
Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb - iProject
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2012/07/16/156851175/five-men-agree-to-stand-directly-under-an-exploding-nuclear-bomb?ps=cprs
======
kitsune_
Operation Plumbbob, troops in front of an exploding nuclear bomb (@2:50):
<http://youtu.be/7mV0Lt2PUjI?t=2m50s>

Tactical nuclear artillery being fired (@0:50):
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GBjlUOROY&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46GBjlUOROY&feature=related)

~~~
delinka
Holy Hell. That second video really drives home the devastation caused in the
blast wave. Paint on vehicles turned instantly to ash and blew away. Wooden
structures instantly caught fire. What was unexpected to me (I saw this in the
first video which made me aware of it) was the 'backwash' after the initial
shock wave.

Terrifying.

~~~
cubicle
The prompt X-rays from the physics package heat up a lot of air very quickly.
This expands, producing the supersonic shockwave front.

Then the fireball, being very hot and much less dense than the air around it,
rises. Air is sucked _towards_ ground zero, producing the backwash, and the
characteristic mushroom cloud of any very large explosion.

~~~
klodolph
And the fireball created by the X-rays is, for a moment, hidden behind the
shock wave. This makes a "double flash" which can be detected from orbit
without even the need for a camera, just point a photodetector at the Earth's
surface.

~~~
arethuza
Bhangmeters are one kind of specialised photo detector used to detect nuclear
explosions:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhangmeter>

I'm pretty sure these were used in bunkers (at least in the UK) as well as
satellites.

------
BHSPitMonkey
> "Quite a few have died from cancer," he told reporter Bill Broad. "No doubt
> it was related to the testing."

Is there really no doubt? I didn't see any more details in the article
pertaining to the deaths, but for the sake of not implying that correlation ==
causation, I would point out that most cancer patients were never involved in
nuclear testing (and, conversely, the cameraman who said the above also shows
contradictory results).

~~~
yanowitz
As the saying goes (roughly): "correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's a
good place to start looking".

Are cancer incidence rates higher among those around nuclear explosions? Yes.
[http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-
ex...](http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-exposure-
cancer.html/)

Is there a plausible mechanism by which radiation exposure leads to cancer?
yes.
[http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_...](http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_9_5.html)

These two facts greatly increase the probability of linkage.

~~~
adrianwaj
I've heard from anti-vaccine advocates that a number of diseases were on the
decline, and that vaccine use was insignifcant in that decline. But the
vaccines were introduced anyway so you could say it was the vaccines that did
it but other factors were at hand.

Sometimes I think correlation not only doesn't equal causation, but counters
causation, like a son doing well not because of his overbearing mother, but in
spite of it. (She would claim the credit anyhow.) - I've read about vaccines
causing diseases they are proclaimed to guard against - "weaponized vaccines."

~~~
chernevik
See chart 1.

[http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-
infecti...](http://www.ispub.com/journal/the-internet-journal-of-infectious-
diseases/volume-2-number-2/deterministic-modeling-of-infectious-diseases-
measles-cycles-and-the-role-of-births-and-vaccination.html)

The case for the major vaccines is open and shut. In the past fifteen years
the roster has been populated with some stuff that's less clear, but
targetting diseases that are much less dangerous. If you are going to make
arguments against vaccines like measles, polio, diphtheria, tetanus you
_really_ must do more homework. These are very serious diseases and we really
don't want casual free-riders avoiding vaccination.

~~~
adrianwaj
Thanks, I am aware of Measles being useful. How about Hep A/B/C, Meningitis
and others? More importantly, illnesses and syndromes correlating with
increased vaccine usage? That's 1 illness and 1 paper.

I don't think vaccine usage is an open and shut case at all and there are many
sub-issues and I'm not getting into a micro-discussion now on this thread.

~~~
chernevik
If you want to make distinctions among vaccines that's one thing. Questioning
"vaccine usage" generally is another. "Vaccines" have saved millions of lives
from smallpox, polio, measles, DPT.

------
rahim
One of the two authors of the post (Robert Krulwich) is also a co-host on a
fantastic podcast called Radiolab. Their most recent episode is about this
topic and they tell the story of a Japanese man that was in the blast radius
at Hiroshima, went home to Nagasaki, injured, and was caught in the second
explosion as well!

[http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-
blog/2012/jul/16/doub...](http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-
blog/2012/jul/16/double-blasted/)

------
bjornsing
> Some of you may have noticed the nuclear missile video says the explosion
> took place 10,000 feet above our group of soldiers. Apparently, the video is
> wrong. The Natural Resources Defense Council checked the numbers and says
> the explosion, part of Operation PLUMBBOB, was actually at 18,500 feet.

Well, there's actually some pretty good proof here that the explosion was
closer than that: I count the time between light and sound to be slightly less
than 13 seconds (and voices sound right so I'm assuming the recording is
accurate in that respect). That would mean the explosion is about 14 000 feet
away from the camera.

~~~
dhughes
Me too!

distance = 1,116.44 feet/second * 12 seconds = 13,397.28 feet

~~~
backprojection
Significant figures, you have too many of them.

~~~
dhughes
13,397 feet

~~~
backprojection
14,000 feet. Sorry to nitpick! You go with the min of the sigfigs in the
expression, which here is 2 = sigfigs(12) < sigfigs(13,397.28) = 7

~~~
dhughes
Ha, don't worry about it.

I was thinking it was the significant digits after the decimal. It's always
been my weakness calculation-wise.

How about 14E3 feet? :P

~~~
backprojection
much better!

~~~
dhughes
Or 1.4E4 to put it in proper scientific notation.

------
DCoder
Compare that to a training exercise the soviets carried out - 40+ thousand
troops engaging in combat while a nuke is detonated overhead:
[http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1954USSR1....](http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1954USSR1.html)

------
ars
18,500 feet is 3.5 miles. So is there a different between being 3.5 miles
under a bomb vs being 3.5 miles away from a bomb?

~~~
smacktoward
Yes. Studies of nuclear explosion impact effects distinguish between "ground
burst" and "air burst" detonations. Ground bursts typically have a smaller
overall radius of damage, but do more intense damage at or near ground zero.
Air bursts spread their effects across a wider radius, but damage is
relatively more evenly distributed. Ground bursts also produce more fallout,
since they dig up and irradiate earth and scatter it to the winds.

~~~
ars
Reply to 'gcb' who's account is hellbanned, so I can't reply to him directly.

No: Ground bursts cause way more fallout. Air pretty much can not become
radioactive no matter how powerful the bomb. But soil can, so it becomes
radioactive, then is scattered by the wind.

The fallout from the bomb itself is different and is the same for both - but
it's a smaller component, since there isn't that much of it.

------
SoftwareMaven
If you want more details on the "Downwinders", this is a pretty good piece:
[http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nuclear...](http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nucleartestingandthedownwinders.html)

I remember seeing some statistics when I lived in St. George 15 years ago
(like high school dropouts) from 18 years after the tests. There was a huge
increase in dropouts (and other negative indicators) as the downwinder babies
reached adulthood.

~~~
InclinedPlane
I wouldn't trust statistics like that unless they had strong differences
betweeen other cities over the same time period. There's been a hell of a lot
of social change over the last half century, assuming something like dropout
rates should remain constant over a period of decades is a non-starter.

------
anonova
The article says that the video is from [the National Security Archive][1].
Does anyone know where exactly the raw video can be downloaded?

[1]: <http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb332/index.htm>

~~~
eli
You could email and ask. I'm guessing they got it through a FOIA request.
<http://archive.org/> hosts a lot of public domain gov't videos too.

------
iamdann
It's amazing how these men have went on to live such long lives.

As someone who has only cursory knowledge of atomic explosions and radiation
damage, I was always under the impression that standing under an explosion
such as this would almost guarantee a death during or shortly after.

I suppose it's a lot like HIV. Unprotected sex with an HIV positive person
doesn't * guarantee* disease contraction, which is the impression I was always
get. Not worth the risk, by any means, but still different than I had always
been taught.

~~~
jerf
If you read up on the history of the era and combine that with a study of the
real effects of nuclear bombs, it becomes evident that there was an
uncoordinated, but nevertheless systematic, effort to grossly overstate the
dangers of nuclear war. A game of "Telephone" [1] was played, where at each
step the nukes got more dangerous. If nukes were as dangerous to the world as
popular culture today imagines, there would be no popular culture; most people
grossly underestimate the number of test explosions that were set off at
various times. Once again, Wikipedia to the rescue:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_weapons_tests> :

"The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count)
between 1945 and 1992.... The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests (by
official count)[3] between 1949 and 1990... France conducted 210 nuclear tests
between February 13, 1960 and January 27, 1996..."

Fallout isn't as dangerous as it is commonly portrayed, the bomb's effects are
often overstated on every dimension, etc.

But of course, who _really_ wants to go out of their way to correct the
record? A number of people reading this will find a strong emotional
inclination to leap to the conclusion that this post is pro-nuclear-war
advocacy or something. But the truth is that while nukes can't destroy the
world or destroy the entire ecosystem (even "nuclear winter" is highly
questionable, especially in light of subsequent experiences with high-
atmosphere particles, such as in the Kuwait oil fires), they still _can_ kill
millions directly and effectively destroy civilization as we know it by wiping
out potentially every major city in the world (and get a good bit of damage on
the medium-sized ones, too), killing billions more. Perhaps it isn't so bad
that the dangers are played up a bit. The real dangers they pose are much
harder to understand than the Hollywood B-grade movie version in popular
culture, but still quite bad.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers>

~~~
wallflower
War Games like visualization

[http://www.visualnews.com/2011/05/06/visualized-nuclear-
expl...](http://www.visualnews.com/2011/05/06/visualized-nuclear-
explosions-1945-to-1998/)

~~~
arethuza
There is also the Defcon game that uses a rather funky Wargames style retro
interface:

<http://www.introversion.co.uk/defcon/>

------
mattparlane
What I'd like to know is why the recording equipment kept functioning -- isn't
an EMP supposed to wipe out sensitive electronics?

At least that's what the movies tell me...

~~~
pjscott
Vacuum tubes hold up better than today's little transistors, and there are
ways of EMP-protecting things, like putting them in Faraday cages.

~~~
mattparlane
Fairy nuff, I thought transistors might have been used in 1957 but I guess
not.

------
twfarland
They all sound kind of high. Although such a power is terrible, it must be
pretty exhilarating.

------
bearmf
This video is so Dr. Strangelove

------
ck2
Think about how all our nuclear tests actually raised carbon 14 levels to such
a high point it can actually be used as a marker to determine the age of an
object anywhere in the world.

Then think about our crazy high cancer rates.

~~~
ekianjo
C14 exists naturally as well. The reason you can date C14 containing objects
has NOTHING to do with nuclear bombs.

~~~
kragniz
Nuclear testing did change the levels of C14 significantly [1]. Carbon dating
is impossible for dates after the '50s, when large amounts of nuclear testing
started.

[1]
[http://www.sciencecourseware.org/VirtualDating/files/RC_3.ht...](http://www.sciencecourseware.org/VirtualDating/files/RC_3.html)

~~~
ekianjo
OK, but in my understanding, C14 dating was not really used to date anything
recent in the first place. Usually it's used to date old items, monuments,
bones, etc...

So, what's your point exactly ?

~~~
polymatter
I think the suggestion is C14 dating would be useful to date recent events
(perhaps in accidents or crime scenes) were nuclear tests not so common in the
50s. Humanity lost a useful tool (dating recent events) so that we could
develop more devastating nuclear weapons a bit quicker than we otherwise would
have.

Phrased like that it sounds a shame, but I have no idea if this is true or
not. My understanding of C14 dating is that it relys on the half-life of C14
being predictable. But my understanding of radioactive decay is that it is not
perfectly deterministic. This suggests to me that you might need a bit of time
for the radioactive decay to trend to its expected average rate.

------
kristianp
This is amazing, but it's not exactly "Hacker News", is it.

~~~
sophacles
Submission guidelines: _Anything that good hackers would find interesting.
That includes more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a
sentence, the answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual
curiosity._

I found it interesting and the discussion was even better, I've regularly had
a low-grade curiosity about nuclear testing, the effects on people, etc, and a
lot of that was brought up (with references true HN style) in the comments. So
it is exactly hacker news.

Much like in real life as a programmer - it's not always editors, programming
languages etc, sometimes it's just fun. Not too long ago, the whole dev team
ended up roped into a heavy discussion one afternoon, we were debating and
calculating the observed effects of some hypothetical phenomenon, full
whiteboard and math style. The boss comes in and tells us problems with our
math and helps us whip up a quick simulation to figure it out. (this is at a
university, the bosses are pretty smart cookies, professors and the like)
After a couple hours for us (an hour for him), he says, "ok, I guess I should
probably suggest you get back to work, but this was fun!". Amusingly 2 of the
devs got modules back on schedule the next day, apparently we all just needed
some hard but fun and unrelated problem. HN can have that too :)

------
russell
Now we know why no one is afraid of the North Korean nuclear program.

~~~
caf
It is worth pointing out that designing deliberately low-yield nuclear
weapons, like the one used in this test, requires significantly more technical
know-how than a higher-yielding basic design.

------
ses4j
This image needs to become one of the standard meme images.

------
masterponomo
That looks like an episode of "McHale's Navy" with all the dimwits standing
around.

