The amount of energy released by fission bombs can range between the equivalent of less than a ton of TNT upwards to around 500 thousand tons (kilotons) of TNT.(Wikipedia)\n\nyes actually I was asking if a mega big measure tons of TNT will Produce Radiation. ¿perhaps a little, maybe ? \n\nand if doesn't why?\n\nFor Reference you can view my Old Resolved Question: \n\nBut, does the TNT should or can made almost the same radiaton damage?\n\non this Science & Mathematics - Physics Category \n\nI will be happy if zaphods_left_head participate again
209052
Huge amounts of TNT will not produce radiation like a nuclear explosion. Different type of reactions. TNT just burns very fast and produces a massive amount of gas. The expanding gas is what blows stuff apart. A new huge amount of air suddenly in a small space. That's also how bullets work. A nuclear explosion releases Gamma radiation in addition to super intense heat. A TNT explosion might produce some X-radiation but not to any appreciable amount. The Kilo-ton and Mega-ton ratings are used to describe the approximate damage of the nuclear explosion. It would be tough to gather up 500,000 tons of TNT.
501050
I got interesting answers to this question and it may be the only time I gave a Shiraz best answer\n\nHEY, you people who advocate "nuking". Do you know the effects of nuclear bombs?
635288
Suppose a charged particle moves at a more or less constant velocity v1 followed by a finite time interval t of acceleration resulting in a new velocity v2. The radiation emitted always spans a large range of frequencies which (as a rough approximation) goes from frequencies of about 0 to 1/t, dropping to zero at frequencies much higher than 1/t.\n\nFor the acceleration events in your examples: For an electron passing through a sharp local magetic field, t ~ a/v where a is the size of the region with the magnetic field and v the electron velocity. For a collision with a nucleus or other charged particle t ~ b/v where b is the impact parameter (the closest distance between the straight line trajectory of the electron and the particle it's colliding with).\n\nFor purposes of order of magnitude calculations, the total energy per frequency interval radiated by a particle with charge e (in gaussian cgs units) is roughly:\n\nd Energy/d omega  ~ e^2 * |v2-v1|^2/c^3\n\nfor frequencies in the region 0 < omega < 1/t.\n\nThere is never one single frequency emitted except when there's a sustained pure sinusoidal varying current as in a radio antenna. Of course atomic and nuclear transitions produce photons with precise frequencies (wavelengths) but those are not really the result of accelerating charges in the usual sense.
475412
Yes,, actually we have a formula to build a Bomb that is a 500 megaton cobalt salted Nuclear weapon that if detonated could crack the core of this planet like a China plate in a shooting gallery, rip away half this plantes atmosphere, and knock this planet out of orbit around the sun,,pretty bad stuff huh?
105367
Kids bits in brackets :)\n\nAn atom bomb works by firing a proton/neutron (a little part of an atom) at a mass of uranium (nuclear material) the proton goes into the uranium and eventually hits and joins with an atom of uranium, that atom is now unstable (a bit like too many people on a ladder) so to make it self stable it loses some protons (some people fall off the ladder), usually 2 or 3 (that's the bit they call fission), these fire off and hit other atoms repeating the process in a chain. if the amount of uranium is small then a lot of the protons fly out of the uranium and do nothing, however if there is enough uranium the protons are contained in the mass and break up even more atoms, leading to a catastrophic chain reaction (KaaaaBOOOOOOM)!!! \n\n***Try shouting the last part it should get a few laughs :)\n\nPS. because the uranium lost more protons than was originally put into it as extra, it is no longer standard uranium, this is called a uranium isotope.\n\nbrubeck_take5 yeah I remember the ping-pong ball video... really cool, wouldn't mind seeing that again... gonna see if I can find it... let you know :)\n\nhere goes... thing the slow motion one is the best\n\nhttp://www.ap.stmarys.ca/demos/content/modern/mousetrap_reactor/trap_sideview_slow_high.wmv\n\nbut if you want to look at them all\n\nhttp://www.ap.stmarys.ca/demos/content/modern/mousetrap_reactor/mousetrap_reactor.html
533572
All the above is true,\nIt also however formed the basic understanding of Nuclear power generation.  The reaction that causes an explosion for a weapon, is the same as that in a reactor except it is controlled.  Modern ( western) nuclear generators can trace their lineage back to the Manhatten Project.
568074
Any radiatioactive isotopes from the blast would have dispersed to near ambient levels in a very short distance.  Certainly in less then 500 miles.
651471
Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Communist parliament of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb. \nThe Bomb called the Tsar was dropped from a TU 95 at a height of 10.500 metres using a parachute drop.The fireball touched the ground, reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane10,500 metres, and was seen 1,000 km away. The heat could have caused third degree burns at a distance of 100 km. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 60 km high and 30–40 km wide. The explosion could be seen and felt in Finland, even breaking windows there.[citation needed] Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage up to 1,000 km away. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the earth.
141483
Look, a 1000 megaton detonation (whether it was due to a nuclear device or due to a meteor impact) would blow the line-of-site atmosphere into space.  We'd all suffer direly if that happened.\n\nA 10,000 megaton (or 10 gigaton) device would locally shatter the crust, and produce a surface wave that would do major damage to the crust all across the world.  Think of a bell: whack it hard enough anywhere and the whole thing rings, and if the whack is hard enough, the temporary standing waves would possibly shatter or crack the bell.  If you don't believe me, look at the Liberty Bell--that crack is (supposedly) due to it being rung hard enough.  Imagine that with the crust of the earth!  Pretty, it ain't.\n\nFrankly, nuclear weaponry is a silly approach to such an effort.  Throw rocks from orbit--you can get nuclear grade energies easily, and you can do it without any radiation.
433911
I wouldn't believe everything you read on wiki, especially things dealing with controversial topics like nuclear energy or stem cells.\n\nNow to answer your question, I suppose that depleted uranium could be used as a reflector in a bomb, but its effects will be marginal at best, lead probabally would be a better pick. Also if Uranium was a better reflector, you would be better off using natural Uranium than depleted Uranium. Its relativity easy to get both natural Uranium and lead so worrying about depleted Uranium rounds is kind of silly.
95100
It would take a lot more energy than is generated in one fusion bomb.  Watch the movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact.
145002
It is just a reference to E=mc^2.  It can be through fission or fusion, so yes you are surely correct.
593858
What luck! I just saw in another question a statement that a megaton was equivalent to 4X10^15 joules. If that is correct then:\nDiamond area 90 feet square is 752 square meters.\n752*1360=1,022,720 joules per second\n4X10^15/1,022,720 = 3,911,138,924 seconds or 124 years\n\nThat would be in space, it would take longer on the ground. At least twice as long just because of half the time being at night, and more because the Sun is not always directly overhead and clouds and so on.
661046
Completely dependent on the megaton yield and geography, e.g., mountains reflecting the blast wave or shielding from the heat wave.\n\nSettle for Washington DC. Virtually no one in an area of about 40-65 square miles would survive.\n\nTo visualize the destructiveness of a nuclear bomb, imagine a powerful strategic nuclear weapon detonated above the Pentagon, a short distance from the center of Washington, D.C.  Imagine it is a "near-surface" burst--about 1,500 feet above the ground--which is how a military planner might choose to wreak blast damage on a massive structure like the Pentagon. Let us say that it is an ordinary, clear day with visibility at 10 miles, and that the weapon's explosive power is 300 kilotons--the approximate yield of most modern strategic nuclear weapons. This would be far more destructive than the 15-kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima or the 21-kiloton bomb detonated at Nagasaki. \n\nThe detonation of a 300-kiloton nuclear bomb would release an extraordinary amount of energy in an instant--about 300 trillion calories within about a millionth of a second. More than 95 percent of the energy initially released would be in the form of intense light. This light would be absorbed by the air around the weapon, superheating the air to very high temperatures and creating a ball of intense heat--a fireball. \n\nBecause this fireball would be so hot, it would expand rapidly. Almost all of the air that originally occupied the volume within and around the fireball would be compressed into a thin shell of superheated, glowing, high-pressure gas. This shell of gas would compress the surrounding air, forming a steeply fronted, luminous shockwave of enormous extent and power--the blast wave. \n\nBy the time the fireball approached its maximum size, it would be more than a mile in diameter. It would very briefly produce temperatures at its center of more than 200 million degrees Fahrenheit (about 100 million degrees Celsius)--about four to five times the temperature at the center of the sun.\n\nThis enormous release of light and heat would create an environment of almost unimaginable lethality. Vast amounts of thermal energy would ignite extensive fires over urban and suburban areas. In addition, the blast wave and high-speed winds would crush many structures and tear them apart. The blast wave would also boost the incidence and rate of fire-spread by exposing ignitable surfaces, releasing flammable materials, and dispersing burning materials. \n\nWithin minutes of a detonation, fire would be everywhere. Numerous fires and firebrands--burning materials that set more fires--would coalesce into a mass fire. (Scientists prefer this term to "firestorm," but I will use them interchangeably here.) This fire would engulf tens of square miles and begin to heat enormous volumes of air that would rise, while cool air from the fire's periphery would be pulled in. Within tens of minutes after the detonation, the pumping action from rising hot air would generate superheated ground winds of hurricane force, further intensifying the fire.\n\nVirtually no one in an area of about 40-65 square miles would survive.
30975
yes, they are developing "bunker buster" cruise missles that "dig" underground and explode. They also make "tactical nukes" which are essentially low yeild nukes fired from a cannon. and there is of course the uranium shells used by U.S. tanks in Iraq. They use uranium to harden the steel of the shells to better pierce armor, although these are not specifically "nukes" they have a lot of the nasty side effects like cancer causing radiation. I don't know if the U.S. still makes ICBM's, but I'm pretty sure they do. I know the most recent ICBM's are multiple warheads essentially 7 nukes in one, each with a blast zone exponentially larger than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
264671
Ok I think that what you don't understand and what really has not been pointed out yet is that radiation is produced by the decay ( or breakdown) of atoms in the nuclear material.\n\nSay you have a few pounds of nuclear waste. You have Billions and billions and billions of atoms. Remember Avogadro's number? That is the number in just a mole of material. Now imaging that number multiplied by the number of moles in a few pounds! That's a lot of atoms.\n\nNow a fire burns out because it runs out of material to burn. However with all those billions of atoms it could take tens of thousands of years for all the material to be used up.\n\nie if the half life is 10,000 years, that means we have only used up half the material in 10,000 years. So if we had 10 pounds of nuclear waster, in 10,000 years we would still be left with 5 pounds!\n\nNow think of Einsteins famous equation E=mc2.\nm is the mass, c is the speed of light squared, and E is the\nenergy you get out of it. As you can see, even in a very small amount of mass there is tremendous energy.\n\nSo sum it up, even though very small amounts are decaying and giving off large amounts of energy. It is going to take thousand and thousands of years before it is used up.that is why it lasts so long.
663994
The key to understanding fission and fusion is to understand what is known as the "binding energy per nucleon" or "mass defect." The force (attractive force) that keeps the nuceii of atoms together, called the strong nuclear force, acts differently depending on the configuration of the nucleus. If we divide the total binding energy of this nuclear force for a particular nucleus by the number of nucleons (i.e., protons + neutrons added together), we get a measure of how "stable" the nucleus is.  The more binding energy per nucleon, the more stable the nucleus is - that is, the more tightly bound the particles are. \n\nSimilarly, the mass defect represents the difference between the relativistic mass of the nucleus and the rest masses of the particles - another way of looking at the binding energy in relativistic (E=mc^2) terms.\n\nCertain nuclei are more stable than others. Ordinary hydrogen, for example, consists only of a single proton - so there is no binding energy per nucleon. Very large nuclei - such as uranium and plutonium - are very unstable because as the nucleus becomes larger, the relative effect of the nuclear force (the "binding energy per nucleon") becomes less and the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons becomes greater.\n\nOur universe tends toward greater stability. When large relatively unstable nuclei such as Uranium or Plutonium are bombarded by free neutrons, there is a probability that some of the nuclei will split into two more stable nuclei (i.e., nuclei with greater binding energy per nucleon). This is fission.  The difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays, light). \n\nSimilarly, some very small nuclei such as hydrogen have less binding energy per nucleon than larger nuclei such as helium.  When these smaller nuclei are forced together within the range of the strong nuclear force, there is a probability the nuclei will combine (fuse) into a more stable nucleus with greater binding energy per nucleon.  This is fusion.  Again, the difference in binding energy is converted to kinetic energy (heat) and radiation (gamma rays and light).\n\nFission and fusion are only sustainable if the resultant nuclei are more stable than the initial nucleii - i.e., if the binding energy per nucleon increases.  Also, fission and fusion require some energy input to get them started - Uranium and Plutonium have lower initial energy requirements, so it is easier for them.  Similarly, hydrogen fusion into helium is "relatively" easy compared to fusion of other nuclei.