Atomic/Nuclear detonations.

  rdave13 23:58 25 Sep 2010

Came across this Discover blog site about how many nuclear detonations occurred between 1945 and 1998. Can't guarantee the accuracy but mind boggling info never the less.
click here

  sunnystaines 09:11 26 Sep 2010

amazing, must have been a lot of damage to the earth's crust with so many.

  rdave13 10:06 26 Sep 2010

According to Wikipedia N. Korea announced a test on May last year. As you say, sunnystaines, what damage have all these testings done?

  Quickbeam 10:31 26 Sep 2010

I read years ago in a book ending (can't remember which book) that the scuttled German fleet in Scapa Flow is a good source of radiation free metal for making scientific instruments. Apparently the vast amounts of air required, that's now contaminated by those early detonations, to smelt iron ore leaves the metal contaminated and unsuitable for delicate measuring instruments to be manufactured from.

  octal 10:47 26 Sep 2010

You would think that they would puzzled out how effective these damned things are after 2053 tests. The Earth's crust can probably take it as volcano's create a far bigger bang.

I just wonder why they still have them, as there are far more effective weapons than an indiscriminate nuclear explosion.

I forgot about Iran and N. Korea who don't give a damned about anyone, including themselves and will probably use one.

  OTT_B 11:57 26 Sep 2010

The effect on the earth's structure and surface is negligible. The only way that would change is if someone did something very daft, like exploding a 50mt device down a fault. Even then, the effect could be debatable.

The fact seems to be that nuclear bombs are only as dangerous as the people who control them. As with global warming, the planet will survive. It's inhabitants may not.

  sunnystaines 12:23 26 Sep 2010

or high up in the atmosphere above europe or usa

  WhiteTruckMan 15:44 26 Sep 2010

You might want to include france in your list. At least when it comes to nuclear tests.


  spuds 18:04 26 Sep 2010

And most (not all) governments are more worried about global warming.

As for radiation leakage, I think the Russians know a little about this. Anyone wants to buy a cheap submarine or now defunct reactor!.

  egapup 19:20 26 Sep 2010


  Forum Editor 23:23 26 Sep 2010

Everything's relative. The earth's crust is extremely resilient, and has had to withstand far worse than a batch of nuclear tests over the years.

Our planet has been hit by hundreds of thousands of meteorites, many of which had a far greater yield in terms of energy release than any nuclear test.

The largest in recent history was the meteorite which impacted near the Tunguska river in Russia on 30th June 1908. The meteorite exploded between 5 and 10 kilometres above the ground, and the blast was probably equal to 15 megatons of TNT - that's 1000 times the power of the Hiroshima atomic bomb - with a shock wave equal to 5.0 on the Richter scale.

An explosion like that would easily wipe out a city the size of Manchester and all its suburbs.

There have been many such impacts in the earth's history, and a few a lot bigger - nuclear tests are pinpricks by comparison.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Honor 9 Lite review

18 Best Adult Colouring In Books 2018

HomePod review

Les meilleures séries Netflix (2018)