Comment

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?

source

Sort:hotnew top

weker01@feddit.de ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
Complex topic. It would depend on the bomb in question. Some are more “dirty” than others.

source
whotookkarl@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨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.

source
zaph@sh.itjust.works ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
It’s been a couple of decades since I watched the documentary so maybe my memory is betraying me but from what I remember the bombs dropped on Japan didn’t touch the ground. They detonated in the air so there technically isn’t a ground zero.

source
roguetrick@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨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.

source
Xavienth@lemmygrad.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago
They overturned the dirt in the exclusion zone to bury the fallout so that it’s less of a possibility for it to move around. You wouldn’t want to live there, drink from the groundwater, farm there, etc.

source