DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Yanik

wrote in news:a1469d1f-a867-4a0a-8ed5-
:

On Mar 1, 2:00*pm, " wrote:
as to hiroshima they were really low yield weapons detonated at higher
altitude, which caused more damage but created less radioactive
debris. no doubt this helped in rebuilding.

well,they were air-burst,not ground burst,which digs a lot of dirt up and
spreads it.I'm not so sure about "higher altitude",as nukes usually are
detonated at around 3-5 thousand feet.

Yeah, if you consider 20Ktons low yield. It did wipe out the city.
As to how much radioactive waste it created vs Chernobly, I'm actually
not sure about that, one way or the other. Chernobly was such a half
assed hell hole to begin with that it was easy to just walk away from
it instead of rebuilding it.

plus the types of radiation from a nuke plant was different from
hiroshima.

long lived highly enriched nastys in reactors are highly dangerous.

And they VERY rarely get released.That's the important part.

The uranium used in commercial reactors is enriched to a whopping 2 or
3%. Before those rods go into the nuke, you could hold them in your
hand. Weapons grade uranium like that used at Hiroshima is what's
highly enriched, which is to 80 or 90%.

actually,those early nukes were very dirty,as they didn't know enough to
fine-tune the amount of fissionables so that ALL the fissionables actually
fissioned.IOW,they wasted a lot of uranium and plutonium to be sure the
bombs would fission.

Unlike N.Korea's recent nuke test "fizzle".

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net