4 ms·

Is the amount of radiation and heavy metals being released by Fukushima significantly more than was released by the nuclear testing (that is, blowing up islands

Is the amount of radiation and heavy metals being released by Fukushima significantly more than was released by the nuclear testing (that is, blowing up islands with atomic bombs) in the Pacific in the 50s and 60s?

InclinedPlane 13y ago
In short: no, not by a long shot
- thrownaway2424 13y ago
  Are you sure? Random information on the web suggests that nuclear testing in total released something like 10^18 Bq, while Wikipedia suggests Fukushima released a similar amount (.5E18 Bq). http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c2.pdf http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c2.pdf
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    The 10^18 Bq is from Cs-137 alone, which is only one of many radio-isotopes released by nuclear weapons. Others include: I-131, Co-60, Sr-90, Am-241, Kr-85, and of course U-235 and Pu-239. Here's a good analysis: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/technical_vol_1_chapter_3.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/t... Check out Table 3.3, which is deposition of radioactive fallout in the continental United States (not worldwide). You'll see that nearly 2,000 times as many Becquerels of radiation from nuclear fallout comes from isotopes other than Cs-137. That's because many of those isotopes are short-lived and so generate much higher doses of radiation. You'll note that over 4,000 petabecquerels of radioactive nuclides were deposited on the continental US alone through nuclear testing. And that does not include the Pacific nuclear testing, such as Ivy and Castle, where most of the largest tests took place. Nor does it include the impact of Soviet, Chinese, or French tests (which included several multi-megaton tests including significant fission yields which would have produced enormous quantities of fallout). Remember that folks who were 40 miles away from just one nuclear test, Castle Bravo, suffered from acute radiation poisoning. We haven't seen anything like that happen with Fukushima, because the radionuclide output is significantly different. The fact is that the majority of radionuclides from the Fukushima disaster come from old nuclear fuel, fuel that still contains Cs-137 but where the very much more hazardous short-lived isotopes have already decayed away. This is in contrast to the situation with Chernobyl where the reactor itself experienced runaway nuclear fission activity before being disassembled by a steam explosion and catching fire, dispersing enormous quantities of extremely nasty isotopes into the air. This isn't to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster but compared to what's been dumped into the Earth's biosphere already it's not terribly frightening. We're not all going to start glowing in the dark or growing extra arms and legs from Fukushima.
- rosser 13y ago
  [citation needed] EDIT: preemptively, I'm not anti-nuclear, though I am rather skeptical of the way we're currently doing it.
  - InclinedPlane 13y ago
    See my other reply.
desmondwolfe 13y ago
Even more recently: the French were blasting off bombs in the Pacific in 1996
- hingisundhorsa 13y ago
  It gets worse, France actively committed "terrorist' activities against organizations opposed to the French using French occupied Polynesia as a location to test their nukes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior I guess we were just as bad with our activities there, but at least we're ashamed of it now.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

In short: no, not by a long shot

thrownaway2424 13y ago
Are you sure? Random information on the web suggests that nuclear testing in total released something like 10^18 Bq, while Wikipedia suggests Fukushima released a similar amount (.5E18 Bq). http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c2.pdf http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp157-c2.pdf
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  The 10^18 Bq is from Cs-137 alone, which is only one of many radio-isotopes released by nuclear weapons. Others include: I-131, Co-60, Sr-90, Am-241, Kr-85, and of course U-235 and Pu-239. Here's a good analysis: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/technical_vol_1_chapter_3.pdf http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/fallout/feasibilitystudy/t... Check out Table 3.3, which is deposition of radioactive fallout in the continental United States (not worldwide). You'll see that nearly 2,000 times as many Becquerels of radiation from nuclear fallout comes from isotopes other than Cs-137. That's because many of those isotopes are short-lived and so generate much higher doses of radiation. You'll note that over 4,000 petabecquerels of radioactive nuclides were deposited on the continental US alone through nuclear testing. And that does not include the Pacific nuclear testing, such as Ivy and Castle, where most of the largest tests took place. Nor does it include the impact of Soviet, Chinese, or French tests (which included several multi-megaton tests including significant fission yields which would have produced enormous quantities of fallout). Remember that folks who were 40 miles away from just one nuclear test, Castle Bravo, suffered from acute radiation poisoning. We haven't seen anything like that happen with Fukushima, because the radionuclide output is significantly different. The fact is that the majority of radionuclides from the Fukushima disaster come from old nuclear fuel, fuel that still contains Cs-137 but where the very much more hazardous short-lived isotopes have already decayed away. This is in contrast to the situation with Chernobyl where the reactor itself experienced runaway nuclear fission activity before being disassembled by a steam explosion and catching fire, dispersing enormous quantities of extremely nasty isotopes into the air. This isn't to downplay the seriousness of the Fukushima disaster but compared to what's been dumped into the Earth's biosphere already it's not terribly frightening. We're not all going to start glowing in the dark or growing extra arms and legs from Fukushima.
rosser 13y ago
[citation needed] EDIT: preemptively, I'm not anti-nuclear, though I am rather skeptical of the way we're currently doing it.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  See my other reply.

desmondwolfe 13y ago

Even more recently: the French were blasting off bombs in the Pacific in 1996

hingisundhorsa 13y ago
It gets worse, France actively committed "terrorist' activities against organizations opposed to the French using French occupied Polynesia as a location to test their nukes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior I guess we were just as bad with our activities there, but at least we're ashamed of it now.