Tweet
Iran's nuclear programme is and has been quite a hot topic here. On the one hand there are a lot of what ifs on the other hand, some people think we should nuke Iran before it can nuke us. Since for most of us a nuclear blast is seen "just" as a big bang and a mushroom cloud, I thought it would be interesting to post something about the long term effects of the use of nuclear weapons on the human body.
As for the effects on short term, I don't think that there are many doubts about what happens to an area when you nuke it. Regarding the effects in the long run, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the two cases best fit to illustrate that.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island can give some indications as well, but only to a certain extent. The key difference here has to do with the difference between a radioactivity and radiation (often confused). It's not the radioactive source which kills, but the radiation which it emits. When you're exposed to radioactivity, you won't become radioactive yourself nor will you "contain" any radioactivity. It's only when radioactive particles find a way into/onto your body that a geiger counter will show a reading with you.
With atomic bombing, the radiation released during the explosion is the most important factor. This will be far more intense than when a reactor explodes. On the other hand, when a reactor explodes, the quantity of radioactive material set free (fall out, etc...) will much larger than with a nuke detonating. In other words: lower radiation, but a larger area affected for a longer time. That's why the focus of the effects of the use of nuclear weapons is on the effect of radiation due to the blast rather the effects of long term exposure to radioactivity.
This said, let's have some facts & figures...
Early deaths due to atomic bomb radiation occurred within 4 months after exposure; whereas the leukemia frequency started to increase 2 years after exposure, peaking at 6 - 7 years and has apparently disappeared after 25 years. Solid tumor frequencies began to increase after 5 - 10 years and still continue to increase. Increases of non-cancer diseases have been recently recognized among those exposed to relatively high dose of radiation.
The immediate health problem after bombing was bums. Those whose lives were saved suffered keloids for a long time. Bleeding due to hematogenous tissue damage and infections took the lives of many survivors.
It is epidemiologically known that atomic bomb radiation affects the human body for a long period of time and that the risk of cancer among the atomic bomb-exposed is high. Presently in Japan, there are approximately 320,000 individuals who were exposed to the atomic bombs. These people are aging and are at risk to many health problems. The provision of preventive health care as well as medical and welfare services is now the major issue.
(source: http://www.pref.hiroshima.jp/hiroshi...g/egenbak0.htm)
More info about the long term effect of radiation: http://whyfiles.org/020radiation/index.php?g=2.txt
Or read SECRET FALLOUT - Low-Level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three Mile Island by Dr. Ernest Sternglass here (complete book).
As for the effects on short term, I don't think that there are many doubts about what happens to an area when you nuke it. Regarding the effects in the long run, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the two cases best fit to illustrate that.
Chernobyl and Three Mile Island can give some indications as well, but only to a certain extent. The key difference here has to do with the difference between a radioactivity and radiation (often confused). It's not the radioactive source which kills, but the radiation which it emits. When you're exposed to radioactivity, you won't become radioactive yourself nor will you "contain" any radioactivity. It's only when radioactive particles find a way into/onto your body that a geiger counter will show a reading with you.
With atomic bombing, the radiation released during the explosion is the most important factor. This will be far more intense than when a reactor explodes. On the other hand, when a reactor explodes, the quantity of radioactive material set free (fall out, etc...) will much larger than with a nuke detonating. In other words: lower radiation, but a larger area affected for a longer time. That's why the focus of the effects of the use of nuclear weapons is on the effect of radiation due to the blast rather the effects of long term exposure to radioactivity.
This said, let's have some facts & figures...
Early deaths due to atomic bomb radiation occurred within 4 months after exposure; whereas the leukemia frequency started to increase 2 years after exposure, peaking at 6 - 7 years and has apparently disappeared after 25 years. Solid tumor frequencies began to increase after 5 - 10 years and still continue to increase. Increases of non-cancer diseases have been recently recognized among those exposed to relatively high dose of radiation.
The immediate health problem after bombing was bums. Those whose lives were saved suffered keloids for a long time. Bleeding due to hematogenous tissue damage and infections took the lives of many survivors.
It is epidemiologically known that atomic bomb radiation affects the human body for a long period of time and that the risk of cancer among the atomic bomb-exposed is high. Presently in Japan, there are approximately 320,000 individuals who were exposed to the atomic bombs. These people are aging and are at risk to many health problems. The provision of preventive health care as well as medical and welfare services is now the major issue.
(source: http://www.pref.hiroshima.jp/hiroshi...g/egenbak0.htm)
More info about the long term effect of radiation: http://whyfiles.org/020radiation/index.php?g=2.txt
Or read SECRET FALLOUT - Low-Level Radiation from Hiroshima to Three Mile Island by Dr. Ernest Sternglass here (complete book).
