Bombs & Radiation

ast3r3xast3r3x
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Plutonium and Uranium based bombs give of a lot of radiation, and I know hydrogen bombs have some of that in them so how much radiation do they give off? Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 35
    thegeldingthegelding Posts: 3,230member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation



    i thought neutron bombs didn't have a large explosion, so building stayed intact, but gave off lots of radiation, so the people there all died...

    so soldiers could come in and have a city all ready for them...but i don't remember too much since they seemed to be quickly shelved...or maybe shelved

    g



    some info here



    seems that the USA, Israel and China have the neutron bomb...others may or may not..



    more info: here
  • Reply 2 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    I didn't read that yet but I will, I meant long lasting radiation. Yes I thought a neutron bomb kill organic things.



    Man this stuff is so sad, I wish we could just send it all toward jupiter and have it explode once it gets there.



    Does anyone know about any other bombs of this nature? I don't know of any other bombs that are on the scale all of these bombs are and was wondering if anyone knew about another or any currently in development.
  • Reply 3 of 35
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    I believe that a Hydrogen bomb needs to be "jump started" by a small nuclear explosion to get the fission material to the proper temperature for a hydrogen chain reaction.
  • Reply 4 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Crusader

    I believe that a Hydrogen bomb needs to be "jump started" by a small nuclear explosion to get the fission material to the proper temperature for a hydrogen chain reaction.



    I think that is right, that is why I didn't know how much radiation they gave out, because I wasn't sure of the size needed to get them going, and I haven't been able to find too much information on the internet, so I was hoping someone could help.
  • Reply 5 of 35
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Yeah, a fusion bomb has a small fission trigger. It's needed to generate the heat for fusion to exist. Interestingly, a fission bomb needs a convention charge to get everything moving, so it the end it all starts with a spark plug.



    So, if you can stop electricity Klaatu-style, you can stop a nuclear bomb from ever exploding.
  • Reply 6 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Ok so I'll just set off EMP's constantly so that I only have to worry about the physical bomb falling on me
  • Reply 7 of 35
    shawnjshawnj Posts: 6,656member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    Plutonium and Uranium based bombs give of a lot of radiation, and I know hydrogen bombs have some of that in them so how much radiation do they give off? Also neutron bombs, anyone have a link as to how they would work, because I only have a rough idea of what they do and believe they don't give off too much radiation



    Oh, do I have the article for you! In 1979, The Progressive magazine went to court with the United States over this very issue. Huge victory for the press and a quite interesting read I might add. It's definitely one of the best articles I've read all year: The H-Bomb Secret: How we got and why we're telling it by Howard Morland (PDF)
  • Reply 8 of 35
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    Ok so I'll just set off EMP's constantly so that I only have to worry about the physical bomb falling on me



    I don't think an EMP is going to stop a spark plug from working. EMP's are more along the lines of high-intensity static energy discharges that cause voltage to leap across nearby wires. In fact, it would probably cause the plug to spark violently.
  • Reply 9 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Splinemodel

    I don't think an EMP is going to stop a spark plug from working. EMP's are more along the lines of high-intensity static energy discharges that cause voltage to leap across nearby wires. In fact, it would probably cause the plug to spark violently.



    While that is true, I was under the impression that those types of bombs aren't that easy to set off so that the electrical equipment that controls all of that would be destroyed. But I wouldn't be surprised if those bombs were hardened.
  • Reply 10 of 35
    x xx x Posts: 189member
    Neutron bombs radiate neutrons.

    When the neutrons interact with a metal, X-rays are generated.

    The X-rays kill the living things.
  • Reply 11 of 35
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    So a hydrogen bomb ultimately produces the most radiation because the fusion event (actual caused by both the heat and pressure of a conventional nuclear weapon in the us model and the pressure of a series of these weapons in the russian model) produces nuclei that are unstable and subsequently they emit radiation. I presume neutron weapons use this principle on a smaller scale (ie there is just enough fission to start a chain reaction(but not uncontrollably) in which radiation is spewed everywhere, sort of a sub-critical event), although i dont know the workings of that weapon.



    When thinking about a design for a hydrogen bomb it isnt that hard to come up with the design the soviets came up with (i had a rough guess by the time i was 13), the us design is far more ingenious.



    as long as there are unstable nuclei these weapons will be capable of being produced. they are unnecessarily destructive. the nuclear age is a crock. an extension of the industrial age in which the players were adolescents thinking they were on the way to the next great thing.
  • Reply 12 of 35
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Actually, H + H = He... stable nuclei, to boot. Nothing of latent radiation to speak of from the fusion, although some of the fission byproducts are unstable and radioactive.



    The fusion blast essentially just produces gamma radiation. That's why fusion based power is the holy grail - nothing of dangerous waste.
  • Reply 13 of 35
    crusadercrusader Posts: 1,129member
    Now if you were designing a bomb to "kill people and leave buildings standing" wouldn't you want radiation that can be generated very intensely for a brief period of time, and yet have a short-half life of any material that it comes in contact with so your troops can move in without getting slow radiation poisoning? Ok, scratch that. What are the radiation levels at Hiroshima? How long did it take to become "safe?"
  • Reply 14 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Crusader

    Now if you were designing a bomb to "kill people and leave buildings standing" wouldn't you want radiation that can be generated very intensely for a brief period of time, and yet have a short-half life of any material that it comes in contact with so your troops can move in without getting slow radiation poisoning? Ok, scratch that. What are the radiation levels at Hiroshima? How long did it take to become "safe?"



    30 years for complete safety. Your whole post is the purpose of neutron bomb, were you refuting something someone said?
  • Reply 15 of 35
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    They use D2O in the hydrogen bomb. The 4/2He produced is stable but the higher level fussion products arent stable nuclei. The hydrogen bomb also creates a broad spectrum radiation, including gamma and x-rays etc etc.



    I assumed ast3r3x was talking about long lasting radiation.



    Hiroshima's radiation levels were 'safe' sometime in the 60's i believe. but traces were completely gone in the early 90s.
  • Reply 16 of 35
    scottscott Posts: 7,431member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by X X

    Neutron bombs radiate neutrons.

    When the neutrons interact with a metal, X-rays are generated.

    The X-rays kill the living things.





    X-rays are nothing. It's the neutrons themselves you have to worry about. Neutrons do more damage for the same amount of absorbed dose compared to X-rays and electrons. Oh also the X-rays don't do the damage but instead set electrons in motion which do the damage. But not really. It's the free radicals generated by the elections that do the real damage.
  • Reply 17 of 35
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    whoa scott, convoluted post.



    Both neutrons and x-rays cause primary damange, ie DNA lesions. Secondary damage by radicals is normally what kills you immediately.
  • Reply 18 of 35
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    As soon as the fallout dust was gone. (Read the studies done on the fishermen in the bay - they simply brushed the dust off themselves. Guess what their death/sickness rate was compared to those at a similar distance inland that did not brush it off, and were surrounded by it? Almost nil.) The big problem is that the dust becomes part of the environment in most places and creates a low level radiation in the background after a matter of weeks of higher levels. Places like, say, on a boat, where it falls into the water and submerges, the effect is much less.



    See, neutron bombs produce neutrons (duh), which cause the hard Xrays on contact with metal as stated before, but leave no real residual radiation. That's the whole point - the area is safe to move into on a long term basis within 24 hrs, maximum.



    Just try not to trip over the bodies. :P



    Now, *if* a neutron is moving at just the right speed, it *can* embed in a nuclei and create an unstable atom. However, the chances of that happening aren't high.
  • Reply 19 of 35
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    I just find all this stuff interesting, although scary.





    This thread was started as a side note, so maybe I'll make this side note into another thread, but does anyone know what advantages there would be if Hawking can find the unified field theory? I'm not even quite sure what it is exactly, but from what I know I don't see any purposes besides a better understanding of matter/atoms.





    TEACH ME, I CRAVE KNOWLEDGE!
  • Reply 20 of 35
    billybobskybillybobsky Posts: 1,914member
    a theory is a theory is a theory.



    What it predicts though may lead to new understanding etc. Although, most theories arise midway through understanding. Ie relativity was suggested by Maxwell and the like some 30 years before Einstein set down the theory. Experimental results almost always proceed a theory to describe them.



    Unified field theory wont help with understanding atoms so much as understanding the relationship of the various forces or something like that. Forces dont exist remember?
Sign In or Register to comment.