We need censorship of lies not facts, and not censorship on the basis of fashion, political "groupthink" bias. Emotional subjectivity always triumphs over scientific objectivity in groupthink bureaucracy (so-called professionalism, which means the business of technology or exploiting science to make money, rather than actually doing science). Acceptable criticisms in science are camouflaged with obscurity, or diluted by unwarranted praise, so that nobody ever loses face. In this way, the lessons aren't learned, but are buried behind firewalls in journals restricted from public access, or else are rejected for publication as obscure.
The previous post
touches on the key problem for civil defense. Most people want war left to the military, and war prevention left to the secret security services or ideologues, despite their failure in the past. When trying to get attention for the facts which should speak for themselves, the standard response is extremely paranoid and deluded: it amounts to claiming falsely that we have a political agenda or that we are making an argument, which could be presented differently. However, what we want to do is precisely what we are doing, namely calling attention to certain facts because those facts are (a) important and (b) taboo or widely unknown. In other words, this blog is primarily a news media, presenting verified facts that are not available elsewhere. That's its point. There is no shortage of political propaganda on the subject, only of vital facts.
Shooting the messenger because the message is delivered in the wrong tone is missing the point, the message itself. All of the policies and arguments on nuclear weapons and civil defense are wrong if the foundations of those arguments and policies are made of false premises. It's propaganda of the worst sort to go on spluttering that we're constructing arguments when we're publishing factual news. We're deliberately not constructing theories, but merely pointing out proved facts. The only arguments or theories are those being constructed by "critics" who don't want to engage with the facts, just to speculate in ignorance about the motivation of the messenger! Better propaganda would look at the facts we're giving and try to find a plausible sounding dismissal of them, instead of ignoring them. However, it's useful to reveal who the real nutters are, and how many money-making biased charlatan professionals are included in their ranks
Above: deluded propaganda debunked. It's not being debated, just ignored. Democracy doesn't work when debates are "closed down" by scare-mongering fanatics who use fear and superstition today in the same way it has always been used, to intimidate the ignorant into accepting a political dogma which is not based on the facts, the relevant facts, and the whole truth. Who cares about the truth?
Susan Roy's 2011 book Bamboozled
falsely claims that fallout radiation can't be stopped by simple shielding and that simple plastic sheeting and dust tape - the scientific evidence for which we published on internet archive in August 2012
- which a year later could have saved hundreds of lives in the 21 August 2013 Ghouta suburb sarin nerve gas attack during the Syrian civil war, after windows were blown by explosive blast, are somehow ridiculous. She simply omits the scientific evidence proving the use of duct tape and plastic sheeting
. She also ignores the WWII British evidence from conventional and nuclear attacks for cheap improvised civil defence lifesaving effectiveness even if houses are completely flattened beside a crater, which again are useful for conventional war
. At some point, people will have to stop falsely ridiculing and laughing at needless suffering, and to stop political propaganda about bringing sides together that want to kill one another, and start saving civilian lives with affordable, quick, cheap civil defence, while wars burn themselves out. Sophistry in this situation requires a sick sense of humor, deserving only a slow handclap. We should censor out this drivel, and permit publication of the truth: the relevant incontrovertible facts.
Russian nuclear weapons tests effects summary for civil defence use
Extracts from: V. A. Logachev and L. A. Mikhalikhina, Animal Effects from Soviet Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, ITT Corp., Alexandria, VA., report ADA485845, March 2008 (PDF linked here). The Soviet Union exposed 8,000 animals (40% of these were sheep) in various structures, vehicles, and in the open and shadowed positions, to nuclear explosions in order to assess the effects in different situations, and to different combinations of the various effects of nuclear detonations. Instead of simply giving the straightforward data on effects from specific nuclear tests, the data is presented only as processed output having been combined into three categories of yield range. However, it is still an important report.
In this summary, we have edited out "chaff" to enable attention to be focussed on the useful data contained in the report. The "chaff" we removed consists of general, non-quantitative, descriptions that convey no useful information for civil defence, or information that is only relevant to the highly inappropriate conditions of the nuclear test, i.e. an unobstructed desert with no buildings or city skylines to shield the effects of the thermal flash on the eyes, or to shield the initial nuclear radiation flash. We have excluded initial radiation data since no doses or radiation spectra are given in the report, just descriptions of radiation sickness to various kinds of animals. This is of no use to civil defence, because the shielding of neutrons and initial gamma rays by different kinds of structure is dependent on the type of radiation (neutrons, or gamma rays), the amount of scattering it has undergone when passing through a city skyline (which reduces its energy, making shielding easier) and the weapon design (fusion of tritium and deuterium releases 14.1 MeV neutrons, which are highly penetrating in comparison to the mean 1.1 MeV energy neutrons from fission).
Update (25 January 2015): Radiating temperatures of fireballs in US and British nuclear tests
There's a new paper published by Robert C. Slaughter, Tyler R. Peery and John W. McClory, "Two-dimensional analysis of nuclear fireballs using digitized film," J. Appl. Remote Sens. 9(1), 095096 (Jan 20, 2015).
Abstract. Researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have begun digitizing technical films spanning the atmospheric nuclear testing operations conducted by the United States from 1945 through 1962. Each atmospheric nuclear test was filmed by Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier, Inc., using between 20 to 40 cameras per test. These technical film test data represent a primary source for advancing the knowledge of nuclear weapon output as well as the understanding of nonnuclear high-temperature gases. This manuscript outlines the procedures followed in order to perform two-dimensional temperature calculations for early time nuclear fireballs using digitized film. The digitized optical densities of the film were converted into irradiance on the film that was then used to determine an effective power temperature. The events Wasp Prime and Tesla of Operation Teapot were analyzed using this technique. Film temperature results agreed within uncertainties with historic data collected by calorimeters. Results were also validated by comparison to a thermal heat flux solution that utilizes historic thermal yield values to normalize radiant flux. Additionally, digital imaging and remote sensing image generation was used to demonstrate that the two-dimensional temperature calculation was self-consistent.
"Using the process outlined in the preceding section, two-dimensional temperature was determined for the test shots Wasp Prime and Tesla. A mean temperature was then determined as a function of time for each film. ... The total radiance across the entire film sequence was expanded at later times assuming that the log linear radiant flux decay was constant after
∼0.5 s to extend out to 20 s, thus ensuring nearly all thermal energy is accounted for. Utilizing this approach, Wasp Prime was determined to have a thermal yield of 1.4 kt. The historical quoted value of the thermal yield of Wasp Prime is 1.6 kt.9 Tesla was determined to have a thermal yield of 2.6 kt. The historical quoted thermal yield of Tesla is 2.5 kt.9 Both results agree well with historical values and provide further supporting evidence that temperature calculations determined by the two-dimensional power method are consistent with historical data."
The formerly secret report on the 25 kt ship-burst British Operation Hurricane nuclear test of 1952 and films of the crater engulfing the fireball in the 1.5 kt 1956 Maralinga Marcoo site test, Buffalo-Round 2, led to an interesting passage in the 1956 Manual of Civil Defence, v1, Nuclear Weapons on how the cratering action cools the fireball, lowering the radiating temperature and resulting in more easily attenuated infrared radiation. Using the Planck distribution for radiation, for a 6000 K averaging radiating temperature in a typical air burst (or for sunlight on a clear day), you get about 45% of the thermal energy as visible radiation, another 45% as infrared, and 10% as ultraviolet (most of which is quickly absorbed by the ozone smog created from oxygen by the intense initial gamma radiation just beyond the fireball). For a surface burst where the cratering ejecta cools the fireball to a mean radiating temperature of around 3000 K within milliseconds, you get 90% of the thermal radiation in the infrared, 10% in the visible band, and next to no ultraviolet emissions. However, as the weapon yield increases, the radius of the crater ejecta or throwout increases as a weaker power of yield than the fireball radius at final thermal maximum, so the crater has less effect on shielding the fireball for very high yields. The thermal yield therefore varies from 4.5% for a 1 kt surface burst to 17% for a 10 Mt surface burst. The traditional approach in Glasstone and Dolan 1977 ignores this physical mechanism and is therefore grossly misleading when nuclear terrorist attacks of low yields in cities are evaluated, even neglecting the non-Hiroshima shielding effects of modern tall concrete buildings.