An easy one about atomic bombs.

  • Thread starter BillH
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Atomic
In summary: P7Tvvm3GvKvQf2fC4BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22plowshare%22%20project%20livermore&f=false
  • #1
BillH
1
0
The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima was very inefficient in terms of the amount of uranium fissioned. My questions are: What happened to the unreacted uranium and does it still pose a problem? I'm sure for most of you on this site this is an extremely easy question, but I am new to this and would really appreciate any help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Considering that it was seemingly relatively safe to stand right next to (or at least be in the same plane as) the bomb where the uranium was concentrated, I would assume that less than 60 kg of uranium spread over an area of say 10 km² (value guesstimated from the wikipedia article on the hiroshima bombing) causes a negligible radiation stress.
Personal sidenote: I always have to wonder why people are interested in nukes. Apart from some exotic ideas about accelerating spaceships, they are pretty useless devices - at least for morally-acceptable applications.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Garlic
  • #3
Another exotic idea is to save us from astreoids :)
 
  • #4
Timo said:
Personal sidenote: I always have to wonder why people are interested in nukes. Apart from some exotic ideas about accelerating spaceships, they are pretty useless devices - at least for morally-acceptable applications.
Well, they are the most powerful form of energy we have yet been able to harness. Why would we NOT exploit it?
 
  • #5
Timo said:
I always have to wonder why people are interested in nukes. Apart from some exotic ideas about accelerating spaceships, they are pretty useless devices - at least for morally-acceptable applications.

Hmm, Fusion Reactor... Atomic Bomb...

The former is a fantastic display of the (to most people) mythical power of the universe, it has tendrils into the moral ideas of compromise and egotistical power. These emotions and concepts are interesting at the least. The Fusion reactor? Well to most people it’s just a new toy that they never see directly.

(I work in the oil field, so "most people" is in reference to this group of people that I have been exposed to.)
 
  • #6
I don't really see how nukes are used in fusion reactors. It seems a bit counter-productive trying to start the fusion process by blowing up the facility and everything in a 1 km radius around it. I've not said that nuclear physics is a useless field, but explicitely meant the weapons which in contrast to e.g. dynamite have no useful purpose (except for movies :biggrin:). Discussion about that is not the topic of the thread, anyways; being the only one responding to the OP, I just took the liberty to comment on the (in my eyes somewhat ill) wide public interest in nukes (which does not necessarily apply to BillH, the question was certainly not in the "how does one build nukes"-line and hadn't gotten any reply by me if it had been).

EDIT: Did you (lilrex) possibly mean "the latter" instead of "the former"? Your post seems to make more sense with "the latter".
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Timo, the Fusion reference was intended to compare something useful in Nuclear physics with the fascination of nukes, I am sorry if my comparison was not clear I just found your comments on the matter interesting.

BillH, the unreacted uranium would still pose a problem if the dust were to get in your lungs, it is unforgiving in that respect but the uranium itself is heavy and would likely be precipitated out of the air born environment. I am still looking for a reference for that though, so don’t quote me on that.
 
  • #8
Off hand I suspect that, in the fallout from a nuclear bomb, the fission products would pose a much more serious hazard than the unexploded uranium.
 
  • #9
BillH said:
The Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima was very inefficient in terms of the amount of uranium fissioned. My questions are: What happened to the unreacted uranium and does it still pose a problem? I'm sure for most of you on this site this is an extremely easy question, but I am new to this and would really appreciate any help.

The primary health hazard posed by uranium is one of chemical toxicity (think "lead poisoning"), not radioactivity. As far as isotopes go, the uranium series is an extremely benign alpha-emitter -- won't even make it through the top layer of your skin. Ingestion is the health-risk posed by alpha-emitters (raises the relative biological effectiveness by an order of magnitude), but that being said, with uranium you'd be dead from heavy-metal toxicity long before the radiation would do anything.
 

Related to An easy one about atomic bombs.

1. What is an atomic bomb?

An atomic bomb is a type of explosive weapon that derives its destructive power from nuclear reactions of fission or fusion. It releases an enormous amount of energy in the form of heat, blast, and radiation.

2. How does an atomic bomb work?

An atomic bomb works by triggering a controlled nuclear chain reaction, where atoms of a radioactive material, such as uranium or plutonium, split apart and release a large amount of energy. This energy is then harnessed to create a powerful explosion.

3. What are the effects of an atomic bomb?

The effects of an atomic bomb can be devastating, including destruction of buildings and infrastructure, widespread fires, and radiation exposure leading to long-term health effects. The exact effects depend on the size and type of bomb used.

4. How many atomic bombs have been used in warfare?

To date, atomic bombs have been used in warfare twice, during World War II when the United States dropped bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan. These bombings resulted in a significant loss of life and long-lasting effects on the affected areas.

5. Are atomic bombs still used today?

Although atomic bombs have not been used in warfare since World War II, they are still a threat and continue to be developed by various countries. The use of atomic bombs is currently regulated by international treaties, such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Similar threads

  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • Science Fiction and Fantasy Media
Replies
15
Views
955
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • High Energy, Nuclear, Particle Physics
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
802
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
23
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
487
Back
Top