Theories Discussion > KGB / Radiation / Military involvement
Reasons against a low yield nuclear test
Star man:
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 13, 2019, 01:45:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 08, 2019, 08:45:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ryan on March 08, 2019, 08:08:21 AM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 05, 2019, 11:42:26 PM ---In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.
--- End quote ---
I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.
Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.
I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.
My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.
--- End quote ---
Ryan,
I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?
Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres. Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests. The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground. I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size. If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it. Have a read of my thread. Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.
Regards
Star man
--- End quote ---
I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon ! ? And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.
--- End quote ---
1kt - 3 kt is not that big. Anything over about 800 metres away is fairly safe from structural damage
We don't really know what was found at the tent. Also after 3 weeks the high levels of radiation would have died away. It also allows time for the material to be further dispersed. Much of the snow had been scoured away and some fresh snow blown in. The snow would have shielded beta radiation to some extent.
sarapuk:
--- Quote from: Star man on March 13, 2019, 04:13:31 PM ---
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 13, 2019, 01:45:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 08, 2019, 08:45:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ryan on March 08, 2019, 08:08:21 AM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 05, 2019, 11:42:26 PM ---In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.
--- End quote ---
I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.
Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.
I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.
My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.
--- End quote ---
Ryan,
I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?
Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres. Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests. The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground. I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size. If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it. Have a read of my thread. Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.
Regards
Star man
--- End quote ---
I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon ! ? And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.
--- End quote ---
1kt - 3 kt is not that big. Anything over about 800 metres away is fairly safe from structural damage
We don't really know what was found at the tent. Also after 3 weeks the high levels of radiation would have died away. It also allows time for the material to be further dispersed. Much of the snow had been scoured away and some fresh snow blown in. The snow would have shielded beta radiation to some extent.
--- End quote ---
Its interesting discussing this aspect of the mystery. As you probably know there is much controversy even today about the exact effects of the explosions of Nuclear Weapons. Even reliable scientific sources can differ a fair bit with one another. And the exact extent and effect of FALLOUT is probably the biggest talking point. One thing I have noticed is that many sources are far to pessimistic about the AMOUNT of Radiation that Nuclear Weapons give off once they have exploded. By pessimistic I mean that they are of the opinion that HUGE AMOUNTS of deadly Radioactive Particles are given off and travel hundreds of miles and cause instant death ETC ETC. Not even the CHERNOBYL disaster caused that sort of EVENT. So you see where Iam coming from ! ?
Star man:
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 14, 2019, 02:52:49 PM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 13, 2019, 04:13:31 PM ---
--- Quote from: sarapuk on March 13, 2019, 01:45:01 PM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 08, 2019, 08:45:20 AM ---
--- Quote from: Ryan on March 08, 2019, 08:08:21 AM ---
--- Quote from: Star man on March 05, 2019, 11:42:26 PM ---In my hypothesis the fallout cloud would contain a high concentration of nitrogen dioxide which is very toxic and would be cause immediate distress to the hikers forcing them to flee.
--- End quote ---
I'm curious what sources suggest that nuclear weapons produce enough nitrogen dioxide to poison humans? I do see sources that atmospheric tests produce nitrogen dioxide, but I question the relationship to the DPI.
Unfortunately, we have data points in the hundreds of thousands about what fission weapons do to human bodies. In my research on this, I've never heard of nitrogen dioxide poisoning as a cause of death. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were easily 5-15 times higher yield than the proposed tactical nuke detonation in DP, so I'd think any nuclear process that generated nitrogen dioxide would have made 5-15 times as much in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I've heard of people killed by the shock wave, and incinerated or having their skin burned off by heat. Buildings can collapse on people, or impale people with debris. The blast can trigger fires that kill people. But I've also heard that scientists were surprised to find survivors from near ground zero, who had been sheltered from the shock wave and heat. Supposedly, this inspired the US "Duck and Cover" civil defense campaign.
I'd also think that any nitrogen dioxide produced would be widely dispersed by the shock wave such that it wouldn't be at toxic concentrations.
My impression is that if a tactical nuke did go off in DP, the hikers clearly were shielded from the heat, or it would have been obvious to everyone. And if they survived the initial blast, nothing would remain that would threaten their survival in the short term or compel them to leave their campsite. (Even if they took lethal radiation doses, it takes a surprisingly long time to die from it; Slotin took 9 days to die after the "demon core" criticality incident.) I'm not seeing a mechanism whereby a poisonous nitrogen dioxide ground fog would remain, which would compel them to leave the area. But if there's evidence to the contrary, I'm definitely open to revising my opinion.
--- End quote ---
Ryan,
I don’t know if you have already read my thread on low yield nuclear device in this section?
Basically, a nuke produces about 5 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide per 1kt within a fire ball of about 500 metres. Normally this rises and dispersed in the atmosphere. But at extremely low temperatures the fire ball cools much more rapidly and any volatiles will condense out quickly. The mushroom cloud will collapse much more quickly not allowing it time to disperse as per most tests. The nitrogen dioxide and fallout dusts will settle out into a toxic cloud hugging the ground. I have calculated that even for a 1kt device it could create a toxic cloud tens of square kilometres in size. If this happened up wind of the camp site then become exposed to it. Have a read of my thread. Also look up nuclear bomb and nitrogen dioxide.
Regards
Star man
--- End quote ---
I think your figures suggest a very big Nuclear Weapon ! ? And if that was the case we would expect other factors to come into the equation. And that means we could expect the usual factors after the explosion of a very big Nuclear Weapon. And that means we could expect to find the usual RADIOACTIVE PARTICLES in the vicinity of the Dyatlov Groups Tent. But apparently no such Particles were found.
--- End quote ---
1kt - 3 kt is not that big. Anything over about 800 metres away is fairly safe from structural damage
We don't really know what was found at the tent. Also after 3 weeks the high levels of radiation would have died away. It also allows time for the material to be further dispersed. Much of the snow had been scoured away and some fresh snow blown in. The snow would have shielded beta radiation to some extent.
--- End quote ---
Its interesting discussing this aspect of the mystery. As you probably know there is much controversy even today about the exact effects of the explosions of Nuclear Weapons. Even reliable scientific sources can differ a fair bit with one another. And the exact extent and effect of FALLOUT is probably the biggest talking point. One thing I have noticed is that many sources are far to pessimistic about the AMOUNT of Radiation that Nuclear Weapons give off once they have exploded. By pessimistic I mean that they are of the opinion that HUGE AMOUNTS of deadly Radioactive Particles are given off and travel hundreds of miles and cause instant death ETC ETC. Not even the CHERNOBYL disaster caused that sort of EVENT. So you see where Iam coming from ! ?
--- End quote ---
Yes, there are many people who don't really understand. Most of the deadly radiation is within the first few hours. If I remember correctly, the intensity of radiation is 60 times lower even after the first hour. It's still dangerous but relatively safe after 2 weeks.
90% of radiation is carried away at the top of the mushroom cloud for smaller yields.
Also a few kilotonnes exploded as an air burst is not that much. The chelyabinsk meteorite exploded with force of 33 Hiroshima's at altitude of 18k but on the ground it only managed to break a few windows and shake things up a bit. Could have been a completely different story if it was 10 miles lower of course.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version