5 ms·

Why Can People Live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki Now, but Not Chernobyl?

35 points by ibobev 3y ago

carride 3y ago
(2013)
torsday 3y ago
This is the big part: > Little Boy had around 140 pounds of uranium, Fat Man contained about 14 pounds of plutonium and reactor number four had about 180 tons of nuclear fuel.
- ianburrell 3y ago
  Also, nuclear bombs are not that efficient. Little Boy was 1.5% efficient which means only 2 kg of fission products. Fat Man was probably about the same fallout. The two bombs were detonated at altitude so the fallout spread over large area. There was also radiation from explosion but that degraded quickly and was limited to destroyed area.
- solardev 3y ago
  Thanks for this!
cratermoon 3y ago
That the Chernobyl exclusion zone has become an animal sanctuary is held out as an example of ability of ecosystems to tolerate low-level radioactivity. After the humans moved out, the animals flourished. But I have another theory. Maybe the ecosystem isn't doing all that well. It just appears so in comparison with conditions when human activity dominated. Compared to an uncontaminated, undisturbed ecosystem, it's just doing so-so. The theory being that the presence of human activity is worse for ecosystems than low-level radiation. James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them. [1] That implicitly suggests that a little radiation is better for wildlife than human presence, at least according to Lovelock. 1 https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/
- gizmo686 3y ago
  Wouldn't we expect ecosystems to tolerate low level radiation. Even among humans, the concern is long term cancer risk. It is a feat of modern society that humans routinely live long enough for cancer to be a major concern. Most wildlife would probably be dead long before the radiation can kill them. Not sure how this applies to life like trees. I assume that they are more resilient to radiation in general, as they can live indefinitely, whereas humans seem to have finite time before cancer becomes inevitable.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    We would expect them to tolerate background radiation, but evolutionarily I don't see any reason why higher radiation tolerance would be selected for. Certain around the time of things like the Permian/Triassic extinction event, organisms with a higher tolerance for UV would tend to be selected for, but otherwise I would expect other pressures to be more influential.
    - Clamchop 3y ago
      My hunch on that is it might not need to be selected for, cells having largely the same features. Most animals don't live as long, so they have less time to develop cancers. (Plants and fungi of course get cancers as well but the cells are immobile avoiding metastasis and they don't have single points of failure like organs.) But it's just a hunch.
- rcme 3y ago
  “Tolerate” as in survive, but the wildlife is clearly impacted.
- shrubble 3y ago
  I would worry that animals would accumulate radiation in their bodies over time, similar to how tuna can end up with large amounts of mercury or other toxic metals.
  - 3y ago
SnorkelTan 3y ago
Was there more discussion of Chernobyl? I just saw one paragraph and then scrolls of ads and no more text. That site is pretty awful.
10g1k 3y ago
https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875218/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1823351/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1823351/ https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/programs/roadmap_e/health_effects-en/late-en/leukemia/ https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/programs/roadmap_e/health_effects-...
fomine3 3y ago
I want to emphasize that people also have been lived in Fukushima without problem, because it's the name of third biggest prefecture in Japan. I wish the nuclear plants had different name with smaller area name, maybe Futaba plant.
_ph_ 3y ago
One thing to remember about Chernobyl is, it isn't only the exclusion zone which has been contaminated, but places all over Europe got radioactive contamination too. In Bavaria this affects mostly the forests (the agricultural areas have been decontaminated by stripping the top soil). There the mushrooms and as a consequence to a larger amount wild boar is affected. As a consequence one shouldn't overeat wild mushrooms from that region and a lot of wild boars have to be destroyed as unfit for consumption.

35 points by ibobev 3y ago

(2013)

This is the big part: > Little Boy had around 140 pounds of uranium, Fat Man contained about 14 pounds of plutonium and reactor number four had about 180 tons of nuclear fuel.

ianburrell 3y ago
Also, nuclear bombs are not that efficient. Little Boy was 1.5% efficient which means only 2 kg of fission products. Fat Man was probably about the same fallout. The two bombs were detonated at altitude so the fallout spread over large area. There was also radiation from explosion but that degraded quickly and was limited to destroyed area.
solardev 3y ago
Thanks for this!

cratermoon 3y ago

That the Chernobyl exclusion zone has become an animal sanctuary is held out as an example of ability of ecosystems to tolerate low-level radioactivity. After the humans moved out, the animals flourished. But I have another theory. Maybe the ecosystem isn't doing all that well. It just appears so in comparison with conditions when human activity dominated. Compared to an uncontaminated, undisturbed ecosystem, it's just doing so-so. The theory being that the presence of human activity is worse for ecosystems than low-level radiation. James Lovelock argued that we could save the rain forests from the ravages of man by burying nuclear waste in them. [1] That implicitly suggests that a little radiation is better for wildlife than human presence, at least according to Lovelock. 1 https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/ https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff-chernobyl/

gizmo686 3y ago
Wouldn't we expect ecosystems to tolerate low level radiation. Even among humans, the concern is long term cancer risk. It is a feat of modern society that humans routinely live long enough for cancer to be a major concern. Most wildlife would probably be dead long before the radiation can kill them. Not sure how this applies to life like trees. I assume that they are more resilient to radiation in general, as they can live indefinitely, whereas humans seem to have finite time before cancer becomes inevitable.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  We would expect them to tolerate background radiation, but evolutionarily I don't see any reason why higher radiation tolerance would be selected for. Certain around the time of things like the Permian/Triassic extinction event, organisms with a higher tolerance for UV would tend to be selected for, but otherwise I would expect other pressures to be more influential.
  - Clamchop 3y ago
    My hunch on that is it might not need to be selected for, cells having largely the same features. Most animals don't live as long, so they have less time to develop cancers. (Plants and fungi of course get cancers as well but the cells are immobile avoiding metastasis and they don't have single points of failure like organs.) But it's just a hunch.
rcme 3y ago
“Tolerate” as in survive, but the wildlife is clearly impacted.
shrubble 3y ago
I would worry that animals would accumulate radiation in their bodies over time, similar to how tuna can end up with large amounts of mercury or other toxic metals.
- 3y ago

SnorkelTan 3y ago

Was there more discussion of Chernobyl? I just saw one paragraph and then scrolls of ads and no more text. That site is pretty awful.

10g1k 3y ago

https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://k1project.columbia.edu/news/hiroshima-and-nagasaki https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875218/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3875218/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1823351/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1823351/ https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/programs/roadmap_e/health_effects-en/late-en/leukemia/ https://www.rerf.or.jp/en/programs/roadmap_e/health_effects-...

fomine3 3y ago

I want to emphasize that people also have been lived in Fukushima without problem, because it's the name of third biggest prefecture in Japan. I wish the nuclear plants had different name with smaller area name, maybe Futaba plant.

_ph_ 3y ago

One thing to remember about Chernobyl is, it isn't only the exclusion zone which has been contaminated, but places all over Europe got radioactive contamination too. In Bavaria this affects mostly the forests (the agricultural areas have been decontaminated by stripping the top soil). There the mushrooms and as a consequence to a larger amount wild boar is affected. As a consequence one shouldn't overeat wild mushrooms from that region and a lot of wild boars have to be destroyed as unfit for consumption.