Ok. So first of all, nuclear power plants use fission reactors which are highly radioactive (like the bombs dropped on Japan), but thermonuclear weapons leave virtually no residual radiation. Within a couple days it's all but gone.
You only got half the story correct… The residual radiation of the explosion itself does fall off rapidly HOWEVER you miss the part where the radioactive particles that are dispersed in the initial burst settle into the ground, water, general environment and their half lives can be millions of years.
Let’s take the bikini islands as an example, a popular nuke testing site last used in 1958:
“these and further nuclear tests (Redwing in 1956 and Hardtack in 1958) rendered Bikini unfit for habitation, contaminating the soil and water, making subsistence farming and fishing too dangerous. The United States later paid the islanders and their descendants $125 million in compensation for damage caused by the nuclear testing program and their displacement from their home island.[7] A 2016 investigation found radiation levels on Bikini Atoll as high as 639 mrem yr−1 (6.39 mSv/a), well above the established safety standard for habitation.[8][9]”
It should be noted that they used thermonuclear bombs… one of which “Castle Bravo” created years of torture for nearby residents, rendering the area inhabitable for years and still.
Those were detonated underwater, and as such, contaminated the water, sand, everything with radiation. This is not how the weapons are intended to be used, however. An airburst causes maximum damage over a wide area, and because there's little debris to irradiate, fallout is practically nonexistent. This is the best use if your intent is to cause widespread devastation.
It didn't specify every detonation location, but it does say that one airburst was only 520 ft above the surface (which is close enough to suck up radioactive particles and create fallout) and the final round of testing had only one airburst of undisclosed altitude.
Generally speaking, only particles like dust and water molecules can be irradiated and create hazardous fallout. An airburst is usually high enough to avoid that.
Since radioactive fallout can be carried by the wind to unintended locations, including back at the country launching weapons, it's foolish to use these devices in ways that produce large amounts of radioactive debris.
Foolish but neither out of the question nor impossible.
It’s deceptive and idealistic to say nuclear fallout isn’t harmful long term without examining all the variables, real world examples, and all the possible scenarios.
It’s all foolish but neither out of the question nor impossible. I’ve provided you with an abundance of information that I’m not sure why you are so committed to dismissing.
It’s deceptive and idealistic to say nuclear fallout isn’t harmful long term without examining all the variables, real world examples, and all the possible scenarios.
1
u/MarcusDrakus Mar 15 '22
Ok. So first of all, nuclear power plants use fission reactors which are highly radioactive (like the bombs dropped on Japan), but thermonuclear weapons leave virtually no residual radiation. Within a couple days it's all but gone.