3 ms·
97% energy coming from fusion is in no way proof of this being clean bomb. 3% from fission is still many times more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb. We also don
by lmilcin 6y ago
97% energy coming from fusion is in no way proof of this being clean bomb. 3% from fission is still many times more than Hiroshima or Nagasaki bomb. We also don't know how much fissile material there was (and how much was dispersed in environment). Because the bomb was detonated high up there wouldn't be hotspots on the ground but the release was still there, dispersed for all humanity for decades to come.
Calling the bomb clean would be like calling somebody's vomit clean because it was diluted in large amount of water and then sprayed on all walls so there are no large concentrations of it.
- m0zg 6y agoWell, that lake your city draws their drinking water from? I guarantee someone vomited, peed and shat into it. The issue is the concentration. Remember that because this was 4KM above ground, the resulting fallout was spread over tens of thousands of square kilometers.
- DennisP 6y agoEverything's relative. Of course it generated more radioactivity than Hiroshima's measly fifteen kilotons, but for a fifty megaton bomb it was pretty darn clean.
- sudosysgen 6y agoSure, but that radiation is dispersed over much, much greater distances and you need less radiation to give the effect intended. The end result is that the explosion zone is not nearly as radioactive as either Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Also, there is vomit all over the pavements and walls of your city. Just in low concentrations.