Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

History Nagasaki N-bomb corpses still giving off radiation, 64 years later!

views
     
TSobefiend
post Aug 12 2009, 03:46 PM, updated 17y ago

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilluminati
*****
Senior Member
863 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
From: Tanjung Segitiga Masonic Lodge



wow........ to think that the atomic bomb is not that dangerous compared to NUCKLEAR ones. Shudders

QUOTE
Radioactive rays photographed from Nagasaki nuclear 'death ash'

NAGASAKI (Kyodo) A team of researchers has succeeded in photographing radioactive rays coming from the cells of people who died in the 1945 atomic bombing of Nagasaki.


Can't be shaken: Evidence of radioactivity is present in preserved cells taken from people who died in 1945 following the atomic bombing of Nagasaki. NAGASAKI UNIVERSITY / KYODO



The pictures are evidence that the nuclear "death ash" continues to emit radiation from a corpse even after 60-plus years, according to Kazuko Shichijo, an assistant professor at Nagasaki University, a member of the team.

Little progress has been made in the study on the effects of internal exposure to radiation. The team's success is the first of its kind in proving that atomic bomb victims were exposed to radiation from the inside as well as from outside.

"We have succeeded, from pathological perspectives, in proving that people were exposed to radiation internally," Shichijo said.

"It may help pave the way for unraveling its effect on health," she said.

The team studied anatomical samples of seven people in their 20s to 70s who had died by the end of 1945 from acute conditions after being exposed to the bomb between 0.5 km and 1 km from the hypocenter.

The team succeeded in photographing alpha particles, emitted when radioactive material decays, appearing in the picture as dark lines radiating from near the nuclei of the cells in bones, kidneys and lungs of the victims.

The team concluded the alpha particles were almost identical in length to those emitted from the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

"Plutonium passes through the human body when people are exposed to it from the outside," said Nanao Kamada, professor emeritus of radiation biology at Hiroshima University. "But the study shows that it enters cells and emits radiation from inside the human body.

"The effects of internal exposure to radiation have not been taken seriously in Hiroshima and Nagasaki," he said. "The study is important as it visibly captured the effec


http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090808a2.html
SUSMatrix
post Aug 12 2009, 04:35 PM

King of Char Siew!
********
Senior Member
15,022 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
From: Damansara Jaya/Bandar Utama


An Atomic bomb IS A NUCLEAR weapon. doh.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

PS: You phailed PHD. rolleyes.gif

This post has been edited by Matrix: Aug 12 2009, 05:06 PM
weichi
post Aug 12 2009, 05:58 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
445 posts

Joined: Jul 2008


QUOTE(Matrix @ Aug 12 2009, 04:35 PM)
An Atomic bomb IS A NUCLEAR weapon. doh.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

PS: You phailed PHD. rolleyes.gif
*
lol i second that
robertngo
post Aug 12 2009, 06:59 PM

Look at all my stars!!
*******
Senior Member
4,027 posts

Joined: Oct 2004


QUOTE(obefiend @ Aug 12 2009, 03:46 PM)
wow........ to think that the atomic bomb is not that dangerous compared to NUCKLEAR ones. Shudders
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090808a2.html
*
no matter you are kill by a a-bomb or n-bomb you are just as dead, who is saying a-bomb is less dangerour? it is like if you are been shoot in the head by a gun, does a smaller calliber gun make it safer? laugh.gif

anyway these cell that have been preserved, maybe they should do testing on grave of people that died from radiation and test of the radiation is still present in the soil.

This post has been edited by robertngo: Aug 12 2009, 07:00 PM
prolog
post Aug 12 2009, 07:48 PM

Getting Started
**
Validating
244 posts

Joined: May 2008
QUOTE(obefiend @ Aug 12 2009, 04:46 PM)
wow........ to think that the atomic bomb is not that dangerous compared to NUCKLEAR ones. Shudders
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090808a2.html
*
Atomic bomb = nuclear bomb


Nucleus = Protons and neutrons = inside atom (therefore atomic)




Those bombs derive from atomic energy inside nucleus. The nucleus splits into two (fission) producing whole lots of energy + radiation + particles




There are two types of Nuclear weapons
1. Atomic bomb or A-Bomb
2. Hydrogen bomb or H-Bomb


clear now?

This post has been edited by prolog: Aug 12 2009, 07:51 PM
SUSjoe_star
post Aug 13 2009, 12:05 AM

Serving the Servants
******
Senior Member
1,810 posts

Joined: Mar 2007
QUOTE(prolog @ Aug 12 2009, 07:48 PM)
Atomic bomb = nuclear bomb
Nucleus = Protons and neutrons = inside atom  (therefore atomic)
Those bombs derive from atomic energy inside nucleus. The nucleus splits into two  (fission) producing whole lots of energy + radiation + particles
There are two types of Nuclear weapons
1. Atomic bomb or A-Bomb
2. Hydrogen bomb or H-Bomb
clear now?
*
Iinm a Hydrogen Bomb actually acheives some kinda uncontrolled nuclear fusion at the center of the blast, making it much much more powerful than an atomic bomb, where you just have a runaway fission reaction. Can someone verify this?
befitozi
post Aug 13 2009, 12:28 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,468 posts

Joined: Nov 2004
From: Earth


QUOTE(joe_star @ Aug 13 2009, 12:05 AM)
Iinm a Hydrogen Bomb actually acheives some kinda uncontrolled nuclear fusion at the center of the blast, making it much much more powerful than an atomic bomb, where you just have a runaway fission reaction. Can someone verify this?
*
The standard nuclear/atom bomb is simply a fission bomb.

Whereas the hydrogen bomb is actually a mixture. The one it is the Teller-Ulam design. It consist of 3 stages. Fission - Fusion - Fission/Fusion. A standard fission bomb is detonated from where the energy is used to trigger a fusion reaction. Energy from there is the bulk of the yield. A third stage provides more firepower.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design

Doomsday bomb certainly this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba
babysiiaozz
post Aug 13 2009, 02:13 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
342 posts

Joined: Sep 2007
From: kl


wow, the life span of the radiation is >9000! crazy x.x
erictham
post Aug 13 2009, 12:51 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
148 posts

Joined: May 2009


QUOTE(babysiiaozz @ Aug 13 2009, 02:13 AM)
wow, the life span of the radiation is >9000! crazy x.x
*
This is insane man... blink.gif
vivienne85
post Aug 13 2009, 04:52 PM

Casual
***
Junior Member
360 posts

Joined: Jan 2008
From: land of Starlight


i reckon they should hv disposed the bodies either by burning them or bury them really really deep
bgeh
post Aug 13 2009, 07:28 PM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(vivienne85 @ Aug 13 2009, 04:52 PM)
i reckon they should hv disposed the bodies either by burning them or bury them really really deep
*
And what do you propose to do with the remaining radioactive ash, or smoke from burning the corpses? Radioactivity is not affected by fire
C-Note
post Aug 13 2009, 07:48 PM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


what happened to Chernobyl? iznt it worse than nagasaki?

ohhh speaking of radioactivity, do we use a radioactive substance of long half-life or short one in the medicine field?

care to explain too? thxxxx
triad
post Aug 14 2009, 12:40 AM

Casual
***
Junior Member
356 posts

Joined: Apr 2005
From: KOKO KOVID
In cancer use very short,like 8hrs.In eng use kinda 5-30yrs.btw all material can be radioactive.radiate it.its part of world i guess.its like matter and antimatter.maybe there is a lot of positive side to be study rather than just focus on the effect.who might know.

but its cool.u can kill a person with alpha partikel and leave it no trace.najibulrosmah should know this before end up with c4
rexis
post Aug 14 2009, 12:52 AM

*** 7-star status Old Bird ***
*******
Senior Member
3,590 posts

Joined: Apr 2006
From: nowhere


QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 13 2009, 07:48 PM)
what happened to Chernobyl? iznt it worse than nagasaki?

ohhh speaking of radioactivity, do we use a radioactive substance of long half-life or short one in the medicine field?

care to explain too? thxxxx
*
Chernobyl is an abandoned city due to the disaster of Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986, read up. A scheduled safety test has caused an accident that result in the meltdown of the reactor core, due to a design flaw of the nuclear power plant.

Do you think it is better than Nagasaki when it possibly has lower casualties? But it surely has a very negative impression on nuclear power.

Meanwhile, radiology utilized radioactive material of short half-life, usually in the matter of days, some in hours, read up.

Take note on Uranium-235, which is the fuel for fission reaction, has a half-life of billions of years(wikipedia stated 700 millions years).

This post has been edited by rexis: Aug 14 2009, 01:12 AM
C-Note
post Aug 15 2009, 01:03 AM

starry starry night
*******
Senior Member
3,037 posts

Joined: Dec 2007
From: 6-feet under


QUOTE(triad @ Aug 14 2009, 12:40 AM)
In cancer use very short,like 8hrs.In eng use kinda 5-30yrs.btw all material can be radioactive.radiate it.its part of world i guess.its like matter and antimatter.maybe there is a lot of positive side to be study rather than just focus on the effect.who might know.

but its cool.u can kill a person with alpha partikel and leave it no trace.najibulrosmah should know this before end up with c4
*
from what a petty SPM-taker like me could understand, alpha particle kills u by strong ionising effect right? how exactly does it work and leave no trace? as for gammaray, it kills u by breaking the bonds of ur body cells and cause mutation?

QUOTE(rexis @ Aug 14 2009, 12:52 AM)
Chernobyl is an abandoned city due to the disaster of Chernobyl nuclear power station in 1986, read up. A scheduled safety test has caused an accident that result in the meltdown of the reactor core, due to a design flaw of the nuclear power plant.

Do you think it is better than Nagasaki when it possibly has lower casualties? But it surely has a very negative impression on nuclear power.

Meanwhile, radiology utilized radioactive material of short half-life, usually in the matter of days, some in hours, read up.

Take note on Uranium-235, which is the fuel for fission reaction, has a half-life of billions of years(wikipedia stated 700 millions years).
*
basically the longer the half-life of a radioactive material, the more powerful it is?

in the case of Chernobyl, what exactly does it mean by 'nuclear waste'? couldnt the waste be collected and harnessed since its still radioactive?
bgeh
post Aug 15 2009, 01:44 AM

Regular
******
Senior Member
1,814 posts

Joined: Jan 2003
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 15 2009, 01:03 AM)
from what a petty SPM-taker like me could understand, alpha particle kills u by strong ionising effect right? how exactly does it work and leave no trace? as for gammaray, it kills u by breaking the bonds of ur body cells and cause mutation?
basically the longer the half-life of a radioactive material, the more powerful it is?

in the case of Chernobyl, what exactly does it mean by 'nuclear waste'? couldnt the waste be collected and harnessed since its still radioactive?
*
The longer the half life, the longer the radioactive material will last, and thus you have the radioactivity to take a much longer time to fall off. It has nothing to do with the how radioactive the nuclei really is. The half life only describes how long it'll take the [initial] radioactive material's radioactivity (i.e. half the initial material has decayed to something else) to drop by half.

We would like a longer half life for U235 honestly wink.gif because it would've meant that there would be a much larger amount of U235 available on this planet for use in nuclear plants if it had a say, a half life of 1.4 billion years instead.

In the fission of U235, you have a heck lot of neutrons, and daughter nuclei being produced. These neutrons/daughter products have a high energy, and lose energy in the process as they travel through the moderator, changing their kinetic energy into heat, which is then used to drive turbines.

The problem with the waste is that they emit other forms of radiation which are not easily captured and converted into 'useful forms of energy', (e.g. gamma rays will probably just blast through the medium to only be stopped by the reactor's walls from the decay of the daughter products, whose radioactivity is sometimes even more harmful than the original U235)

[note: pretty much all radioactivity is defined to be harmful, but there does exist a somewhat natural level of radiation we are all exposed to all the time - it doesn't mean that any non-zero level of radioactivity instantly means death]

This post has been edited by bgeh: Aug 15 2009, 01:50 AM
SUSMark_Renton
post Aug 19 2009, 04:29 PM

Getting Started
**
Junior Member
120 posts

Joined: Jun 2009
From: Kuching
QUOTE(C-Note @ Aug 13 2009, 07:48 PM)
what happened to Chernobyl? iznt it worse than nagasaki?

ohhh speaking of radioactivity, do we use a radioactive substance of long half-life or short one in the medicine field?

care to explain too? thxxxx
*
this is the point the TS is making. some people fail to realise and jumped on their highhorse.

despite the atom blast nagasaki and hiroshima was redeveloped soon after. in chernobyl its still abandoned and will stay abandones for 1000 more years
ZeratoS
post Aug 19 2009, 04:36 PM

Oh you.
******
Senior Member
1,044 posts

Joined: Dec 2008
From: 127.0.0.1


Coincidentally, I just finished wrapping up my job as Stage Manager for a play related to this. Google up Sadako Sasaki.

Goes to show that war never brings any benefits, what more with weapons that inflict long term damage.

 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0185sec    0.47    5 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 27th November 2025 - 01:12 AM