Talk:Effects of nuclear explosions on human health

Physics Low‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mention what a Gray or Gy is

I don't know where the proper location in the article to add this would be, but the article should mention what a Gray is and/or link to the Wikipedia page for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.210.10 (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Transgenerational genetic damage"

The paper on isotope concentration changes in Chernobyl' animals linked in Effects of nuclear explosions on human health#Transgenerational genetic damage has nothing to do with these supposed transgenerational effects.

This is a somewhat contentious topic/an urban legend (see hibakusha#Discrimination) and unless a relevant source is given it should be removed. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer induction numbers are mis-represented

"Cancer induction is the most significant long term risk of exposure to a nuclear bomb. Approximately 1 out of every 80 people exposed to 1 gray will die from cancer and 1 in 40 people will get cancer. Different types of cancer take different times for them to appear:[4]"

While it might be that 1 in 80 extra deaths occur, the death from cancer is already over 1 in 4. I suggest rewriting this statement to either state the number of extra deaths or the worldwide average and the 1 gray average. Statistically, twenty times more people will die of non-radiation induced cancer even at 1 gray than radiation induced cancer, so the current statement makes it seem that those 20 in 80 will not die. Basroil (talk) 03:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, you should be bold and write that section to better reflect the risk.Boundarylayer (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There would not be many survivors exposed to an acute 1 gray dose from fallout, the whole article is misleading.

Following a thermonuclear war, anyone who got exposed to 1 gray in a city would probably be followed by instantly dying from blast effects alone. So no, all this talk of 1 gray is baloney when applied to massive weapons, it is only applicable to low yield Hiroshima- 16 kt weapons, and increasingly less important as the yield of the weapon increases, see http://www.remm.nlm.gov/RemmMockup_files/radiationlethality.jpg.

Moreover just 2000 excess cases of cancer have been observed in the survivors of the Hiroshima bomb, most of the people exposed to high amounts of radiation were killed by blast there too. See the RERF radiation effects research foundation to substantiate this 2000 figure..

The long term effects to survivors after a thermonuclear war would be dealing with the minor problem of chronic exposure to global fallout, with the prompt(most harmful) dose being dependent on whether or not rural survivors were smart enough to take refuge in storm cellars and tape up all means of entrance into their home - Shelter in place. Whether or not people would do this, I would, is a matter of debate. If people did Shelter in place for around about 90 days then the fallout hazard would have dropped by about a 1000 fold, and it would be completely safe to go walk around outside. See the 7 by 10 rule for a laymans guide.

So really the article should be broken up to describe what happens if non city slickers don't shelter in place. As all this data about prompt 1 gray exposure is (1) not really applicable, and (2) the dose would not be acute or prompt from fallout, it would be chronic.

Some excellent sources on what to do are as follows.

http://nikealaska.org/nuke/fallout.html

http://www.falloutradiation.com/johnwayne7

http://www3.nd.edu/~nsl/Lectures/phys205/pdf/Nuclear_Warfare_9.pdf

www.tacda.org/docs/TACDA_Academy_CDBasics_6Radiation.pdf

http://www.srp-uk.org/resources/rules-of-thumb-a-practical-hints

Boundarylayer (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted all of your edits. You can't take information about general disasters and add it here, as that's not what this article is about. In fact, the article isn't even really about a large scale nuclear war: it's about the specific effects on humans of a nuclear explosion. Your edits were WP:SYNTH. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is WP:SYNTH, the lede leads readers to assume the effects listed would be observed from all nuclear weapons, thermonuclear yield weapons included, this is entirely misleading as the whole lede is actually referring to Hiroshima only. As the reference I supplied in my edit showed, at higher yields there would be negligible survivors presenting with radiation sickness from high yield thermonuclear explosions, as they would all have been blown away before having the chance to get sick from radiation. So my edits have been in response to this wholly misleading lede.

Secondly you claim that - the article isn't even really about a large scale nuclear war- ok then, so explain to me then why is the number 1 reference of the entire article a book titled 'the effects of global nuclear war? A non-sequitur if I ever came across one.

Moreover I think you know fine well that the infectious disease section is misleading, as I pointed out in my edit. As for other disasters being important, when the same causative agent - a break down in sewage treatment is causing the infectious diseases, and it is common in both normal and nuclear disasters, than it is definitely valid information.

The problem is, and I think you'll agree, is that the article is mis mashed with a whole load of different discussion points, Heavily Hiroshima and Nagasaki orientated(without specifically stating that only these two are being discussed), with a complete lack of looking at thermonuclear effects although many of the references discuss them, to long term global nuclear war effects, from a break down in city support systems allegedly increasing the spread of infectious diseases and hypothetical nuclear winter information that would only result after a nuclear war.

Boundarylayer (talk) 06:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are problems with the article, but you simply cannot just say "Oh, the article is about something different than what the title says". We cannot have the title of the article be "Effects of nuclear explosions on human health" and then have the first sentence talk about the effects of the Hiroshima attack. That just doesn't make sense. Obviously most of the data on nuclear explosion/human health interactions has to come from those 2 attacks, since, well, that's what we have data from. But that doesn't mean that's the only thing the article is about. And, again, the "global nuclear war effects" has nothing whatsoever to do with this article. That would belong in, probably , Nuclear war, or some spinoff of that page. It is important and relevant to have an article that looks specifically at the health effects of a specific explosion. It's just like there being a value to having separate articles on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster, Nuclear meltdown, Lists of nuclear disasters and radioactive incidents, and Tsunami. I would totally agree that if Nuclear war doesn't contain broad info about the likely effects of the war, including the societal/governmental breakdown, disease, etc., then that info should probably be added there or in a separate article. But this isn't that article. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think keeping all the effects on human health following single nuclear explosions of low and high yield, and nuclear war in one place is pertinent.

You should also be aware that all the dose figures in gray given in the article, and posted by other editors are in error. The DS02 estimates on absorbed dose in Hiroshima & Nagasaki have since been revised upwards from the DS86 estimates published in the no.1 reference in this article. The dated 1983 to 1986 book - The effects of global nuclear war. Dosimetry matters. For more on the DS02 see the Radiation effects research foundations(RERF) website- in case you don't know, they're the people who've been studying the survivors/Hibakusha for decades.

Boundarylayer (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible incorrect link

Under Central nervous system death the list of symptoms includes a link to Prostration - surely this should link to Hyperthermia instead? Autarch (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

media

if the article focus on human health, why presenting an image of junk metal? 145.64.134.242 (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Cold War Science

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SapientiaMundus (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by SufferingSappho41 (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]