How come Hiroshima is habitable?

[Mizmoon]

I'm no physicist, but I thought that part of the horror of The Bomb was that the place it was dropped would be uninhabitable for like 10,000 years ... something about the half-life of radiation, etc.

Yes, I tried google but I couldn't find the answer so I'm turning to the collective brilliance of DU :)

[tx_dem41]

1. For the same reason I'm not afraid of a dirty bomb. n/t

[HereSince1628]

2. This from a Hiroshima city website...

The initial radiation emitted at the moment of detonation inflicted great damage to human bodies. Most of those exposed to direct radiation within a one-kilometer radius died. Residual radiation was emitted later. Roughly 80% of all residual radiation was emitted within 24 hours. Research has indicated that 24 hours after the bombing the quantity of residual radiation a person would receive at the hypocenter would be 1/1000th of the quantity received immediately following the explosion. A week later, it would be 1/1,000,000th. Thus, residual radiation declined rapidly.

The radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today is on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth. It has no effect on human bodies

[KC21304]

3. Does it have something to do with the fact that

it was a hydrogen bomb ? I seem to have heard that, but I may be wrong.

[slackmaster]

5. It was the world's first Uranium-235 bomb, not hydrogen

Fission only.

[KC21304]

19. Thank to all for the correction. I should have remembered

about the H-bomb tests that were going on while I was in grade school.

[oneighty]

6. no it was a fission/uranium bomb

180

[rman]

7. Fact is that it was not a hydrogen bomb.

The hydrogen bomb was devised well after WW2.

[jimshoes]

8. Neither the Hiroshima

or Nagasaki bombs were hydrogen bombs. If memory serves, one was a uranium bomb and one was a plutonium bomb. The yields were in the 18 to 20 kiloton range. Hydrogen bombs I believe are in the megaton type yields.

[SteppingRazor]

12. The hydrogen bomb was developed in the 1950s

We tested the first exposion in 1952, under the leadership of Ed Teller. We produced a bomb in 1954. The Russians did it in 1953, and the British several years later.

[ProfessorGAC]

14. It's Wrong And It Doesn't Matter

As others have said, the bomb was a fission bomb based upon U-235. The Nagasaki bomb was plutonium based, implosive compression in design. There were no H-bombs until about 6 years after WWII.

However, even if it's an H-bomb, the radiation levels are still quite high. The primary reason (excluding the fact that the enormous energy release still liberates high levels of gamma and high X-ray) is that in order to initiate the fusion, an thermonuclear device still requires a smaller fision device. So, there is a chemical explosion that initiates the fission, which then detonates with a very high energy output to trigger the fusion. The net output of radioactivity is correlated to the total energy release and radioactive decay materials are related the total energy release of the fission device.
The Professor

[Lerkfish]

4. as I understand it, residents there have a larger than normal

cancer incidence rate.

Because someone lives somewhere, does not mean it is completely safe to live there.

[quinnox]

9. my guess is

that bomb compared to the nukes of today was like a pea shooter versus a .44 magnum, the nukes of today have sometimes two or more warheads and each warhead has much more destructive power and radiation involved.

Chernobyl is definitely not habitable for example, they have extremely high cancer rates and the whole area had to be evacuated and they can't even go back to the area to fix the crumbling dome like structure built to contain it because it is a death mission to anyone who attempts it.

[Wilber_Stool]

15. 31 people died at the

Chernobyl reactor. Ten have died since then of thyroid cancer. The lack of after affects is truly amazing.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

[hedgehog]

17. I'd question the source.

[oneighty]

10. Google

Cobalt/salted bombs. Give you a pretty good answer to things you would rather not know.

180

[BlueEyedSon]

11. It was a pretty small A bomb, different radioactive materials

have different toxicity and half-lives. The "Little Boy" bomb had a yield of 13 kilotons... bombs with a yield of 1/2 to 10 megatons are common today.

BTW: a competent dirty bomber would use a nasty isotope with a long-ish half life.

[hobbit709]

13. The by-products of a fission reactor

are much more longer acting. In a fission bomb you get a lot of radiation at detonation but not much in long-term decay products. a fusion bomb you get the initial radiation and some long-term decay elements that unfortunately are easily assimilated by the human body.
A reactor has many extremely long-term decay byproducts after the fuel is spent-that's what makes the problem of storing the leftovers such a difficult one. Chernobyl is a problem because the fuel is still in the pile and hasn't been used up and moderated.

[BeFree]

16. In other words...

....if they blew Chernobyl sky high the radiation would be spread all around the earth; dispersing the radiation enough so that Chernobyl is no longer a problem?

Now why didn't they think of that before? That's the solution to our nuclear waste problem, eh? We just blow all the stockpiles to smithereens and, whoosh, all gone!

[hobbit709]

18. Right! Get your lead underwear here

I'll make you a special deal.