http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLCF7vPanrY&feature=related
the video is a bit slow... but I had no idea there had been so many nuclear explosions... 2053... wtf ?
and 45 of them by the uk :o
I actually had no idea we had directly caused any nuclear explosions, I always assumed we had let America get on with it. When you watch that and it really gets going about midway through its pretty concerning!
wow, that's pretty eye opening/scary!
I'd always pictured nuclear tests as taking place almost exclusively on deserted islands in the Pacific, but the vast majority of the dots on that map are on mainland in actual countries.
A lot of the mainland ones (but not all) will be underground tests. Still rather terrifying.
The UK was the third country to test an atomic weapon after the US and USSR, it was essentially a copy of Fat Man that was dropped on Nagasaki.
If memory serves we were also the third nation to test a thermonuclear weapon?
Wow.. seriously wtf? I think we'd struggle to justify the number we created.. then you look at the states with nearly 1000 more!!
Were they letting rip once a week just to prove they could in the end?
Wow I had no idea, the 50,60,70's really raped the planet didnt they. Makes me even more pissed off that we all get accused of destroying the planet by driving our cars but in reality the governments of the world where unleashing huge amounts of nuclear pollution into the planet on a weekly basis.
Some of the comments were quite insightful, EG, Kennedy getting a ban on nuclear testing = no explosions that year. Following year he's assassinated and BANG, loads of tests.
Also interesting how at the start, once Russia got going, every time they had an explosion the US would "retaliate" tenfold!
I know they're all controlled,underground, deep sea etc, but I wonder what kind of cumulative effect on environmental radiation etc it will have had, when compared to power station meltdowns etc.
I knew carbon dating only works back to 1950ish and anything earlier than that is no good because of all the man made radiation... but I always assumed that was from stuff like power stations etc...
I was expecting there to be about 20 test explosions.... not 2000 :s
The Americans seem to really love nuking themselves, as for the UK we just seem to love nuking the Aussies, not that we've got anything against them or anything...
Going off the bit after about 13 mins in it looks like the russians have nuked just about there entire country without any help from the americans, scary.
Quote from: knighty on October 30, 2012, 21:44:18 PM
I knew carbon dating only works back to 1950ish and anything earlier than that is no good because of all the man made radiation... but I always assumed that was from stuff like power stations etc...
I was expecting there to be about 20 test explosions.... not 2000 :s
That has to be wrong surely, the radiation associated with carbon dating is completely different than that associated with nuclear fission.
That and they've carbon dated pretty much every major archeological find.
It's wrong and right at the same time. Nuclear tests released a lot of carbon 14 into the atmosphere so yes, the nuclear tests do effect carbon dating, but not significantly as when doing the carbon dating you use "standards" to account for the loading of C-14 in the atmosphere and calibrate the results accordingly.
Quote from: M3ta7h3ad on October 31, 2012, 06:38:19 AM
That has to be wrong surely, the radiation associated with carbon dating is completely different than that associated with nuclear fission.
That and they've carbon dated pretty much every major archeological find.
you got the wrong end of the stick (maybe I didn't explain it well)
can't remember terminology off the top of my head, but when you carbon date stuff, you check the half life of the carbon in something that was once alive, because when it's alive the carbon is being replenished all the time (or something like that) and once it's dead it starts to break down... so you can check anything made out of plants/animals/wood etc...
but the radiation in anything that was alive in 1950 (or after) is more radioactive that it's supposed to be, so it can;t be carbon dated :-)
EDIT:
I was sure I read somewhere that carbon dating didn't work after 1950... but just googled and it still does work, then just use a different formula for it
When you said "works back to 1950ish" I think everyone read that as it only works for anything from 1950 onwards to the present.
Quote from: Clock'd 0Ne on October 31, 2012, 15:16:16 PM
When you said "works back to 1950ish" I think everyone read that as it only works for anything from 1950 onwards to the present.
that's what you get for listening to a tard :p
Well I was just too polite to say :P
Quote from: M3ta7h3ad on October 31, 2012, 06:38:19 AM
Quote from: knighty on October 30, 2012, 21:44:18 PM
I knew carbon dating only works back to 1950ish and anything earlier than that is no good because of all the man made radiation... but I always assumed that was from stuff like power stations etc...
I was expecting there to be about 20 test explosions.... not 2000 :s
That has to be wrong surely, the radiation associated with carbon dating is completely different than that associated with nuclear fission.
That and they've carbon dated pretty much every major archeological find.
Some radio carbon dating works very well, providing they know what they are testing and adjust for variances it can give a reasonably accurate date. Some materials just don't seem to conform to the formulas. Fabrics are particularly difficult to get an accurate test on, they have numerous bacteria which constantly produce additional fresh surface material, quite often this gives a result many hundreds of years closer to the test date than expected. The testing done on the Turin Shroud is subject to question because of this. The issue was originally discovered when testing materials from Egyptian tombs, the fabrics tested considerably more recent than bodies and wood items.
QuoteThe United Kingdom had been an integral part of the Manhattan Project following the Quebec Agreement in 1943. The passing of the McMahon Act by the United States in 1946 unilaterally broke this partnership and prevented the passage of any further information to the United Kingdom. The British Government, under Clement Attlee, determined that a British Bomb was essential. Because of British involvement in the Manhattan Project, Britain had extensive knowledge in some areas, but not in others.
An improved version of 'Fat Man' was developed, and on 26 February 1952, Prime Minister Winston Churchill announced that the United Kingdom also had an atomic bomb and a successful test took place on 3 October 1952.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_nuclear_weapons
Many UK military personnel were subject of exposure to radiation from the blasts, with full knowledge that it could cause cancer. This has been the subject of recent litigation within Britain.