Japan Radiation months following Bombing in WWII

  • Thread starter HollyD
  • Start date
  • #1
1
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

My father was in WWII and got deployed to Japan within weeks after the bombs were dropped. What is the possibility that he suffered any radiation effects? He was 28 at the time and died when he was 43 - I always wondered if any of his illnesses were a result of being in Japan at that time and being in the Pacific during our nuclear testing?

Any thoughts?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
Difficult to say, not a priori excluded. It would depend *where* he was deployed and what was the contamination there by fallout. I don't know if that information is available somewhere. It was the very beginning of the nuclear era, so people didn't know much about those matters.

Of what did he die ? The only thing that it could be is a cancer. Was it thyroid cancer ? Leukemia ?

The nuclear testing in the Pacific was after that. There have been some accidents I think.
 
  • #3
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
My father was in WWII and got deployed to Japan within weeks after the bombs were dropped. What is the possibility that he suffered any radiation effects? He was 28 at the time and died when he was 43 - I always wondered if any of his illnesses were a result of being in Japan at that time and being in the Pacific during our nuclear testing?

Any thoughts?
Holly,

It's doubtful that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were responsible for any excessive radiation
dose.

Several years ago, I attended a seminar by Dr. Rosalyn Yallow, the 1977 Nobel Prize Laureate in Medicine.

She an expert in radiation and its effects on humans. She related that she testified about the radiation
dose that US servicemen received due to the bombs dropped on Japan and the testing that was conducted
in the Pacific.

It turns out that the radiation dose to servicemen due to the bombs and testing PALES compared to the
radiation dose that servicemen received in the aircraft. The flight crews of the bombers and fighters
spent so much time in their planes at altitude - that the amount of increased radiation exposure they
received just from being at flight altitudes for as long as they were TOTALLY SWAMPS anything that
any serviceman received from either the Japanese bombs or from Pacific nuclear testing.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #4
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
It turns out that the radiation dose to servicemen due to the bombs and testing PALES compared to the
radiation dose that servicemen received in the aircraft. The flight crews of the bombers and fighters
spent so much time in their planes at altitude - that the amount of increased radiation exposure they
received just from being at flight altitudes for as long as they were TOTALLY SWAMPS anything that
any serviceman received from either the Japanese bombs or from Pacific nuclear testing.
You talk about the acute flash dose during the explosion, no ? That must indeed be rather small if you are at a safe distance. But the question is, I think, about the contamination due to the fallout if you're stationed in the area AFTER the explosion.
In any case, I know that the French had some troubles on that side, like badly predicted wind which blew the cloud in the wrong direction, or a leaking test area with underground tests in French Algeria and things like that, and there is a polemic of whether some soldiers, and also some civilians, have been exposed to contamination. It's difficult to get numbers on that.
 
  • #5
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
You talk about the acute flash dose during the explosion, no ? That must indeed be rather small if you are at a safe distance. But the question is, I think, about the contamination due to the fallout if you're stationed in the area AFTER the explosion.
In any case, I know that the French had some troubles on that side, like badly predicted wind which blew the cloud in the wrong direction, or a leaking test area with underground tests in French Algeria and things like that, and there is a polemic of whether some soldiers, and also some civilians, have been exposed to contamination. It's difficult to get numbers on that.
vanesch,

NO - I'm talking about the TOTAL - fallout included.

NO - it is NOT difficult to get the numbers - they were declassified DECADES ago.

The radiation dose due to fallout decays rather quickly. If you get exposed to a cloud of fallout only
minutes after the blast - then radiation doses are quite high. However, if you are talking about the
fallout 24 hours later - then those radiation dose are quite reasonable and not expected to cause
health problems.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #6
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
The radiation dose due to fallout decays rather quickly. If you get exposed to a cloud of fallout only
minutes after the blast - then radiation doses are quite high. However, if you are talking about the
fallout 24 hours later - then those radiation dose are quite reasonable and not expected to cause
health problems.
I thought this was similar to the series of fission products from a reactor. Of course, the initial decay is very quick, but the first weeks or so, there does remain the I-131 and so on, no ?
 
  • #7
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
I thought this was similar to the series of fission products from a reactor. Of course, the initial decay is very quick, but the first weeks or so, there does remain the I-131 and so on, no ?
vanesch,

You can't compare reactors and bombs as you are attempting to do.

The amount of fissioned material in a bomb is a VERY SMALL fraction of what you find in the core
of a reactor. When a nuclear reactor discharges a spent core, we have many TONS of uranium that
has fissioned. [ A nominal sized power reactor puts out the energy of about 4 Hiroshima bombs EACH
day - and they run for a year or more between refueling ]. The bomb would fission only a few pounds
of fissile material. The explosion disperses the fission products to a very great extent. The iodine-131
that you are concerned about is a gas - it doesn't stick around the explosion site.

The amount of radioactivity remaining at the site of a nuclear explosion a day or so later, while
not zero; is NOT an unhealthy amount.

That's why workers were able to retrieve equipment and collect samples a day or so after
atmospheric tests conducted in Nevada and in the Pacific islands.

That's why we could have soldiers witness a nuclear test and march toward ground zero. Yes -
they got some radiation exposure - but as Nobel Laureate Dr. Yallow pointed out in the seminar
I attended; the air crews of bombers and fighters got MORE radiation due to being at altitude.

Claiming that someone died or had complications due to being at the site of a nuclear weapons
explosion some time after the blast, is like saying someone died or had health effects due to
having a CAT scan.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited:
  • #8
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
[ A nominal sized power reactor puts out the energy of about 4 Hiroshima bombs EACH
day - and they run for a year or more between refueling ].
Mmm, never thought about that. 1 kiloton = 4e12 joules, or 4000 GJ, which is what you get when you run a 1 GWe = 3 GWth plant for about 1200 seconds, or 20 minutes.

A ~20 kT weapon hence puts out the same (thermal energy) as a 1 GWe plant during ~ 6 hours.

You're right.

So all the fallout stuff is much less than I thought. Thanks for the head-up.

Then I don't see why the French are making a fuzz about it (about exposed soldiers and populations in the pacific after some tests where the wind went in the wrong direction and so - will try to look it up).
 
  • #9
2,006
5
So all the fallout stuff is much less than I thought.[..] Then I don't see why the French are making a fuzz about it
Especially if coal power stations produce radioactive exhaust at the same rate which nuclear power plants burn their fuel. Is there a difference in biological activity between the three?
 
  • #10
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,007
16
Especially if coal power stations produce radioactive exhaust at the same rate which nuclear power plants burn their fuel. Is there a difference in biological activity between the three?
Be careful: a coal fired plant puts out about as much natural uranium as an equivalent nuclear power plant fissions (if it were a perfect breeder, it would also be the amount of uranium that it consumes, but for current thermal reactors, there's still a factor of 200 or so between both), give or take an order of magnitude.

But uranium is much less radioactive that the same amount of uranium, fissioned (transformed into fission products). There's easily a factor of a million between them in the beginning. The hottest fission products, however, are also those that decay the fastest, so the activity of the fission products decays over time.
 
  • #11
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
Be careful: a coal fired plant puts out about as much natural uranium as an equivalent nuclear power plant fissions (if it were a perfect breeder, it would also be the amount of uranium that it consumes, but for current thermal reactors, there's still a factor of 200 or so between both), give or take an order of magnitude.

But uranium is much less radioactive that the same amount of uranium, fissioned (transformed into fission products). There's easily a factor of a million between them in the beginning. The hottest fission products, however, are also those that decay the fastest, so the activity of the fission products decays over time.
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html [Broken]

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
1,559
567
I never really thought of bomb fallout in terms of equivalent days of reactor ops. While some of it (cesium, strontium and so forth ) are fission products, I always had the idea that 'fallout' is mostly activated materials (former dirt, buildings, etc) that were vaporized by the blast. As compared to fission products. The big mushroom clouds in the photos & videos, that's blasted material, right, not pieces of the bomb? I guess it depends on the specifics of the blast (elevation above ground, etc).
 
  • #13
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
I never really thought of bomb fallout in terms of equivalent days of reactor ops. While some of it (cesium, strontium and so forth ) are fission products, I always had the idea that 'fallout' is mostly activated materials (former dirt, buildings, etc) that were vaporized by the blast. As compared to fission products. The big mushroom clouds in the photos & videos, that's blasted material, right, not pieces of the bomb? I guess it depends on the specifics of the blast (elevation above ground, etc).
gmax,

Yes - and the composition of the bomb. If the bomb has a lot of neutron absorbing material - then
the neutrons aren't going to escape and all that material that gets blasted into the mushroom cloud
is NOT going to be activated.

Just because material is vaporized by the heat of the blast - that does NOT make it radioactive.
It has to be hit by neutrons in order to activate.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #14
mheslep
Gold Member
254
728
The book 'Countdown to zero' discusses the role of troops who deployed around nuclear tests of the 50's/60's during detonations, and who moved toward ground zero immediately after detonation*. The author, a classmate of my father's, and all of the principal characters in the book that were also on those maneuvers are now dead from various cancers. Make of that what you will.

And I do mean immediately after as the book cover shows:
http://cgi.ebay.com.my/Countdown-Zero-by-Orville-E-Kelly-Thomas-H-Saffer_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQitemZ260372521571#ebayphotohosting [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #15
Morbius
Science Advisor
Dearly Missed
1,125
6
The book 'Countdown to zero' discusses the role of troops who deployed around nuclear tests of the 50's/60's during detonations, and who moved toward ground zero immediately after detonation*. The author, a classmate of my father's, and all of the principal characters in the book that were also on those maneuvers are now dead from various cancers. Make of that what you will.
mheslep,

Totally anecdotal. As I had posted here earlier, in the early '90s I attended a seminar by the 1977
Nobel Laureate in Medicine, Dr. Rosalyn Yallow. She's an expert in radiation and the effect on the
human body. She stated she had then recently testified to Congress which was considering some
type of compensation for the "atomic veterans" as they are called.

She asked the Senators, if the compensation given to servicemen who receive radiation doses in the
service of the nation should be proportional to the amount of radiation they received. The Senators
all thought that would only be fair. She then stated that the amount of radiation received by the atomic
veterans pales next to the radiation doses received by the air crews in WW 2. That is for every dollar
you gave an atomic veteran; you need to give a thousand dollars to war-era bomber flight crews.

Congress ended up taking a pass on any compensation for the atomic veterans.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
  • #16
'The amount of radioactivity remaining at the site of a nuclear explosion a day or so later, while not zero; is NOT an unhealthy amount.'

********. I'm sure you would love to do a walking tour of a blast site the day after detonation. There is, after all, no reason that the US would have spent Billions of dollars cleaning up test sites and relocating locals. You are nuts!
 
  • #17
Borek
Mentor
28,137
2,648
I'm sure you would love to do a walking tour of a blast site the day after detonation. There is, after all, no reason that the US would have spent Billions of dollars cleaning up test sites and relocating locals. You are nuts!
I would not call someone a nut without seeing numbers. And radiation dangers - while should be never underestimated - are much lower that panicking public thinks.
 
  • #18
6
0
  • #19
I would not call someone a nut ...
You are right, I should not be calling anyone names.

I apologize for the unfiltered response.

I was thinking of a near surface blast. Even though the levels will have decayed to around 1 percent of what they were at 1 minute, you still would not want to be there 24 hours later.

In an air blast, it could be possible. The nasty stuff gets dispersed and there is not so much
secondary neutron activation.
 
  • #20
3
0
as Nobel Laureate Dr. Yallow pointed out in the seminar
I attended....

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
With all due respect, Dr., Dr. Yalow did not get her Nobel Prize for radiation exposure research; she got it as a co-author for RIA technique development.
If I would argue and defend the point of view that there is no difference between external exposure of pilots and external/internal exposure of soldiers, I would not bring her into this discussion.
However, I would not argue that these two different types of exposure are the same. They are different. And we all know it very well now.
 
  • #21
3
0
Just for the record, and these guys are probably too young to remember the huge fuss over Sr-90, the bones of a whole generation exposed to nuclear fallout (from Nevada tests and elsewhere) contained hugely elevated levels of the isotope - compared to the prior generation. Please see: http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/aletho-news/seeking-new-clues-cancer-risks-atom-bomb-tests
"In December 2010, the International Journal of Health Services published findings of the study, i.e. that “Boomers” born 1959-1961 who died of cancer had Sr-90 levels in their teeth more than twice (+122%) greater than those the same age who are alive and healthy." (c)
It would be intersting to collect teeth of children born after Fukushima plant problem, and repeat this research.
 
  • #22
Explain this: the Veterans Adm is paying for cancer treatments for ""Atomic Veterans"? See http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/misc/varadfs.pdf
My parents were part of post WWII occupation as was my uncle. Although my dad was killed in a plane accident, my mom had ovarian cancer in 1960 at the age of 36. After that many bouts of breast cancer and in 2000 passed as a result of bone & lymph cancer. My uncle had a killer pancreatic cancer.
 
  • #23
3
0
********. I'm sure you would love to do a walking tour of a blast site the day after detonation. There is, after all, no reason that the US would have spent Billions of dollars cleaning up test sites and relocating locals. You are nuts!
Where did the US spend billions cleaning up our test sites and relocating locals? All they ever have done is just exclude people in the first place, and close them off to the public.
As for the Japanese cities, the only reason you know anything ever happened there is that they have built memorials to the blasts.
 
  • #25
18
0
From what I remember both the Japanese atomic bombings were air bursts in order to maximise the blast-related damage (see mach stem) and hence did not lead to any appreciable levels of fall-out. the Trinity test and the Nevada test site used many tower shots (~100 - 200ft off the ground) which would lead to significant neutron activation of ground based material.
 

Related Threads for: Japan Radiation months following Bombing in WWII

  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
29K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
17
Views
8K
  • Last Post
568
Replies
14K
Views
4M
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Top