# What's the fallout, in years, of a nuclear war? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 6, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700 "2002-06-06T17:40:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ummm.yeahh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ummm.yeahh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ummm.yeahh)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/1 "2002-06-06T17:40:28Z")
I did a quick google search but couldn’t find anything that addressed the specific question of what the fallout, in years, would be between Pakistan and India. 10 years? 100 years? And how much more powerful are today’s nukes than say the one’s used on Nagasaki and Hiroshima? Happy thoughts, people. Happy thoughts. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/2 "2002-06-06T18:04:21Z")
I don’t know about the fallout thing, but maybe this helps about the destructive power of Indian and Pakistani bombs. > [@](#): > > We assume that there are proven Indian plutonium designs for a two-stage thermonuclear weapon, a standard fission weapon in the 10–15 kiloton range, and a smaller tactical weapon in the 2–3 kiloton range. We believe that India has sufficient materials for as many as 50 weapons. Pakistan evidently has uranium-only unboosted fission weapons designs in the 30–35 kiloton range (though none of the tests achieved this stated yield). We believe that Pakistan has sufficient materials to arm a dozen weapons. From [this page](http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/nukenotes/so98nukenote.html). Dates back to fall of 1998, so it might be a bit outdated, but [this](http://cbc.ca/news/features/indiapakistan_nuclearfaqs.html) more recent FAQ says the kilotonnage is estimated to be 15-20 (Hiroshima was 20 kilotons), although India could have a “possible high” of up to 200 kilotons. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/3 "2002-06-06T18:17:11Z")
Years? Fallout ususally falls out within days/weeks, as I understood it. If you mean how long will the fallout (once it has landed on everyone’s farmlands, cities, etc.) will remain dangerously radioactive … that I don’t know. ---
**Author:** ![ummm.yeahh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e9bcb4/32.png) [@ummm.yeahh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ummm.yeahh)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/4 "2002-06-06T19:57:46Z")
Ya, I guess my nuclear “terminology” is lacking. I am referring to the radiation factor. How long would it be before levels of radiation decreased enough to make it liveable? My second question was how much has atomic weaponry has advanced since WWII. If we dropped a bomb on Japan today (God forbid. I’ve been there and love it), how much more destruction would it do then the bomb dropped in '47? ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/5 "2002-06-06T21:00:56Z")
Here’s some stuff related to Hiroshima/Nagasaki effects. I imagine we would see similar effects, since the kilotonnage is similar. But don’t quote me on that. [http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html) This says, basically no measurable long-term effects. So the region will not likely be rendered “uninhabitable.” * * * [http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q711.html](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q711.html) > [@](#): > > Q: My father was in WWII and was on Hiroshima 10 days after the bomb was dropped… > > A: Individuals who went into Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the bombs were dropped did not have significant radiation exposures. Only those people who were in the cities at the time of the bombings were exposed. So 10 days later, things were pretty OK, per this PhD. * * * [http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1996.html](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1996.html) Here’s a very apropos one: [quote] Q: In 1945 an atomic bomb using plutonium as its source for a chain reactive explosion was used to destroy the city of Nagasaki in Japan. Because plutonium was used, and because plutonium has a very long half life, is plutonium still present there today and is it still irradiating and effecting local fauna and local inhabitants? A: Essentially all of the uranium and plutonium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs fissioned, producing radioisotopes with half lives of a few seconds to a few years. These have decayed down to near background levels. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now thriving cities, rebuilt and repopulated. I had the privilege of visiting Hiroshima recently, and found it to be a modern, lively city. They have maintained one bombed-out building, near the hypocenter, and developed a large Peace Park and museum, all as reminders of the suffering and devastation of nuclear war. * * * [http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c06.html](http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c06.html) Some Chernobyl insights: > [@](#): > > In summary, > > Many countermeasures to control the contamination of agricultural products were applied with varying levels of efficacy. Nevertheless, within the former Soviet Union large areas of agricultural land are still excluded from use and are expected to continue to be so for a long time. In a much larger area, although agricultural and farm animal activities are carried out, the food produced is subject to strict controls and restrictions of distribution and use; > > Similar problems, although of a much lower severity, were experienced in some countries of Europe outside the former Soviet Union, where agricultural and farm animal production were subjected to controls and limitations for variable durations after the accident. Most of these restrictions have been lifted several years ago. However, there are still some areas in Europe where restrictions on slaughter and distribution of animals are in force. This concerns, for example, several hundreds of thousands of sheep in the United Kingdom and large numbers of sheep and reindeer in some Nordic countries. > > Produce from forests may continue to be a radiological protection problem for a long time. > > At present drinking water is not a problem. Contamination of groundwater, especially with strontium-90, could be a problem for the future in the catchment basins downstream of the Chernobyl area. > > Contaminated fish from lakes may be a long-term problem in some countries. If India and Pakistan weren’t as good at bomb-making as the Trinity folks, then the fissionable material might not all be used up, resulting in a “dirtier” explosion and more contamination. Also, deployment is an issue. Ground bursts generally lift up and irradiate more dirt, producing more fallout and contamination, than air bursts (which generally produce more blast damage). So basically, you _might_ see some severe local conditions (on the order of a few square miles, I would guess) that persist for centuries, and slightly higher cancer rates. Most everything else will probably be safe within days. Honestly, the worst effects are not going to be radiological, but are going to be the massive loss of services that will result, leading to increased deaths from secondary sources (i.e., those not killed by the blast itself but by poor sanitation, water quality, starvation, trapped under rubble, etc.)–like in a massive earthquake. ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/6 "2002-06-06T21:08:45Z")
Here’s some stuff related to Hiroshima/Nagasaki effects. I imagine we would see similar effects, since the kilotonnage is similar. But don’t quote me on that. [http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q340.html) This says, basically no measurable long-term effects. So the region will not likely be rendered “uninhabitable.” * * * [http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q711.html](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q711.html) > [@](#): > > Q: My father was in WWII and was on Hiroshima 10 days after the bomb was dropped… > > A: Individuals who went into Hiroshima or Nagasaki after the bombs were dropped did not have significant radiation exposures. Only those people who were in the cities at the time of the bombings were exposed. So 10 days later, things were pretty OK, per this PhD. * * * [http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1996.html](http://www.hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q1996.html) Here’s a very apropos one: [quote] Q: In 1945 an atomic bomb using plutonium as its source for a chain reactive explosion was used to destroy the city of Nagasaki in Japan. Because plutonium was used, and because plutonium has a very long half life, is plutonium still present there today and is it still irradiating and effecting local fauna and local inhabitants? A: Essentially all of the uranium and plutonium in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs fissioned, producing radioisotopes with half lives of a few seconds to a few years. These have decayed down to near background levels. Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now thriving cities, rebuilt and repopulated. I had the privilege of visiting Hiroshima recently, and found it to be a modern, lively city. They have maintained one bombed-out building, near the hypocenter, and developed a large Peace Park and museum, all as reminders of the suffering and devastation of nuclear war. * * * [http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c06.html](http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c06.html) Some Chernobyl insights: > [@](#): > > In summary, > > Many countermeasures to control the contamination of agricultural products were applied with varying levels of efficacy. Nevertheless, within the former Soviet Union large areas of agricultural land are still excluded from use and are expected to continue to be so for a long time. In a much larger area, although agricultural and farm animal activities are carried out, the food produced is subject to strict controls and restrictions of distribution and use; > > Similar problems, although of a much lower severity, were experienced in some countries of Europe outside the former Soviet Union, where agricultural and farm animal production were subjected to controls and limitations for variable durations after the accident. Most of these restrictions have been lifted several years ago. However, there are still some areas in Europe where restrictions on slaughter and distribution of animals are in force. This concerns, for example, several hundreds of thousands of sheep in the United Kingdom and large numbers of sheep and reindeer in some Nordic countries. > > Produce from forests may continue to be a radiological protection problem for a long time. > > At present drinking water is not a problem. Contamination of groundwater, especially with strontium-90, could be a problem for the future in the catchment basins downstream of the Chernobyl area. > > Contaminated fish from lakes may be a long-term problem in some countries. If India and Pakistan weren’t as good at bomb-making as the Trinity folks, then the fissionable material might not all be used up, resulting in a “dirtier” explosion and more contamination. Also, deployment is an issue. Ground bursts generally lift up and irradiate more dirt, producing more fallout and contamination, than air bursts (which generally produce more blast damage). So basically, you _might_ see some severe local conditions (on the order of a few square miles, I would guess) that persist for centuries, and slightly higher cancer rates. Most everything else will probably be safe within days. Honestly, the worst effects are not going to be radiological, but are going to be the massive loss of services that will result, leading to increased deaths from secondary sources (i.e., those not killed by the blast itself but by poor sanitation, water quality, starvation, trapped under rubble, etc.)–like in a massive earthquake. ---
**Author:** ![catmandu42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3ab097/32.png) [@catmandu42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catmandu42)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2002, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/7 "2002-06-06T23:00:39Z")
It would depend on if it was a ground burst or an air burst. I have here in my hands an original copy of “The Effects of Atomic Weapons”, published by the good folks at the Los Alamos Scientific laboroatory back in 1950. There is a wealth of information on these things, although most of it is highly technical and WAY over my head. However, there are a few things understandable by the layman. In the section titiled “Residual nuclear radiations and contaminations”, it has a wealth of information about contamination due to low and high air bursts. Evidentaly, a low air burst is much worse than a high one when it comes to irradiation and fallout. According to this little chart here, the radiation dosage at ground zero one hour after a low-air burst 1 megaton explosion is in excess of 8,000 rotogens. This is most likely fatal. The Minimum safe distance listed is 1,500 feet, where you would take 10 rotogens per hour. According to what I could understand here, it would take a year (theoreticaly) for ground zero to be approachable again. I am going to assume that these figures have been revised quite a bit for modern weapons. Heck, this book is so old that under the section for ground bursts, it states that all the information contained therein is speculative, because they hadn’t done a ground detonation yet at the time of publishing! Oh well. Hope this gave you some ideas. _sigh_ The benefits of a well-rounded library. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Tranquilis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tranquilis/32/3639_2.png) [@Tranquilis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tranquilis)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/8 "2002-06-07T02:35:06Z")
This really is an unaswerable question at this point… How many weapons will be used? What is the yield per weapon? How efficient is each weapon? How many weapons will squib? How many ground bursts? Of what yield? How many Airbursts? Of what yield? Over what time frame are the weapons used? Over how large a geographic area are the weapons used? What are the prevailling weather conditions upon use? What are the prevailing weather conditions for the weeks after use? Too many imponderables to give any but the most generic answer: There will be some fallout. Effects will vary. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 7, 2002, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-the-fallout-in-years-of-a-nuclear-war/112700/9 "2002-06-07T02:53:46Z")
> [@](#): > > How far the radioactive fallout would spread out of the region is difficult to say, but experts agree that the radius of serious exposure would depend on a huge number of variables, including the number and kinds of bombs, prevailing weather patterns of wind, rain and air currents, and the way the bombs are dropped. > > If both countries unleashed their arsenals, there could be significant hotspots of high radioactivity thousands of miles away from ground zero, according to Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear physicist with the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, and an author of another IPPNW report, Radioactive Heaven and Earth, examining the health and environmental effects of nuclear weapons testing. “During the bomb tests of the 50s and 60s,” for example, said Makhijani, “there were hotspots from the Nevada test sites as far away as Albany, N.Y.” Source: [http://www.msnbc.com/news/761598.asp](http://www.msnbc.com/news/761598.asp)