Comments by "Arthur Mosel" (@arthurmosel808) on "The Terrifying True Scale of Nuclear Weapons" video.

  1. The yield at a was recalculated from the samples taken and the photos of the site. The new calculation is around 17 KT; however I suggest that you review a copy of the Journal of Health Physics which covers this. By the way the Tsar Bomb was a theoretical 50 MT; it actually didn't reach its full potential, thre. Are actual physical limits to how much of the material will undergo fusion. To get a bomb with that potential would require a horrendously large delivery system; so ends t he tale of super-sized bombs. By the way terrain and altitude play havoc with planning. The Hiroshima bomb was set to detonate without the fire ball touching the surface, but it did causing more fallout. The Nagzsaki bomb's fireball didn't touch the ground despite its greater size and because of terrain the damage was not as uniform as Hiroshima a flat coastal site. An additional factor was the type of construction (wood with a great deal of paper screens) and the fact breakfast charcoal fires were common in most dwellings, coupled with the disruption of water lines and burst gas mains meant a great deal of the damage were secondary to the bomb. None of this is not agree that the weapons arenn't horrendously destructive and dangerous. I am only saying that books like the Effects of Nuclear Weapons (used to be available through the US Government Printing Office and include a circular slide rule to figure theoretical effects under optimum conditions at sea level) can't help you get a good feel for these weapons and there is an excellent book on the medical and forensic records at Hiroshima.
    1