What are the differences between Chernobyl and a modern nuclear weapon in terms of radioactivity?

www.quora.com... =1

You’re comparing nuclear reactors and nuclear bombs, which are as different as napalm is to a car.

As far as radioactivity, nuclear bombs end up producing less than a nuclear reactor does. They are only actually acting for a short while, meaning their neutron flux doesn’t have a chance to irradiate much.

In a nuclear reactor, which uses more of its fuel and therefore ends up with more fission products, you have fission products, plant materials, and fuel that are being constantly bombarded by neutrons. This allows them to become radioactive, and unlike a nuclear bomb this radioactive material will stay active for minutes to thousands of years, though most of the concerning stuff will be gone after 300 to 400 years; you’d be able to hug a cask of the stuff after just 10 years.

This is why the Chernobyl and Fukushima sites are not okay for human habitation and won’t be for some time, but Hiroshima and Nagasaki are flourishing cities; length of time material is exposed to neutrons.

--- [my comments]

Know there are some TV shows like Chernobyl, etc I wonder how this colors the view of nuclear weapons (fallout)? I've never seen it, but I'm going to guess Hollywood oversimplification / ignorance has a similar DISTORTION effect as all the movies that relate to "viruses and pathogens" has on the general public re: COVID. - like Resident Evil, World War Z, Outbreak, Contagion, The Last Ship, etc...

---


Thus in a nuclear war, no significant LONG-TERM environmental effects...fallout will dissipate rapidly.

Of course, blast radius of average nuke missile is going to be much larger than Hiroshima / Nagasaki - but that's besides the point.

A nuclear bomb emits a high initial surge of radiation and then it falls off rapidly. You also have the blast effect.

A nuclear incident like Chernobyl emits a lower amount of radiation than a nuclear bomb but it is constant for a longer period of time and can eventually contaminate a larger area.

a reply to: dontneedaname

Even a limited nuclear exchange would throw enough dust into the upper atmosphere thus block sunlight and lower global temperatures by at least one degree Celsius chances are the result being a nuclear winter that could last decades.

As to the radioactivity released that can depend on a few factors blast height and yield of the device being two of them.

They produce a complex mix around 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-life's ranging from fractions of a second to millions of years.

You may find this article interesting.

www.britannica.com...

a reply to: dontneedaname

Thus in a nuclear war, no significant LONG-TERM environmental effects...fallout will dissipate rapidly.

When it's just one or two bombs that's true. Go full global nuclear exchange and there will me no dissipation but saturation. Besides that, full exchange would mean there's not lot's of places where one could be in civilization and not be directly affected. If most of the land is irradiated that's different than a city or two. There's going to be influx of new healthy people, water can be brought from outside...That looks different when most places are affected.

It's like taking a dump in a lake, no big deal, it's good fertilizer. But if a whole town is taking a dump at the same time, that's going to be a problem. There is only so much the environment can do, only so much room for dissipation to safe levels.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Apparently a nuclear exchange between the likes of even Pakistan and India could be enough trigger a mini ice-age and cause a global famine with the potential to kill billions of people around the globe.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

And the wild pigs push their snouts ever deeper into the rich soil of the Bayerische Wald.

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2
Munching on those tasty radioactive mushrooms.

Oh these beasts are taken one by one with everything we have. Thermal visions, silencers. I thought about doing the hunting license but it's the hardest exam you can take in Germany that isn't educational and not cheap.

My landlords Blaser R8 fitted with thermal vision and a silencer, a dream to shoot (without the thermal, was at the shooting range). Butt stock fully adjustable, it feels like it's a part of your body/extension. You can take out the whole trigger group with the magazine and modify the trigger behavior on site in seconds. If you remove it the rifle is unuseable and absolutely safe to handle. Stick it in and you're fire ready when you hear the click. Chamber and go.

It's a shame we are not allowed to use tannerite here.

a reply to: andy06shake

Dirty bombs come to mind and it's not like a nuclear weapon can't be altered or enhanced and yes it seems to me people tend to forget that the targets will be left burning.

Just one major city burnt to the ground would be devastating and it won't just be one. I dare say there'd be retaliatory strikes even if it was a ridiculous situation like South Africa nuking Reykjavik.

originally posted by: andy06shake
Apparently a nuclear exchange between the likes of even Pakistan and India could be enough trigger a mini ice-age and cause a global famine with the potential to kill billions of people around the globe.

So we get India and Pakistan to go at it and cancel out Global Warming.

It's all hypothetical BS.

Nothing personal andy06shake I couldn't resist.

a reply to: RAY1990

Dirty bombs have the same effect as Chernobyl. In an atomic explosion energy is used in the blast, thus reducing the amount left in the fallout. With a dirty bomb the explosive energy is external and doesn't reduce the nuclear energy, it just distributes the particles, leaving them with their energy intact.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Somewhat more of a domino effect once those toys get chucked out the pram JIMC5499.

Most of the world would starve to death within the first year alone never mind global warming.

There were proposals in the 60/70s to detonate hydrogen bombs in the upper atmosphere thus negate Global Warming if memory serves.

As to personal, im in Scotland mate, not India or Pakistan, cant see why i would take it personal. LoL

a reply to: JIMC5499

Cobalt doped nukes look rather nasty.

"Theoretically, a device containing 510 metric tons of Co-59 can spread 1 g of the material to each square km of the Earth's surface (510,000,000 km2). If one assumes that all of the material is converted to Co-60 at 100 percent efficiency and if it is spread evenly across the Earth's surface, it is possible for a single bomb to kill every person on Earth."

a reply to: andy06shake
There's something ringing in the back of my head about that. Do you remember the mechanism behind it? Jet stream affected?

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I know the likes of the RAND corporation and other think tanks have interests and conducted studies regarding nuclear detonations where weather and climate are concerned.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Yes they'd have a similar affect, it all depends on what the user intended. Intent would be area denial although there's the fear of a rogue agent acquiring the materials to make such a weapon or fail to detonate a stolen warhead.

Only about 1kg of the little boy bomb went under fission so it's not impossible for a lesser nuclear power to have a device fail. That said chances would be such a weapon would be designed to be dirty.

Nobody would admit to having salted or cobalt bombs though would they? I was always led to believe they'd be used in an India/Pakistan conflict.

originally posted by: andy06shake
There were proposals in the 60/70s to detonate hydrogen bombs in the upper atmosphere thus negate Global Warming if memory serves.

That was to fight Global Cooling. We were supposed to be in another Ice Age by now.

When I said "Nothing personal" I didn't want you to think that I was criticizing your post. Scotland, haven't been there since 1987. Had a great time. What I can remember of it. My ship pulled into Portsmouth and some of the Royal Navy guys we hosted in Florida returned the favor. I was getting out and took a few days leave. It was a three day pub crawl.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Technically we are still living through an ice age.

Think it was something to do with "Alternative 1/2/3".

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dontneedaname

Even a limited nuclear exchange would throw enough dust into the upper atmosphere thus block sunlight and lower global temperatures by at least one degree Celsius chances are the result being a nuclear winter that could last decades.

As to the radioactivity released that can depend on a few factors blast height and yield of the device being two of them.

They produce a complex mix around 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-life's ranging from fractions of a second to millions of years.

You may find this article interesting.

www.britannica.com...

Starting point being Plutonium that is normally decaying and that decay causes the environment around to become radioactive based on their elemental content. The Calcium in our bones when the radiation exposure occurs we know often changes to the element Strontium for instance. It doesn't matter if it is Chernobyl or a Nuclear blast if the starting materials are radioactive material we study and use currently. It is bad.

I believe we can easily handle these materials and the powers the be need us to not have cheap energy that is renewable. The spent fuel can be recycled and reused. There have been patents for "inherently safe reactors" and we don't have many being used that I know of now. Probably the Navy's top secret nuclear subs will have safer ones or the fleet would be dead.

They have continent killers, 1,000 mega ton nukes, To dangerous to test fire, either underground or in space, this is what happens when endless resources are thrown at nuclear warhead technology, theoretically tested, built and above top secret as in Presidents eyes only, these continent killers exist, and thank God, for if Satan seeks to destroy Gods kingdom, this will cause the least suffering, as no where in any state or province will you escape it’s instant obliteration of billions of lives into light.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: dontneedaname

Even a limited nuclear exchange would throw enough dust into the upper atmosphere thus block sunlight and lower global temperatures by at least one degree Celsius chances are the result being a nuclear winter that could last decades.

As to the radioactivity released that can depend on a few factors blast height and yield of the device being two of them.

They produce a complex mix around 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-life's ranging from fractions of a second to millions of years.

You may find this article interesting.

www.britannica.com...

I do find it interesting.


A nuclear explosion produces a complex mix of more than 300 different isotopes of dozens of elements, with half-lifes from fractions of a second to millions of years. The total radioactivity of the fission products is extremely large at first, but it falls off at a fairly rapid rate as a result of radioactive decay. Seven hours after a nuclear explosion, residual radioactivity will have decreased to about 10 percent of its amount at 1 hour, and after another 48 hours it will have decreased to 1 percent. (The rule of thumb is that for every sevenfold increase in time after the explosion, the radiation dose rate decreases by a factor of 10.)