h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi Hoovooloo,

I just followed your invitation. And here I am to comment. Just some additional info, you may chose to absorb what you want or tell me to go to hell... Just some loose thoughts.

1st... I had some rough drafts on that somewhere in h2g2, you may want to go there (from my homebase perhaps) and take stuff you may think would complement this. As I read in your message, this is going to be a part on a project on warfare. So I'll concentrate my comments on this side of the coin, and not going too much into scientific aspects.

(I think though that an entry on types of radiation should be part of a more scientific project, and not part of a project concerned with 'warfare' but anyway, I don't have the time to discuss this now.)

2nd.. About fall-out disease (from what I've learned)

Right: None of the radiations is really harmless - I think it's good you stress that. The high ionization potential of alpha emmitters and the high penetration lenghth of gamma rays suck... Neutrons have both, so these are particularly perfidious.

3rd. You state: "Most radiation sickness in the aftermath of a nuclear attack will be due to the immediate exposure to gamma radiation from the initial blast, and from continued exposure to residual gamma emitters in fallout." I disagree in some parts.

There are three types of nuclear aftermath (IMO)

1st: The heat and shockwave. If you would be close enough to the blast to be harmed by the gamma radiation, it's probably the supersonic adiabatic blast that would disintegrate you. At a 'safe' distance the gamma radiation has dissipated so much that it would not harm too much (you get exposed to similar amounts of radiation by air travelling or watching too much TV sitting to close to the tube, especially old ones. If you are working with radiomedicine it's even worse. But hey... It's still quite harmful)

2nd: The fallout. Here you have to consider the following: The fallout generated by nuclear device explosions is smaller than the fallout generated by home-made atom-bombs or nuclear plant-explosions. (People tend to forget to add some extra amount of Plutonium when designing home-made bombs. Most of them are way to sub-critical) Anyways. Gamma radiation is only a problem when you get too close to the blasts's epicentre (2 days or so after the explosion itself) At a 'safe' distance it's no problem. Most of the first victims of radiation sickness are therefore fire brigadeers or soldiers that come too close to the epicentre. Most of the fallout stuff generated is solid, so technically it's just a question of wainting for the dust to settle and getting the mess cleaned by robots. (sounds too easy) -- OH and remember: Hydrogen or Neutron bombs generate very little fallout. So it's practically no long term dmaage when you use these ones. (Fortunately they are way more complicated to build)

3rd: The long term damage (here comes the difficult part)

The initial massive gamma emmission has faded after some days even near the epicentre of a nuclear explosion - add some extra months in the case of nuclear-plants, because of the big radioactive chunks lying all over the place - but we're not really talking about that here). The real big problem is the element Radon, a gaseous element with a short half life of some few days (4 or so). That's the stuff people inhale even kilometres away from the blast. Once in the lung chances are it decays and transforms to Polonium 218, solid(!), which has a half life of 3 minutes, this one alpha-decays to Lead (which is stable). OK, there is gamma-radiation also being produced inside the lung, but it's the alpha radiation of the Polonium 218, that's going to give people cancer, destroy tissue and do the massive harm.

Summing up. What I am trying to say is: The gamma radiation sickness is a local problem after a nuclear device's explosion, 'only' people who get near the centre of the blast after a few days are affected by it.

Gamma radiation exposure is (compared to the other effects of the BOMB - namely long term Rn-exposition, mass destruction etc.) relatively harmless in the case of nuclear weapons. It poses a much greater problem in the case of plant-explosions, old medical equipment, old not well shielded cathode ray tubes etc.

OK enough for now, I'll wait for your answer Hoovooloo.

HELL

Take a look at:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A546068

Bye,

HELL

Ummm... Well? Did you look at it?

I don't know how all this Uni-stuff works.... But, don't these two entries (this one and mine) overlap too much?

Anyways... See you later somewhere.

HELL

Oops. I didn't subscribe in the first place. I did look. I'm not sure how the uni stuff works either. I know the entries overlap, but I think there's space for both. Yours I would say is for the people looking for the physics, the student or the interested layman. Mine is for the soldier. It's only trying to tell the pragmatic details of which one you need a bunker for and which one you need an NBC suit for. For that reason I'd say they both have a place in the Guide. But then, I would say that, wouldn't I?

Would that be right?

H.

Okay I agree, (how couldn't I?)

But I'd use another title for this one to make the distinction clear.

Just in case.

Bye,

H too.

Good idea. Consider it done.

H.