Not all nuclear bombs have the same fallout potential. Hydrogen bombs, for example, can be pretty clean depending on what they hit and scatter into the atmosphere.
If you're concerned, you're actually at greatest threat in areas which often have a lot of tornadoes.
Tornadoes are indications of low and high fronts meeting. Wherever they clash there is a place near them that often ends up with very little constant wind. These places where wind is low and the weather sorta just pools over them are at greatest risk, because the fallout has nowhere to go and just settles on top of their head. It's even worse if they are in valleys.
If the nuke hits near one of these areas, and it is a river valley, then not only will the area be afflicted, but also the river which passes through. That river will continue to carry the fallout downstream indefinitely, and you can take out a shit ton of towns and cities which congregate around those waterways.
Because of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers forming a valley, any place in Illinois would pollute the most downstream entities. Racine doesn't exactly feed into that, but if you strike when the wind is pushing south, you'll be able to maximize the damage while taking out a hotbed of your own malicious activities. Chicago will get taken out too, so there's that as well.
Chicago is the birthplace of Saul Alinsky Bulldog Politics. That's one of the reasons why Obama started up there as a community organizer.
great synopsis. Afaik hydrogen bombs are actually fusion and don't give off rads at all. but they need an atomic trigger which does, they're two bombs in one. assuming the public info actually reflects reality.
I read. something about how the nuclear fallout from a blast only lasts around 2 weeks, then it is safe to go outside. Not sure if that's true, but it came from a pretty renown scientist if I remember correctly.
Every radioactive isotope has a different half life, which is how much time it takes for half of a given sample to undergo decay (this decay is what emits nuclear radiation). Some isotopes have a half life of a few nanoseconds, others like Uranium-238 have a half life of several billion years.
What isotopes a nuke creates depends on what elements are in the material that make up the bomb and the immediate environment, as these atoms are going to be made radioactive by the detonation. You’re likely going to have somewhat random samplings of most isotopes in existence. I have no data to back this on, but 2 weeks sounds like a ball park estimate for the most radioactive isotopes with the shortest half lives to decay away into irrelevant amounts. If you can minimize your exposure to fallout in this time period, you’ll maximize your chances of survival.
Source: college physics classes and my own personal interest in science.
It is likely that the fallout is still hanging around after 2 weeks but is at safe levels to go outside. Has something to do with the half-life of radioactive elements if I am remembering correctly
If you live near a nuclear power station which melts down you'll have fallout (Chernobyl, Fukushima) otherwise radiation's not an issue, scaremongering. Air quality could be an issue if it's a dirty bomb like the rumour of ammonia being released in a Ukrainian false flag.
i wouldn't bet on a meltdown from any US reactor or one designed like them. Chernobyl was a crap design with crap operators, fukushima was a worst case scenario with the earthquake and some other stuff on top of it.
Fallout severity and extent depends on several complex factors:
Type of nuclear weapon used. Some are designed to minimize fallout (fusion or H-bombs), others are designed to maximize it (dirty bombs)
Height of detonation. Closer to the ground generally means less fallout. Higher up means more fallout and a wider area EMP effect.
Local weather conditions and geography. As another commenter has pointed out, wind conditions and proximity to a river valley can drastically increase how far the fallout will spread in a certain direction.
How many different bombs are used and wether there is nuclear retaliation. MAD is real policy for the US and Russia.
TL;DR: a nuclear bomb spells bad news no matter what the variables are. Pray it never happens for real and that at worst it is only a fake scare event.
This isn't a jab at the liberal freaks who live there, but Portland simply isn't worth it.
All they got is tech offices. You take those out and a company will just set more up overnight. Probably in India or Kolkata.
It has to be a place where the weather will travel. Oregon heading southeast hits random forest land like Yellowstone National Park and the northern Rocky Mountains. The fallout trail will be pretty useless.
I nominate Racine, Wisconsin for being ground zero.
If it really is as bad as they say, then there's every reason for them to nuke all the evidence.
How far does the fallout reach exactly? Lol if it misses me I’m in!
Not all nuclear bombs have the same fallout potential. Hydrogen bombs, for example, can be pretty clean depending on what they hit and scatter into the atmosphere.
If you're concerned, you're actually at greatest threat in areas which often have a lot of tornadoes.
Tornadoes are indications of low and high fronts meeting. Wherever they clash there is a place near them that often ends up with very little constant wind. These places where wind is low and the weather sorta just pools over them are at greatest risk, because the fallout has nowhere to go and just settles on top of their head. It's even worse if they are in valleys.
If the nuke hits near one of these areas, and it is a river valley, then not only will the area be afflicted, but also the river which passes through. That river will continue to carry the fallout downstream indefinitely, and you can take out a shit ton of towns and cities which congregate around those waterways.
Because of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers forming a valley, any place in Illinois would pollute the most downstream entities. Racine doesn't exactly feed into that, but if you strike when the wind is pushing south, you'll be able to maximize the damage while taking out a hotbed of your own malicious activities. Chicago will get taken out too, so there's that as well.
Chicago is the birthplace of Saul Alinsky Bulldog Politics. That's one of the reasons why Obama started up there as a community organizer.
great synopsis. Afaik hydrogen bombs are actually fusion and don't give off rads at all. but they need an atomic trigger which does, they're two bombs in one. assuming the public info actually reflects reality.
I read. something about how the nuclear fallout from a blast only lasts around 2 weeks, then it is safe to go outside. Not sure if that's true, but it came from a pretty renown scientist if I remember correctly.
That’s why you take your Potassium Iodide for 2 weeks, by the end of those two weeks the fall out will have decayed enough to be ‘safe’
Every radioactive isotope has a different half life, which is how much time it takes for half of a given sample to undergo decay (this decay is what emits nuclear radiation). Some isotopes have a half life of a few nanoseconds, others like Uranium-238 have a half life of several billion years.
What isotopes a nuke creates depends on what elements are in the material that make up the bomb and the immediate environment, as these atoms are going to be made radioactive by the detonation. You’re likely going to have somewhat random samplings of most isotopes in existence. I have no data to back this on, but 2 weeks sounds like a ball park estimate for the most radioactive isotopes with the shortest half lives to decay away into irrelevant amounts. If you can minimize your exposure to fallout in this time period, you’ll maximize your chances of survival.
Source: college physics classes and my own personal interest in science.
It is likely that the fallout is still hanging around after 2 weeks but is at safe levels to go outside. Has something to do with the half-life of radioactive elements if I am remembering correctly
If you live near a nuclear power station which melts down you'll have fallout (Chernobyl, Fukushima) otherwise radiation's not an issue, scaremongering. Air quality could be an issue if it's a dirty bomb like the rumour of ammonia being released in a Ukrainian false flag.
i wouldn't bet on a meltdown from any US reactor or one designed like them. Chernobyl was a crap design with crap operators, fukushima was a worst case scenario with the earthquake and some other stuff on top of it.
It is an issue if you are a farmer or gardener, the isotopes will be in the soil.
What we're told about radiation from a bomb cannot be verified in practice. Nagasaki and Hiroshima have no radiation data.
Radiation from Chernobyl and Fukishima is still there. measurable.
it's a scam, like covid.
you can get rough effects estimates from
https://nukemap.org/nukemap/
you can put location and yield and some other factors to simulate nuke effects.
Fallout severity and extent depends on several complex factors:
TL;DR: a nuclear bomb spells bad news no matter what the variables are. Pray it never happens for real and that at worst it is only a fake scare event.
Would they nuke a place which is sacred to them?
If they are afraid it will be used against them, then sure, why not?
Why not Portland, Oregon?
This isn't a jab at the liberal freaks who live there, but Portland simply isn't worth it.
All they got is tech offices. You take those out and a company will just set more up overnight. Probably in India or Kolkata.
It has to be a place where the weather will travel. Oregon heading southeast hits random forest land like Yellowstone National Park and the northern Rocky Mountains. The fallout trail will be pretty useless.
New York.
If one must go off, why not where you live, StrzoksMangina? 😡
We can clean up Racine without using nukes. The fishing is good up there