by other people. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Edit:
OpethRockr55: Yeah, radiation from Chernobyl was picked up as far as the U.S from the wind spreading it.
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;31955692]Oh really, 168 times the 40's Hiroshima bombing?
That's just a stupid comparison. Because if you blow up 168 modern a-bombs, there wouldn't be anything left of our planet.[/QUOTE]
you do know it's the radiation, and not exactly the impact/explosion they're comparing, right?
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;31955755][img]http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/nukes_550.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
This is stupid. If you bombed the 10000 biggest cities, that would already kill off most of the population. Taking fallout and the effect on the economy, many more would die.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;31955755][IMG]http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/nukes_550.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE]
Yeah let's ignore temperature changes due to large amounts of dust and fumes and shit released when buildings are burned (which is why simple nuclear tests don't cause a "nuclear winter"), fallout, population density, famine, breakdown of social order, etc.
Everyone posts this same shitty chart in every thread relating to nuclear bombs in some way and it gets old.
168 Little Boy blasts worth of radiation?
Shit.
[QUOTE=DasherDigital;31955925]you do know it's the radiation, and not exactly the impact/explosion they're comparing, right?[/QUOTE]
yes, I know.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;31955755][img]http://infobeautiful2.s3.amazonaws.com/nukes_550.gif[/img][/QUOTE]
That chart only takes into account the most powerful nuke currently in [B][I]service[/I][/B], but not the most powerful nuke that was ever tested and detonated: the Tsar Bomba. The Tsar Bomba has a destruction radius more than double the B83 used in the chart when detonated at half power. The Tsar Bomba can generate 1% the power of the sun's output when detonated at half power. So if [B]only 50 Tsar Bomba's[/B] detonated simultaneously at maximum power, it would momentarily [b]match the thermal power output of the Sun[/B].
Keep in mind the Tsar Bomba is old and outdated (60's technology), Russia probably has way more powerful nukes hidden and kept secret in their stockpiles. Also, the Tsar Bomba was only tested at half power because the fallout generated from full power would have most certainly radioactively contaminate all of Russia and almost all of Eastern Europe (which back then was Soviet territory).
[QUOTE=GoodStuff;31956642]That chart only takes into account the most powerful nuke currently in [B][I]service[/I][/B], but not the most powerful nuke that was ever tested and detonated: the Tsar Bomba. The Tsar Bomba has a destruction radius more than double the B83 used in the chart when detonated at half power. The Tsar Bomba can generate 1% the power of the sun's output when detonated at half power. So if [B]only 50 Tsar Bomba's[/B] detonated simultaneously at maximum power, it would momentarily [b]match the thermal power output of the Sun[/B].[/QUOTE]
The Sun outputs 1,839,066,647.4 Tsar Bomba's worth of energy every SECOND.
So no.
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
Apparently the power output did match 1% of the sun's: for 40 billionths of a second during the blast, but the reference to that was removed from the wikipedia article because it's stupid.
The average person has no idea what power is and it makes the Tsar Bomb seem more powerful than it actually is since it's all to do with the speed of the energy release and not the actual energy of the bomb.
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
I could take a warm shit and if I did it fast enough I would match the power output of the sun.
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
Actually all of this info is subject to tons of doubt because apparently no one on Wikipedia has a fucking clue what a Watt is and are referring to power as being in "Watts per second."
Just you watch in 20 years Fukushima is going to be the first Necropolis.
[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;31955713]Atom bombs generate a lot of destruction but on a limited area, you would need over a million atom bombs to annihilate all life, and Gizmodo is known for hyperbolating their news. ([I]And publishing news completely unrelated to gadgets[/I])[/QUOTE]
3 nuclear bombs would probably kill all human life on earth, the clouds would most likely block out the sun in most areas and mess up the rainfall.
[QUOTE=zzaacckk;31957427]3 nuclear bombs would probably kill all human life on earth, the clouds would most likely block out the sun in most areas and mess up the rainfall.[/QUOTE]
Uh, no.
A lot more than 3.
There's been over 2000 nuclear detonations on our planet, we're still here, it's not that simple.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31956882]The Sun outputs 1,839,066,647.4 Tsar Bomba's worth of energy every SECOND.
So no.
[/QUOTE]
And hence is why I said [B]power[/B].
So yes.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31956882]
Apparently the power output did match 1% of the sun's: for 40 billionths of a second during the blast
[/QUOTE]
Like I just said, momentarily.
Does it really matter how long it lasts? Explosions are not meant to last long and yet are very lethal. I highly doubt anyone could survive 40 nanoseconds worth of the Sun's power. Heck, we even got lasers that vaporize metals within 1 nanosecond time and lasers are weak in comparison to nukes and our skins are weak in comparison to metal.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;31956882]
I could take a warm shit and if I did it fast enough I would match the power output of the sun.
[/QUOTE]
We're talking about weapons here. Power is more important. Yes, if you took a shit fast enough it could theoretically match the power of the sun and it would be very destructive because of the power. Conversely, you can match the energy by accelerating your shit very [B][I]slowly[/I][/B] across the universe (Work = Energy = Force * [B]distance[/B]). Same amounts of energy, however, it wouldn't as deadly as shooting your shit out fast because it lacks power. In fact this is what other posters here have pointed out in reference to Fukushima leaking out 168 nukes worth of radiation. It wasn't destructive. Why? [b]Because energy was leaked out slowly, thus lack of power.[/b]
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;31957539]Uh, no.
A lot more than 3.
There's been over 2000 nuclear detonations on our planet, we're still here, it's not that simple.[/QUOTE]
Yes very true.
I'm not saying you don't know this but keep in mind that a nuclear detonation hitting a city would be much, much more damaging to the environment than nuclear tests in the middle of the desert. It'd be much more than 3, but probably much less than 2000 to seriously fuck up the environment.
Nice abysmal scare journalism Gizmodo, as always
At least the BBC let the unnerving facts do the talking
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
count the number of times you see a word like "terrible" or "horrid" in this article
[editline]26th August 2011[/editline]
yeah I know they're sourcing the telegraph but I don't care, BBC is my go-to news source
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
