Atomic Testnig Museum

My long overdue article on the Atomic Testing Museum is up:

https://wizardofvegas.com/article/atomic-testing-museum/

Quote: Nareed (in the article)

People flocked to see atomic bombs going off. Now, even at that time the dangers of radiation and fallout were well known. So one has to conclude the authorities at the time deemed the risk to the people in Las Vegas was minimal. Yet it would be interesting, to say the least, to find out what’s in the medical records of people who resided there at the time.

It bears mentioning that military and scientific personnel involved in the tests would have been standing a lot closer, and would be involved in more tests. Their medical records would also be interesting to see.

Perhaps the most disturbing book on my shelves is The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, prepared by the U.S. Department of Defense and first published by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in 1957. I have the revised edition published in 1962. There had been an earlier The Effects of Atomic Weapons, published in 1950, but the development of thermonuclear weapons seemed to require a new treatment.

I don't know how widely this book was distributed. It discusses principles of nuclear explosions, the different types (surface, air, underwater, etc.), the phenomena of air blasts and their effects on structures, thermal radiation and its effects, and the effects on personnel, among other topics. There are plenty of technical graphs and such, plus photos of damage both in Japan and in tests in Nevada and Bikini. There are also photos of survivors of the blasts in Japan and some tracking of the effects later in their lives. As I said, disturbing.

Quote: Doc

As I said, disturbing.

Very much so. I've read a bit about it, so I know how disturbing it can be.

And yet, it is also the responsibility of the military to know the effects of their weapons. so such studies are necessary.

Good article. I agree. The museum should be visited at least once.


Yeah, people flocked to see a blast. Casinos would have roof-top parties on blast days.

Unless I'm mistaken, the StarDust was named for the pretty pink particles that fell days after a blast.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yeah, people flocked to see a blast. Casinos would have roof-top parties on blast days.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Unless I'm mistaken, the StarDust was named for the pretty pink particles that fell days after a blast.

Well that just sounds hazardous... happen to recall what the dust was?

Quote: MrV

and most today worry about second hand smoke

This is one of the places I want to check out just because the history of atomic testing is so interesting. To think we were so close to an "atomic" age of using nuclear power for everything.

Also I am a big Fallout fan so that's another reason to check it out.

Quote: djatc

This is one of the places I want to check out just because the history of atomic testing is so interesting. To think we were so close to an "atomic" age of using nuclear power for everything.

There's really nothing about that in the museum. But it can all be traced back to two main reasons: 1) pie-in-the-sky promises which were too absurd even when they were made ("electricity will become too cheap to meter" is one) 2) excessive fear of really low risks associated with radiation.

To a lesser extent the continuing failure to achieve a sustained fussion reaction.

Quote: DJTeddyBear

Yeah, people flocked to see a blast. Casinos would have roof-top parties on blast days.

My former dental hygienist in Vegas (don't know if she is still working or not), told me her family would go outside and wave little American flags when the blasts went off as they watched from their yards at home. She said she was the only one in her family who didn't get cancer later. I don't know how many they observed, but sounded like quite a few.

There is a related discussion about this in my old thread Downwinders.

What do you suppose caused more harm in the long term, atomic tests or radium in watches, water filters and other consumer products?

BTW, if you own a watch with a luminous dial these days, the phosphorescence is achieved by means of applying small amounts of tritium to the paint. It's the same method used in gunsights, too. Tritium is a hydrogen isotope (two neutrons, one proton) and it is weakly radioactive. It's other use is as the explosive agent in fussion bombs. It's also the most expensive commercially available substance on Earth.

I use an old antistatic brush made in the fifties which incorporates a radioactive element known as polonium.

Quote: MrV

I use an old antistatic brush made in the fifties which incorporates a radioactive element known as polonium.

Polonium, if memory serves, radiates alpha particles. These are so weak they can be blocked by a piece of paper. But a cell wall is many time thinner than a piece of paper and highly vulnerable.

The brush itself is harmless, but if it sheds Polonium particles it's deadly dangerous. Why? because if you swallow or inhale Polonium, then you have a radioactive source inside you. So if you used this brush often, it was risky. If you inhale or swallow a relatively alrge amount, meaning grams, you will die horribly in a few days and nothing can be done about it. You won't get that much exposure from that kind of brush, though.

Quote: Nareed

What do you suppose caused more harm in the long term, atomic tests or radium in watches, water filters and other consumer products?

The tests, hands down. Radioluminescent compounds are fairly harmless, unless you outright eat them, which was the case with workers. So a moderate number of workplace exposures, but such unsafe working conditions were common at the time.
A majority of radioactive quackery was a scam all along, failing to deliver even the radiation promised, and never getting mainstream enough for competition or regulation to weed out the fakes.

All in all, probably about the same life-years damage as the annual impact of cancer quackery today. Talking long-term specifically, the only lasting consequences were overly stringent radiological safety regulations, but they only cause moderate damage, and the pop losses have long been replaced.

The total contamination from nuclear tests remains considerable and leaves some areas of the planet non-habitable to this day. As for long-term consequences, they resulted in more hostile attitudes towards and political misdirection of nuclear power, leading to more fossil fuel plants being built.