Posted: 5/31/2012 3:36:55 PM EDT
|
For both questions below assume direct line of sight without any shielding between you and the blast.
1. You're driving an automobile without tinted windows and you are 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion. If you were wearing ANSI rated polarized sunglasses would you be permanently blinded if you're unfortunate enough to look at the blast at the time of detonation? 2. Will the gasoline and oil in your vehicle ignite at 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion? Edited to correct typo. |
|
Quoted:
For both questions below assume direct line of sight without any shielding between you and the blast. 1. You're driving an automobile without tinted windows and you are 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion. If you were wearing ANSI rated polarized sunglasses would you be pemanently blinded if you're unfortunate enough to look at the blast at the time of detonation? 2. Will the gasoline and oil in your vehicle ignite at 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion? Not the oil and gas being in semi-protected containers, ––-until after being blinded you run off the road at 70 and crash and burn. 
But humans being as greasy as they are ––-well have you ever watched a grasshopper under a propane torch? Your fuel will likely be the last of your worries. |
|
My windows are 5%, including half the windshield, and I still can feel the heat from the sun during the day.
For a little entertainment, try this out: Bada-boom |
|
Well, at 11 miles they say you will suffer permanent blindness. Just wondering if the polarized sunglasses would reduce the harm to any significant degree. Obviously you're going to have pretty decent burns on your head, hands, and any other parts not shaded or protected from direct light. I don't know if the heat would be enough to ignite clothing and I'm fairly certain it wouldn't set you aflame at 11 miles.
Obviously, traffic collisions would be a serious concern though in that situation. |
|
The vast majority of the nuclear stockpile on both sides are actually weapons in the 250-500KT range,
rather than megaton, and even a lot of the US megaton weapons are dial-a-yield devices that are expected to be dialed in to the 250-500KT range., so that's something to consider. The blast damage radius for ~400Kt weapon is about 4 miles (after that it's pretty much wind.) So 11 miles blindness might be a risk if you are looking directly at it, but I don't think damage would be that big of a concern. The devices aren't the destruction-fest the movies make them out to be, the size of the detonation just makes up for targeting error (ie you can be off 200 yards and still take out a target, but you can't be off two miles and hope to have any realistic damage.) This link is a PDF file that shows math and examples. You can see that a 250KT does no damage to a house 5 miles away. |
|
Quoted:
Well, at 11 miles they say you will suffer permanent blindness. Just wondering if the polarized sunglasses would reduce the harm to any significant degree. Obviously you're going to have pretty decent burns on your head, hands, and any other parts not shaded or protected from direct light. I don't know if the heat would be enough to ignite clothing and I'm fairly certain it wouldn't set you aflame at 11 miles. Obviously, traffic collisions would be a serious concern though in that situation. Polarization will do nothing. From how you're using the word, I'm not sure you totally understand what it means. Polarized light can be thought of as the waves wiggling horizontally or vertically. And the lenses are made of a polymer that has lines in it like a set of window blinds. Horizontal waves get through, but vertical ones that bounce back up up would cause irritating glare, like those off the road or hoods of cars are blocked. The light from a nuclear explosion would be randomly polarized in all directions, and only a tiny fraction would be blocked by the polarization of your sunglasses. You'd need something like welders goggles or reflective aluminized Mylar film that blocks the majority of all light. |
|
Quoted:
So what do you live from that's 11 miles away? Well... if you live in the center of a rather large missile field in central US.... 
(I don't currently...but did. Pretty much a given that if keys are turned, it'd be a smoldering hole in a matter of minutes. Smoke em if you got em!) |
|
MT range thermonuclear weapons have a longer duration of the light/thermal pulse, so close your eyes and duck behind cover (lay over in the seat).
Smaller yield weapons have a pulse that is much shorter in duration, such that burns etc happen before anyone would have time to react. |
|
Quoted:
For both questions below assume direct line of sight without any shielding between you and the blast. 1. You're driving an automobile without tinted windows and you are 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion. If you were wearing ANSI rated polarized sunglasses would you be pemanently blinded if you're unfortunate enough to look at the blast at the time of detonation? 2. Will the gasoline and oil in your vehicle ignite at 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion? Why on Earth wold you be driving towards a nuclear blast? That's very foolish. Maybe you'll get a serious answer when you can spell "permanently" right. I bet you believe that there might really be a zombie holocaust too. |
|
"Why on Earth wold you be driving towards a nuclear blast? That's very foolish."
Only partly foolish. Since most vehicles are mostly streamlined to the front, if you are in a vehicle anywhere around a nuclear detonation, having your vehicle facing toward it would be the best direction for the vehicle to be facing. That doesn't address the other factors like being blinded or burned, but the blast wave would have the least effect on a vehicle from the front.
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For both questions below assume direct line of sight without any shielding between you and the blast. 1. You're driving an automobile without tinted windows and you are 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion. If you were wearing ANSI rated polarized sunglasses would you be pemanently blinded if you're unfortunate enough to look at the blast at the time of detonation? 2. Will the gasoline and oil in your vehicle ignite at 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion? Why on Earth wold you be driving towards a nuclear blast? That's very foolish. Maybe you'll get a serious answer when you can spell "permanently" right. I bet you believe that there might really be a zombie holocaust too. What does "wold" mean?
|
| anecdotal:...I was stationed on Kyushu, Japan in the early 70s, and met an older lady that was a nurse... as a student nurse she was approximately 12 miles from Nagasaki,.... she had the imprint of the pattern on her kimono (it was dark thread on a lighter fabric) burned into her back and shoulder.... she was looking away, not in the direction of the blast, but naturally turned shortly after |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For both questions below assume direct line of sight without any shielding between you and the blast. 1. You're driving an automobile without tinted windows and you are 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion. If you were wearing ANSI rated polarized sunglasses would you be pemanently blinded if you're unfortunate enough to look at the blast at the time of detonation? 2. Will the gasoline and oil in your vehicle ignite at 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion? Why on Earth wold you be driving towards a nuclear blast? That's very foolish. Maybe you'll get a serious answer when you can spell "permanently" right. I bet you believe that there might really be a zombie holocaust too. Gotta love spell police that suck at their job! |
|
1. "In order to obtain data concerning the possibility of eye injury, rabbits were exposed to the radiation from the TEAK shot of a megaton-range weapon at an altitude of 252,000 feet. Under nighttime conditions, chorioretinal burns occurred at slant distances up to about 345 miles; however, no measurements were made at greater distances and so this cannot be considered as a threshold range for eye damage." (Dept of the Army Pamphlet 39-3, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," April 1962, para 11.72)
"Although extrapolation of the rabbit data to man is uncertain for high-altitude shots, it is felt that there would be some danger to human beings at distances greater than 200 miles under similiar circumstances, and possibly as far as the eye can see at high altitude." (Dept of the Army Pamphlet 39-3, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," April 1962, para 11.73) 2. My calculator gives an 11.7 kilometer radius (or 7.27 statute miles) for thermal radiation (3rd degree burns) given a 1Mt yield and assuming optimum burst height. 11 miles away, probably not. Might blister the paint on the front end, though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
For both questions below assume direct line of sight without any shielding between you and the blast. 1. You're driving an automobile without tinted windows and you are 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion. If you were wearing ANSI rated polarized sunglasses would you be pemanently blinded if you're unfortunate enough to look at the blast at the time of detonation? 2. Will the gasoline and oil in your vehicle ignite at 11 miles from the epicenter of a 1 MT nuclear ground explosion? Why on Earth wold you be driving towards a nuclear blast? That's very foolish. Maybe you'll get a serious answer when you can spell "permanently" right. I bet you believe that there might really be a zombie holocaust too. It was a damn typo. Obviously, I know that "permanently" has an "r" in it. Just as I assume that your misspelling of "would" is a typo. What a rude response. 
I disagree with your comparison of a "zombie holocaust" to a "nuclear detonation." |
|
Quoted:
1. "In order to obtain data concerning the possibility of eye injury, rabbits were exposed to the radiation from the TEAK shot of a megaton-range weapon at an altitude of 252,000 feet. Under nighttime conditions, chorioretinal burns occurred at slant distances up to about 345 miles; however, no measurements were made at greater distances and so this cannot be considered as a threshold range for eye damage." (Dept of the Army Pamphlet 39-3, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," April 1962, para 11.72) "Although extrapolation of the rabbit data to man is uncertain for high-altitude shots, it is felt that there would be some danger to human beings at distances greater than 200 miles under similiar circumstances, and possibly as far as the eye can see at high altitude." (Dept of the Army Pamphlet 39-3, "The Effects of Nuclear Weapons," April 1962, para 11.73) 2. My calculator gives an 11.7 kilometer radius (or 7.27 statute miles) for thermal radiation (3rd degree burns) given a 1Mt yield and assuming optimum burst height. 11 miles away, probably not. Might blister the paint on the front end, though. Thanks Limaxray. In my opinion you're the "go-to" expert on these things. |
|
Quoted:
And, why do you ask? Just curious. I figure the light travels so fast that if I'm driving into downtown that I might not be able to shield my eyes before the blinding light/heat hits me. As soon as there is the explosion the light is traveling. I'm going to be hit by the light before I even hear the blast. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
And, why do you ask? Just curious. I figure the light travels so fast that if I'm driving into downtown that I might not be able to shield my eyes before the blinding light/heat hits me. As soon as there is the explosion the light is traveling. I'm going to be hit by the light before I even hear the blast. 186,000 miles per second for light vs ~1000 feet per sec for sound. How's your reaction time? |
|
Quoted:
MT range thermonuclear weapons have a longer duration of the light/thermal pulse, so close your eyes and duck behind cover (lay over in the seat). Smaller yield weapons have a pulse that is much shorter in duration, such that burns etc happen before anyone would have time to react. Yep. "A point which is not well understood by the public is that the thermal flash for small (kiloton-class) weapons is actually more dangerous than that from megaton weapons. The 20-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima caused horrible flash burns on the victims. This bomb released its thermal pulse in less than a third of a second; the victims were burned literally before they realized what was happening." "A megaton weapon, on the other hand, releases its pulse over a period of five to twenty seconds. This makes it less dangerous to people out in the open for two reasons. First, the skin can absorb a lot more heat without damage when there are even a few seconds for circulating blood to carry the heat away to other parts of the body. Second, the long duration of the pulse gives people a few moments in which to react by diving to the ground, running indoors, or taking other kinds of protective action." - Bruce D. Clayton, Life After Doomsday, p. 25 |