"How the Atomic Tests Looked from Los Angeles"
or
"What the Atomic Tests Looked Like from Los Angeles"
just don't mash them together like this.
The words "how" and "like" clash because "How" already implies manner or appearance, making the addition of "like" (which serves a similar function with "what") superfluous.
"What" expects a noun -> "what is he?" "a dog"
"Like" invites a comparison -> "what does he look like?" "he looks like Lassie"
When you combine "how" and "like" it gives native speakers an itch because you're requesting I create a comparison with an adjective.
A good rule of thumb is to phrase the sentence as a question and see if it sounds correct. "What does it look like?" is fine. "How does it look?" is fine. "How does it look like?" does not. In the question "Like how?", "like" is more akin to "I said, like, what do you want me to do?" - I'm no linguist, but they do have a term for that use.
Given Americans' general indifference to perfect grammer, if it "sounds" right they usually don't make a fuss. So they might have learned something new as well.
As a result, U.S. troops began asking other soldiers questions that they felt only Americans would know the answers to in order to flush out the German infiltrators, which included naming state capitals, sports and trivia questions related to the U.S., etc. This practice resulted in Brigadier General Bruce C. Clarke being held at gunpoint for some time after he incorrectly said the Chicago Cubs were in the American League[7][8][9][10] and a captain spending a week in detention after he was caught wearing German boots. General Omar Bradley was repeatedly stopped in his staff car by checkpoint guards who seemed to enjoy asking him such questions. The Skorzeny commando paranoia also contributed to numerous instances of mistaken identity. All over the Ardennes, U.S. soldiers attempted to persuade suspicious U.S. military policemen that they were genuine GIs.
This is how it actually works. The brain machine learns from available data and sorts out which is correct. "Sounds right" is the output from that neural network. The "rules" are then derived from what some set of people think sounds right.
Then again, my brain tries to complete the sentence as "Atomic Test-and-Set".
Are you purposely trying to drive people crazy?
What a time...
Somewhere between 400,000-550,000 (the number varies greatly depending on source) US servicemen (Army, Navy, and Marines) participated in nuclear tests from 1946 to 1962. As of 2024, about 10,000 were still alive.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/studiog/news/military-veteran...
The French used between 15,000-30,000, but the actual number is secret.
I couldn't find numbers for the Soviet testing program. The Chinese used over 100,000 laborers for their first tests according to Wiki.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_veteran
About 10,000 seems right.
And they stayed quiet it about it.
How Kodak Exposed Nuclear Testing
The wife's family lived in Omaha, Nebraska at the time. A lot of cancer in her family. But then a lot of smokers as well. So who knows.
Regardless, that one was a major fuck-up that seems to have kind of put the kibosh on "underground" testing of that sort.
you make it sound like it is something specific to phone cameras, when any digital camera has a chip much more sensitive than your eyes. add in the ability to do long exposure, and your camera will give you much more information to what's out there.
I'm not aware of phone cameras being able to do long "open shutter" types of exposures, but maybe I'm mistaken. Wouldn't that need a tripod or some other sort of physical stabilization? All the aurora photos I saw a few weeks ago had been taken from a hand-held phone and were fairly sharp and clear. Is image stabilization so good that a modern camera can take a sharp, hand-held multi-second exposure?
and yes, if you want good long exposure, you don't want to do it hand held. but the "AI" is doing a lot in the post processing to fool you into thinking hand held is an option
By the early 1980s around 40% of the cast and crew had developed cancer, also including Susan Hayward, Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. And the movie nuclear bombed at the box office.
What is the source for that?
I agree that 91 cancers of 220 cast members sounds like a lot. It suggests a cancer rate of 91/200 × 100 = 41.3%. But is that abnormally high? Statistics on cancer occurrence in the United States suggest that the lifetime risk of cancer for males is about 39.7% and 36.7% for females, not greatly different than the rates among the cast. As we mature, the odds of dying of cancer increase from about 25% to 50%. Whenever a cancer survey is made among a small group (say, 100 persons or less), there are variations in the observed cancer rates, either larger or smaller. Moreover, it has also been reported that many cast members were heavy smokers, increasing their risk over the average. I believe that given the available information, there is no compelling evidence that the cancer rate among the cast was higher than national rates.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film)#Filming
Just how nuclear waste polluted is Nevada?
Surely ~1000 tests in one place can't be good. Wouldn't be surprised if people around there do get cancers.
I think the John Wayne movie was filmed in an area outside St George called Snow Canyon. It's a state park so if you're inclined you can go there with a Geiger counter.
They had fires in their plutonium ‘hot lab’ at least once we know about.
They regularly burned radioactive waste in open pits.
It’s right next door to Hollywood and many common film shooting locations. John Wayne regularly worked in Simi valley which is right next door.
Also, smoking like a chimney. Also, the whole nuclear bomb test/downwinder stuff too of course.
It’s not just direct exposure either - thyroid issues are common in the generation that grew up when this was happening, and many of them drank milk, ate cheese, etc. from cows grazing on grass that got this contamination on it. Including from Simi valley, where it was a big industry.
Nobody likes to talk about it because good luck quantifying it at this point - and the gov’t does a lot to avoid blowback succeeding. National Security and all.
It doesn’t help that the governments own radiation death models put the population wide cost at several hundred thousand lives lost population wide. But LNT doesn’t really work. But also, clearly there are issues.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders]
Like the 9/11 first responder funds, it’s a nightmare trying to get a pay out, and unlike 9/11 this isn’t from one single event.
While the United States was unaware of the sheer number of warheads at the time (estimating far fewer or none operational), it is now confirmed that approximately 158 nuclear warheads were on the island.
The yields for these specific weapon systems were as follows:
1. Strategic Ballistic Missiles These were the weapons that triggered the crisis—long-range missiles capable of striking deep into the continental United States.
a) SS-4 Sandal (R-12) Missiles
Yield: ~1 Megaton (1,000 kT)
Status: There were roughly 36 to 40 of these missiles in Cuba. The warheads were present and could have been mated to the missiles within hours. A 1 MT explosion is roughly 60–70 times more powerful than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
b) SS-5 Skean (R-14) Missiles
Yield: ~1 to 2.3 Megatons (1,000–2,300 kT)
Status: The nuclear warheads for these missiles did arrive in Cuba, but the missiles themselves were blocked by the quarantine (blockade) and never reached the island.
2. Tactical (Battlefield) Nuclear Weapons This is the category that most alarmed historians and officials when it was revealed in the 1990s. The U.S. did not know these were present or operational. If the U.S. had invaded (as was being debated), local Soviet commanders had pre-delegated authority (later rescinded) to use these against American landing forces.
a) FKR-1 (Meteor) Cruise Missiles
Yield: 5 to 14 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were approximately 80 of these warheads. These were ground-launched cruise missiles intended for coastal defense and could have been used to strike the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay or incoming amphibious fleets.
b) Luna (FROG) Artillery Rockets
Yield: 2 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were 12 of these warheads. These were short-range battlefield rockets intended to destroy troop concentrations on the beachheads.
c) IL-28 "Beagle" Bombers
Yield: ~28–30 Kilotons (kT)
Status: There were 6 nuclear bombs (likely the RDS-4 type) specifically for these light bombers. The aircraft were capable of striking targets in Florida or regionally.
[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1177/009634021246436...
[2] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v10...
[3] https://www.atomicarchive.com/history/cuban-missile-crisis/m...
[4] http://www.cubanmissilecrisis.org/background/frequently-aske...
[5] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book-special-exhibit/cuba...
[6] https://www.cfr.org/blog/twe-remembers-secret-soviet-tactica...
[7] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB449/
[8] http://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/cuban-missile-...
It's kinda hard to imagine why on earth you'd ever build a warhead larger than 100kT. At that point it's just destruction for the sake of destruction, not to win a war, but to ensure that everyone loses... Well, that is the point of MAD, but it just seems reckless and inhuman.
Not the only reason of course.
This is, in my opinion, a stupid statement; people today, with today's sensibilities, writing about people decades, almost a century ago. The was nothing "morbid" about it. It was a new, and extremely powerful technology. Those people were not watching while licking their lips thinking about the people that can be killed with this technology. They were thinking about the "clean and limitless" energy that was supposed to have come from this new technology. Stop trying to foist your "modern" ideals on people many years ago.
There is plenty of articles, books and every other media from that period of time with people expressing horror at the sheer power of these weapons, not to mention the pervasive belief that a nuclear war is just a matter of time, with kids in schools being taught how to hide under their desks and face away from a nuclear blast should one happen. There definitely was a "morbid" fascination in the sense that people wanted to see the blasts that could obliterate their cities without a warning. There was hope and belief that we'll have nuclear powered everything within couple decades at most, but people weren't building and buying nuclear shelters out of hope for the better nuclear future.
>>Stop trying to foist your "modern" ideals on people many years ago.
I think that's an unnecessary remark, especially given that you are also attributing a certain belief to everyone of that era when it very clearly wasn't universal.
This is an official government photo in an official government archive.
That little cloud under the dancer’s right foot is, of course, the DIXIE cloud
From Restricted Data nuclear history blog: https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2012/05/18/friday-image-the-...
Was this written with ai? No person in any time period wouldn't be interested. Big explosions are never boring.
I think HN is probably biased towards a subset of the population that is perennially interested in nuclear explosions. They surely occupied a much greater part of the public consciousness in the 50s than they do today (and certainly much greater than a few years ago, before a nuclear power invaded Europe).
Also jet engines.
But yes, things going boom too.
1. What happened to the deadly radioactivity?
2. Would exploding the equivalent amount of TNT look exactly the same?
3. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
4. What happened to the deadly radioactivity in Japan?
5. What is carpet bombing?
6. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?People even detected the radioactivity before nukes were public, and you can still measure the differences in steel today.
> 1. What happened to the deadly radioactivity?
It mostly decayed out. Generally speaking, 8 half-lives mean that it's essentially decayed to "gone". High-level atmospheric tests usually cause it to spread out and depending on wind patterns can dissipate enough to be essentially harmless - though with precision instruments you can measure the differences throughout the whole world. Steel from shipwrecks from before the first explosion can be desirable for some of this equipment.
With explosions closer to or below ground level, there can be longer-lasting elements baked into the ground, like Trinitite (a green glass like material) that can have trace amounts of cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years, which going by the 8 times rule means that it'll be "dangerous" for ~240 years.
Also the type of bomb matters to what is left behind. A uranium bomb will leave different radioactive byproducts than a plutonium bomb.
To break it down to layman terms, nuclear explosions are also designed to emit energy extremely fast, meaning the radioactive chain reaction "burns" through elements very fast. This is different that the fuel in a nuclear reactor, which is designed to burn hot and slow, meaning there are more longer-lasting byproducts left over and why Chernobyl is a no go zone for thousands of years, but we can live in Hiroshima.
Most of the cancers that happened were from people downwind from the explosion. Most of these elements that caused the cancers and sicknesses decayed away within a couple of years.
> 2. Would exploding the equivalent amount of TNT look exactly the same?
No. It wouldn't produce anywhere near the amount of heat/light. The TNT equivalent is usually used to measure the destructive force equivalent of the explosion.
> 3. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
The US may "fake" having a number operating bombs ready, etc. But obviously there's no need to fake it as the US destroyed 2 cities at the end of world war 2 and exploded hundreds of test bombs since.
> 4. What happened to the deadly radioactivity in Japan?
The bombs dropped were exploded high in the atmosphere to spread the explosive force of the bombs. Most of the radioactive material was carried away by the winds and/or had a short half-life. Most radioactive material from the bombs decayed away and there is no longer a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
> 5. What is carpet bombing?
It's when you have a fleet of bombers drop massive amounts of traditional bombs on a city, as was done to Germany and Japan during world war 2 (and by the Germans to a few cities like Rotterdam).
> 6. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
Same as question 3.
1. It is difficult to believe that the deadly radioactivity was just blown away. Where was it blown to? Upwards to space?
2. Then perhaps a larger amount of TNT
3. Unfortunately USA has a long list of questionable history (moon landing, 911, to name a few)
4. Cancers could be from the chemical weapons used
5. Fire bombing and carpet bombing could explain what happed in Japan
6. Again, Hollywood, currency backed by Gold fakery, list goes on.> Then perhaps a larger amount of TNT
You can replicate something on the size of the WWII bombs with TNT, but you can't get anything much larger. A TNT explosion is relatively slow, and if you blow too much of it, it will disperse before blowing.
- Tokyo was carpet/fire bombed at the same time. Image comparisons between Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki destructions are extremely identical
- Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are harbor cities, which explains implanting the large amounts of TNT. (this tactic happened several times in recent history and is documented). This is actually the opinion of an American army member from when the alleged bombing happened. Good luck finding the video.Not a lot of facts, as most of your comment is trivial to disprove.
> Image comparisons between Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki destructions are extremely identical
The destruction in Tokyo is completely different from Hiroshima/Nagasaki. It's not centralized, and there's no mark of the extreme high temperatures the nuclear weapons create.
> Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are harbor cities, which explains implanting the large amounts of TNT.
The place where the explosions happened is completely clear from the remains you can find there today. You can just get some satellite images and look.
You are clearly going for a "wake up sheep!" comment, so go and wake up.
Now if some other country was to, well that’s end of the world.
Of course the British nuked Australia and we don’t hold that against them so maybe ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nuclear_testing_in_the...
Then there was that thing where RAF bombers pretended to bomb US cities... which had to be hushed up as it made it clear that US air defence systems weren't nearly as good as the public had been told.
You’ve got to nuke them before they have a chance to nuke you back! (/s, but that is the thinking)