• AwkwardLookMonkeyPuppet@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    So the site itself is still deadly, but the areas around it are not? Would that be the case for a nuclear attack as well? Like ground zero would stay deadly but the rest of the city would be safe a few decades later? I just realized that I don’t actually know very much about nuclear fallout. How are Hiroshima and Nagasaki safe?

    • weker01@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Complex topic. It would depend on the bomb in question. Some are more “dirty” than others.

    • whotookkarl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The clouds of radioactive gases carry radiated dust particles that are carried by winds and settle on the ground, roofs, etc (fallout). That’s why after Chernobyl or the Japanese cities were attacked it was very important which way the wind was pushing the clouds carrying the tiny debris, ash, and dust and how the Chernobyl disaster was detected by other countries in the path.

      You probably also want to avoid trying to grow any crops in the area because one way to deal with the radioactive dust is to bury it under the top soil, and buildings that have been closed since Chernobyl that still have the dust trapped inside are still very dangerous.

      Edit: the bombs in Japan exploded high above the ground to maximize damage and minimize fallout. The gases were carrying less radiated particles, and mostly dispersed after the initial blast or carried by winds. The gases over Chernobyl kept going until the fires were out.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      Generally the really nasty gamma emitting fission products lose their nastiness after a couple of months. Their half lives tend to be counted in hours.