Nuclear Engineer reacts to Kurzgesagt "What if We Nuke a City?"

[@carstendobbins5168]

I like this reaction. You keep it real. Not overly critical and you realise the fact that its a video meant to help the public understand something. it is a simple explanation, and you add stuff on to aid understanding. Keep it up these are great vidios.

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks so much!

[@biancoboy_j]

@@tfolsenuclear I loved this video I am interested in nukes such how they work and also never give up and do what makes you have fun anyways have a great Day/night (the edit was to check stuff and I forgot something so yea)

[@Ibloop]

@@tfolsenuclear what do you know about “Neutronium”

[@Ermzec]

​@@tfolsenuclear nuke are bad but antimatter bombs are a monstrosity I think it's about 1 kilogram can do what the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs but it can also make one the most fuel efficient engine so far.

[@1kwo.1]

​@@Ermzecproducing antimatter is enormously expensive (estimated at $6 billion for every 100 nanograms), the quantities of antimatter generated are very small. bro 1kg of antimatter is way too expensive to produce

[@TheJerbol]

It was a single person, Vasily Arkhipov, who prevented war in the Cuban missile crisis, simply because on _his submarine specially_ they required three officers to authorize a launch instead of 2, because he was the flotilla commander. He was the only dissenter. These are very real possibilities, all it takes is one disgruntled general to order the destruction of most of the world, given the right circumstances

[@rachelwachel]

It's worth noting that Arkhipov solely prevented nuclear catastrophe because the other generals thought they were being attacked by US warships, but Arkhipov noticed that all of them were missing their target by too far of a distance for it to be an attack, and that they must be warning shots, which is what was intended when Kennedy gave the orders to use them. The nuclear war that almost broke out was because of a misunderstanding, and it was only because of the common sense of one man who used reason to judge his actions.

[@TheJerbol]

@@rachelwachel completely agree, there isn't absolute blame on either side, which is what makes the situation that much more terrifying

[@AMorphicTool]

There was plenty of situations like this. A greenland observatory mistaking the rising moon for a nuclear launch, NORAD almost mistaking an attack because someone left the training sequence in. I imagine plenty more unknown near-miss events happened on the Russian side too. I mean, fuck, imagine you wiped out humanity because your computer system saw the moon and took it personally.

[@petersmythe6462]

Keep in mind that Americans would not be under any obligation to retaliate against an individual nuclear torpedo launch by strategic bombing Soviet cities.

[@soupcangaming662]

Also they didn't do a funny Red October and kill the dissenter taking his key

[@CJrb_16]

I love how bro reacts so simple not over reacting😭🙏🏻

[@imtehkilla24567]

Your video was suggested and I was very happy to find your channel. I'm a biologist, but I have a strong interest in nuclear technology especially the overlap with how radiation effects DNA and cellular function. Thank you for the insightful content, I enjoy Kurgzgesagt but often I'm disappointed on how they have to sacrifice being very scientifically technical to be able to be understood easier by general audiences. I really enjoy having an expert such as yourself go deeper from their experiences.

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks so much for your kind comment! I’m glad you like the videos!

[@1300thiago]

So... basically you want to create a real Hulk 😆

[@RyugaruSenbi]

Yeah, going into the deep technicalities of a topic sadly makes it pretty impossible to follow their primary goal: making science engaging and accessible to people who aren't compatible with the often dry and monotonous way it is taught in school and inspiring them to learn more.

[@mechanomics2649]

I don't know why you're disappointed in them for having to sacrifice being technical in order to be more accessible. Their channel isn't about being technical. It's about making science more accessible. It sounds like their channel isn't for you.

[@x3woots]

If you want them to go "indepth" then look at their research papers (if they have it), not their videos. Plus their channel is quite literally "in a nutshell" its whole purpose is about making it as easy to understand as possible.

[@jake51515]

My big thing with just dismantling nukes is that a rouge nation like north korea either wouldnt listen, or even if they did, the knowledge of how to build them is forever going to be out there. I think the unfortunate truth is that nuclear weapons are forever apart of our society, like it or not. Thats why its even more important we keep close tabs on the powers in control of them! Even a small briefcase nuke is not hard to build as long as you have the money for the plutonium. A small device even in a 1 kiloton range is EXTREMELY powerful!

[@michajastrzebski4383]

yeah. For a scale reference, that conventional blast in Beirut's port - that was about two kilotons equivalent. It obliterated a rather large part of the city. And that is only 2 kT. Most warheads will be few orders of magnitude more yield equivalent than "just" that....not to mention that chances are, the large area target like a city would be hit with multiple warheads at once (i.e. Moscow was planned to be hit with 160-something warheads in the height of the cold war, in quick succession...i.e. anything of strategic value, down to a railway junction, had a separate warhead coming for it specyfically)

[@skipp3252]

honestly, rogue nations like that are waay less of a problem then super powers today when it comes to nukes. Suppose north korea was the last country with nukes and decided to fire one. That is obviously a tragedy but its also their own demise. They will be literally invaded, much like germany after the world war and occupied. The international community will demilitirize the country and remove its nuclear capabilities. Essentially you are hurting yourself more than you are hurting anyone else by firing a nuke in a no nuke world. This really works even generations down the line because the sentiment within the population of that rogue country would be incredibly anti nuclear after that occupation. I am german so I can tell you it works.

[@ythegamerita]

I think it's just better to save them for when we need them for stuff that isn't blowing ourselves up, it's not smart to waste nukes to destroy ourselves

[@mojolotz]

Ok but what use is having a nuke in that scenario? You think it helps convince the small nation not to build theirs? Heck no. The only thing it does is show the small nation that powerful nations have nukes, so they should too if they wanna be powerful.

[@cantinadudes]

The only way to get rid of nuclear weapons is to use them all

[@andrewgreenwood9068]

Humanity was incredibly lucky to figure out nukes when we did. A decade earlier and ww2 would have ended the world and a decade later the horrors of nuclear attack would not have been made clear when there were only a handful of weapons. We got them at pretty much the only point where we wouldn't instantly die.

[@jonathanodude6660]

we figured out nukes because of WWII. we got the space race because of WWII. there were many things that we would never have bothered looking into if not for the necessity of WWII. mass produced plastic comes to mind as well. einstein came to the US because his family knew they would have been sent to a jewish labour camp, so he met up with all of the other insanely brilliant jewish or other german scientists and american scientists of the day and founded modern particle and nuclear physics. this was directly caused by hitlers actions.

[@andrewgreenwood9068]

@@jonathanodude6660 I am aware of that but I think we would have eventually worked it out even if it took an extra few decades.

[@asroczka]

As an American I wish nukes weren’t invented in the first place!

[@ElderonAnalas]

​@@asroczka"and now I am become death" certainly comes to mind

[@greenl7661]

There was no nuke delivery systems; nukes themselves were small yield and expensive. It wouldn't change anything if they were built in 1930. I suggest you to Google the result of fire bombings, it wasn't that decidengly different from nuking.

[@pajac6809]

I really enjoy kurzgesagt, I'd love to see you to react to more of them: for example the video where they discuss why we don't shoot nuclear waste into space.

[@tfolsenuclear]

That was actually my very first Kurzgesagt reaction! kzbin.info/www/bejne/ipbdXoGIipWbgc0

[@bradjjones77]

It's basically like Pandora's box... It's already been opened, and there's no realistic way to put it back in. I'm not saying that they are necessary, just saying that something learned cannot be unlearned, collectively.

[@clubardi]

if you kill everyone then it is in essence unlearnt

[@salomaogomes7311]

It's not a matter of "unlearning" it. It's a matter of reducing their number so that there's an end to this special club of people who have summary power to end the human race, a concept that should NEVER exist.

[@TheRandom_Commenter]

@@clubardiinformation Cannot be destroyed, the info is still there. Throw the Galaxy into a Universe sized Black Hole, however, and it’d be done.

[@St0veyy]

Found you couple days ago & I’m glad I did. Love the videos 👍🏼

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks, glad you like them!

[@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim]

As someone who is an amateur astronomer, and I don't want to minimize how horrific a nuclear detonation is, but a meteor strike is very similar to this but on a _much larger scale._ The largest known nuclear weapon detonated on Earth was the Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons if I remember correctly. Contrast that with the Chicxulub Impactor, which hit the Yucatan with the force of 72 teratonnes. There's a reason NASA is concerned about an asteroid strike, as unlikely of an event as it is.

[@TheOJDrinker]

The difference being, humans can't make a meteor strike. We _can_ (and probably would) make many, many, MANY nuclear detonations.

[@VelociraptorsOfSkyrim]

@@TheOJDrinker As Dart showed, this isn't true. We have the knowledge and technology to modify the orbits of Asteroids.

[@wowplayer160]

@@TheOJDrinker Humans be like: Hold my beer.

[@bestaround3323]

Yeah, this is why if I couldn't be completely out of the blast radius (at least the fireball) the I would rather be as close to the center as possible. At least it would be a quick death.

[@majeriv5683]

College degrees weren't made to show expertise, but to show that you went multiple years striving to achieve your goals, to show dedication to the field that you're going into, the degree also shows that you were already in the field for multiple years and counting. So you would possess the required knowledge, however it's mainly to show your work ethic. You presenting your degrees/certificates shows confidence, dedication, and also expertise, nonetheless, I do appreciate a fellow engineer! I am currently in Highschool shooting for mechanical engineering, I'm already certified for mechanical design by Dassault Systemes and I must say, engineering is a great topic! I thoroughly enjoyed this phenomenal video!

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks! Glad you liked it

[@writecraft7049]

This is really good... he even has his credentials visible! We need more academics peer reviewing popular edu vids.

[@hansdavis7335]

If you think about it the Beirut explosion is the only closest and most videoed explosion close to a nuke in the middle of a city we have to date, and from all the videos (angles of capture) you can see everything there is to know how terrifying and fascinating it is. Edit: Here's the link kzbin.info/www/bejne/qmialHlvqKiUfM0 The video in the 25:40 part is the best angle

[@jayman1772]

Or one watches the footage of Nuklear weapons tests. The footage of the houses that are far away and where the cameras survived the blasts. But yeah Beirut really shows how scary a shockwave can be even without the fire and radiation.

[@HayTatsuko]

For me, one of the most horrific ways to die is that which involves the "walking ghost" phase of terminal Acute Radiation Syndrome. Nothing, save Alzheimer's, is more cruel than an illness making someone feel as though they've beat it, only to collapse and die horribly, in excruciating pain, 2-10 days later. I've watched three of your reaction videos this overnight and I've enjoyed every single one. I enjoy your affable, informative presenting style bunches.

[@i_can_c_u_2295]

Wanted to say: „Kurzgesagt“ is German for „shortly said“ or „in a nutshell“. Great video by the way. You gave a expert analysis and added important information. Well done👍

[@hans1783]

All he had to mentioned about airburst compare to groundburst, Air burst creates damage over a wider area due to the shockwave, while a ground burst is more focused/localized in a smaller area but still highly destructive due to the intense heat and radiation. That's it... Just the "localized" part is the most important to paint a better picture than saying "there's a lot of factors here".

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

Airbursts also creates considerably less fallout, for hydrogen weapons it creates barely any. This is because only the bomb material can be activated and rendered radioactive and all of that is going to get kicked up into the upper atmosphere for almost months, by which what comes down is inert. Meanwhile on a ground detonation the soil, debris and vegetation vaporized by the blast also gets activated, and unlike the weapon material those are heavy particles that will fall back down on or near the explosion site within the order of a few minutes to a few hours. It is the conundrum of castle bravo, the reason why radioactivity of this test was so incredibly bad was because it vaporized it's test site, sandy island and coral reefs. Those in the control room had to be picked up between a brief window when the test area became safe to exit and before the radiation blasted material made it way back down

[@Jalbesbe]

The cold war wasn't really stopped from being a real war due to nuclear bombs, actually the bombs nearly made it a real war. The reason the cold war was able to sit for so long was neither side felt ready to go into another war as they had just been in a long war. So instead of them losing more population, they would just use other countries to fight and give some reason for their armies being so big still.

[@jasonnchuleft894]

Something you forgot to mention is how the heat and dust released into the atmosphere can actually create the weather phenomenon that later makes the nuclear fallout so devastating (black rain). Dependent on climate and yield it could also trigger severe downbursts or localized mini tornados when surrounding cold air interacts with the released superheated extremely dry air dispersed in the shockwave.

[@alicorn3924]

it's literally in kurzgesagt's video and is also shown in this video

[@mdeleon9481]

5:40 I have one comment on this. If you pay enough attention to all types of explosions, you'll see that even grenades create a mushroom cloud. This is because the colder air accumulates below the hot air, and makes that form. Grenades, devices that explode, and a large etcetera. For smaller, lasts less, for bigger, lasts longer.

[@Timothy-Clifford]

that is mostly true, depends a lot on the shape of the explosion tho

[@praetorjaeger]

Listening to the occasional comment from you just kinda made the notion of nuclear weapons more horrifying. Like the thermal pulse being faster then the shockwave (makes sense but never really realized) or the speed of the winds being as strong as they are… just not something you are meant to live through

[@Theycallmeyoshi1]

one of the worst ways I've heard of dying from radiation is entering the 'walking dead' state. no, you're not a zombie, you're actually perfectly functional... and then you drop dead days to a month later because your bone marrow was destroyed by radiation, and your blood became functionally useless. you can imagine the shock and horror of that n morale. one moment your new best friend is okay, the next he just stops and drops.

[@b3dubbs72]

It also just straight up destroys your DNA at a high enough dose. Check out the Hisashi Ouchi case.

[@davemiller638]

Isn't it 'Walking Ghost'

[@terran5364]

On the extent of injuries, I'm reminded of one point of narration from the 1984 nuclear horror Threads from one of the most haunting scenes in the film: "The peacetime resources of the British health service, even if they survived, would be unable to cope with the effects of even the single bomb that's hit Sheffield. By this time, without drugs, water or bandages, without electricity or medical support facilities, there is virtually no way a doctor can exercise his skill. As a source of help or comfort, he is little better equipped than the nearest survivor."

[@alonelysoul9071]

That was one of the most harrowing scenes ever shown

[@ranna.4162]

This just makes me feel more devastated for the nuclear bombing to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[@wujekcientariposta]

In those bombing died less civilians than will die in ukraine in a conventional war before it is over.

[@davedeviluke]

Those are atomic bombs (still serious damage caused to those cities, but nuclear bombs would be way more destructive) If WW3 started and nuclear bombs were used, we would see way more serious damage to our cities

[@wujekcientariposta]

@@davedeviluke Nuclear and atomic are synonims of each other xD What you mean to say is those were fission bombs not fusion bombs.

[@elisabethsun7059]

Those detonated in the air so they didn’t contaminate the land long-term

[@Row_dog]

I don't it saved more people in the long run

[@FalcoGer]

12:50 well, as far as reactors go there was SL-1 that killed 3 people. Generally radiation accidents happen a lot more than you'd think. There was this one russian guy who got his head into a particle accelerator beam. Then there are some industrial accidents from stuff like sterilization facilities. And then there are lost sources, usually from medical units, but there was also an incident with radioactive pellets distributed in a military base, placed to train decontamination crews, but not cleaned up properly or some soviet RTGs designed to power remote radio beacons being discovered by some woodworkers and used as a campfire replacement.

[@tonyc7352]

Very good summary. Plus the two scientists who were so foolish to basically play with that "demon core".

[@harvey_anderson]

This is one of those channels on par with photonicinduction. Quite small, quite unknown, but just pure gold.

[@acidcosti19]

13:23 actually Chernobyl had a containment structure but was a very old variant but stop a loot of the radiotion to be released in the air, but was not that eficient

[@Irishbal.l]

This guy is so smart he seems good to work in a Nuclear opertated facility!

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks 😁

[@Irishbal.l]

@@tfolsenuclear👍 good video! And thanks for replying!

[@clankplusm]

Asking for a correction of my knowledge as you’re the professional here: don’t nuclear weapons actually create less radiological damage than nuclear accidents (uncontained ones), as the weapon is actually aiming to use up all of the radiation / fissile material in the body for the explosion as opposed to almost none of the fissile material being destroyed in a accident, just dispersed? Hiroshima / Nagasaki is habitable (keep in mind those were air bursts, so not much fallout) while Chernobyl isn’t for instance. Of course, “salted”nukes will do more radiological damage, and a contained nuclear accident isn’t doing much harm at all? Is that basis of knowledge correct or am I wrong?

[@tfolsenuclear]

That is an excellent question, with a complex answer 😁 TL;DR: A nuclear bomb is analogous to a sudden megatsunami and Chernobyl is analogous to a thunderstorm that sits for several days You are absolutely correct that only uncontained nuclear accidents with fuel damage have comparable radiological consequences. And ground burst detonations would cause more localized contamination due to neutron activation of the ground. Chernobyl released many times more radioactive material than Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Though, this is a comparison between the worst un-contained nuclear accident and the weakest nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons tests in the 1950s and 1960s released many times more radioactive material than Chernobyl 😮 But, these were mostly done in remote areas. One important thing to keep in mind is the dose rate. While Chernobyl released more radioactive material, one could argue that it was far less radiologically damaging, since most of it came from more long-lived radioisotopes rather than a short burst of higher dose. Dose over time is much less deadly than dose all at once.

[@clubardi]

@@tfolsenuclear you can also think of it with water, too much water at once will drown you but disperse over time and you live

[@ronmaximilian6953]

Getting rid of nuclear weapons? I don't see anyone doing it. In December 1994, Ukraine signed an agreement to do so and did. As part of the Budapest memorandum, the US, UK, and Russia all agreed to respect and protect these sovereignty of Ukraine. It didn't work out that way. There are millions of people in Ukraine who probably wish they still had nuclear weapons. And countries around the world are paying attention.

[@OnlyOozyJay]

Use nuclear weapons for space travel or something 🗣️🔥💯🔥

[@stemo64118]

@@OnlyOozyJaythats dumb… the nuke would explode its not made for space travel

[@OnlyOozyJay]

@@stemo64118 I was joking... However, nukes have rockets attached to them that can easily bring them across the planet and/or into space. Nuclear explosions also don't work the same in space as on Earth, using them to propel craft is seriously considered by some.

[@u.v.s.5583]

"Having a weapon is very different from actually using it." Mahathma Gandhi.

[@davebrowne8252]

We were shown videos like this as kids in the 80s. It instilled a massive fear of nuclear power. It probably set nuclear power plant installations back 20 years as an entire generation couldn't differentiate between a nuclear power plant and a nuclear bomb. I still remember the fear of a new cold war back then. We expected it.

[@phillip6083]

Fall out greatly depends on if the nuke detonates in the air or at ground level. A ground level blast turns matter from the ground into irradiated dust which in turn rains or falls back to ground in large quantities. Air burst releases much less irradiated matter.

[@jacksong6226]

12:58 SL-1 was also a nuclear reactor accident that killed people

[@SjurgisS]

Why does it instantly trigger me to hear non-SI units being used (shake)? What has engineer studies done to me? :D

[@petersmythe6462]

The issue with that UN treaty is that none of the actual nuclear states signed it except for your DPR of Korea, enough, nice to have but North Korea stands alone against the rest of the nuclear weapons states here. If all the nuclear weapons states like their nukes except for one relatively minor one, it seems difficult to convince them that enjoying a nuclear advantage against a conventional opponent, what I presume must be your rational motivation for them, is not worth it.

[@Person-ef4xj]

Dismantling nuclear weapons sounds like a double edged sword as some countries might not agree to it, but on the other hand mutually assured destruction seems like a way of maintaining piece that can only last so long before a leader decides to go to war anyway.

[@lubomirkubasdQw4w9WgXcQ]

i like how you are informative, and one thing you could change.. actually i dont think i have much

[@Soup_2nd]

Wait, so people die from Nuclear Explosions? They don’t become Ghouls?

[@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch]

Nah, this is just smooth-skin propaganda.

[@Soup_2nd]

@@Cyrus_T_Laserpunch Your timing is great, over the past week I’ve been calling people “Smoothskin” in a ghoul voice in regular conversations.

[@hristiyandelisyarov6487]

On the horrific death scale, Acute Radiation Syndrome( or radiation sickness) definitely ranks at the top. Depending on how irradiated you get, you'll have pleasant experiences such as: skin falling off, necrosis, very commonly hemorrhaging in your intestines and stomach, immune system failure, DNA damage preventing any kind of healing and finally organ failure. You'll be able to feel all the *pleasant* pain all the way until your brain shuts down, and that usually happens once your heart shuts down, so it's a roulette on how long you gotta suffer. If you want to look at all the gory( and very educational) details, feel free to look up the case of Hisashi Ouchi, commonly referred to as the *most radioactive man* , who was kept alive (while everyone knew he was 100% dead) for 83 days.

[@BakedPotato0630]

@2:20, would it be as fast as a Pico second?

[@tfolsenuclear]

Not quite that fast! A picosecond = 10^-12 second A nanosecond = 10^-9 second

[@saschaschneider9157]

For those who aren't terrified enough by this video I recommend the video game DEFCON. It is basically the game Matthew Broderick's character in War Games was searching for: The world preparig for all out thermonuclear war. To me the most terrifying game ever. And like in the movie it is "a strange game. The only winning move is not to play."

[@lordradam5409]

Please watch "Countdown to Zero" to learn more about nuclear terrorism, wars, accidents and more.

[@Tigermania]

MAD creates the stalemate, but weapons reduction is a valid goal. Instead of maintenance and replacing old nukes we could spend the money on something more productive.

[@n1co2017]

worst part is that the nuke he based this around isn't even close to as powerful as some of the most powerful ones such as tsar bomba or castle bravo which would be far worse than this. this kinda looks like your average medium to high yield tactical nuke. also i think for the last part like as long as your opponents for example Russia, China have them and refuse to give them up, for the US it would be incredibly stupid to destroy all of them since you would be a sitting duck with no way to retaliate to an attack. Also, in some way they honestly make you safer because even Putin isn't stupid enough to attack a country that can just nuke Moscow in a matter of minutes. if Ukraine had nukes the invasion wouldn't have happened.

[@gwathanaur]

"Tactical nuke" isn't really a thing from a physics perspective. Tactical vs Strategic is mostly about the delivery system, not the bomb itself. Also they say 13 km instant burn, that is not such a small nuke at all !!!

[@n1co2017]

@@gwathanaur i never said it was small i just said it's not as big as some of the biggest ones we have.

[@greenl7661]

No military is using 'big' nukes. There's no military point in doing so. Instead they make a bunch of 1Mt nukes fit into one rocket, so that it can hit multiple targets. Their scenario is extremely realistic, and in fact a very massive big nuke, expect that there would be 3 to 7 explosions evenly spaced every 15 miles.

[@ShadowWasntHere8433]

The genie is out of the bottle. There’s no containing it ever

[@Paul_Allaker8450]

Unfortunately the genie is out of the bottle on nuclear weapons, a nation's scientists can't unlearn how to build them, a rogue nation is likely not to comply, so as much I'd want them to disappear I can't see it happening.

[@theflamingprotogen6405]

So on the Chernobyl accident... Apparent these people called "liquidators" saved almost all of Europe, because apparently if they had failed their mission, some kind of large explosion or something would render Europe uninhabitable.

[@tfolsenuclear]

The liquidators did prevent the accident from getting even worse. However, the large explosion (2-4 Megatons) mentioned in HBO’s Chernobyl Episode 2 was highly exaggerated. I talk about it more in my reaction to that episode. Realistically, the explosion would have damaged more of the site and further complicated the emergency response, but it would not have even made the immediate area uninhabitable. The explosion would have been on the order of 100-300 tons of TNT. Even if it were 2-4 Megatons, it still wouldn’t have made a large chunk of Europe uninhabitable as described in that episode 😅

[@DanielAusMV-op9mi]

The only solace I feel from this the fact that all living beings seek happiness and want to reduce suffering and this is definitely not happiness. Let's get our shit together and start cultivating compassion in ourselves. Compassion is very contagious, more than any virus. We do have a big vote in these things. Start building compassion in yourself and you change the world a lot. I believe in our human-family ❤❤❤❤

[@anthonyshiels9273]

In Ireland in the 1960's the Irish Government distributed a booklet to every household in the country. The theme was "survival in a nuclear war" and one of the first recommendations was to turn away from the flash, get down on the ground and cover your neck and head with your schoolbag. What were you supposed to do if you were not a schoolboy or schoolgirl or if it happened at the weekend???

[@aariyanbailey]

Love your videos

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks so much!

[@aariyanbailey]

@@tfolsenuclear can you watch "what is something" by kurzgesagt PLEASE

[@aariyanbailey]

@@tfolsenuclear can you watch "what is something" by kurzgesagt PLEASE

[@nunyabusiness9013]

The mushroom cloud is actually a result of the physics of a powerful explosion nuclear or not. Large enough conventional bombs (non nuclear) like the MOAB actually produce a mushroom cloud too.

[@user-oo9xf5qs9j]

I used to not understand science but after watching your KZbin videos helped me understand it better

[@roscoetichenor8766]

Epic! Keep Up The Good Work!

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thanks! Glad you liked it!

[@ElderonAnalas]

Sadly we've opened the nuclear Pandora's box. We can't close it now. The issue and problem is a bit like our own tiny terrestrial Fermi's Paradox and the "Hostile Darkness" solution. At least in regards to the Mad doctrine.

[@nathanpfirman625]

What is it with media either undershowing the power of radiation or showing it as instant death? In nukes its always shown as instant death while with the actually more deadly radiation from things like a huge reactor meltdown like chernobyl its shown to take a long time to take effect while its quite the opposite for both.

[@monicafamalett855]

I was a small child in the mid sixties. My dad would never discuss these topics, though he was a skilled first responder and had served in the Marine Corps in the 1950s. My mom was Catholic. Whenever my brother or I would try to discuss the possibility of a nuclear explosion, she would only say, "God will never allow that to happen." Time spent in Catholic school on Long Island did involve getting "under your desk" and putting your "@$$ to the window," to quote Robert Klein's comedy album, "Child of the 50s." And yes, I think it's a miracle, that my mom's "God won't let that happen" prediction turned out to be true, in a way -- as it didn't happen. For this I am thankful... but there are so many nuclear weapons in the world. Yes, it is a MIRACLE we didn't all get blown up.

[@jamesscott2894]

I've always wondered, most of what we know about how many kilometers the thermal pulse, shock wave, etc are are from tests done in generally open terrain right? But if you're in the middle of a city, full of concrete and steel building... how much into those ranges would that cut in, because the thermal pulse still has to go through what is essentially a whole ton of shielding (like I can see the waves being channeled, concentrated down streets, especially large straight avenues, but the overall range would still be shortened, right? Granted assuming a surface street level burst amongst all the building, vs an airburst above everything

[@steffenjespersen247]

13:07 "The heat and the fires would actually drop bricks of lead, and the lead would vaporise before it hit the ground." No, it would not! Dropping a brick of lead, even if right over the core, would not vaporise it before it would hit the ground. Being a physicist I would not expect you to make that kind of error, so the last fraction of a sec, before the brick would travel the last 10m in the air, it would soak up so much energy that it not only started melting, or completely melted but it turned a lead brick into a gas, so it would not even hit the ground. What would be the point of even dropping anything on it, if that was the energy release is of a level, lead turned into gas before, it could even touch and cool the core.

[@paulrichardson2554]

A historical event has nothing to do with physics.

[@steffenjespersen247]

@@paulrichardson2554 Everything has to do with physics. And if we even take an conservative "brick size" we are talking about 10kg and minimum possible surface area and the approximate speed it would fall + the energy needed to first liquefy and after that the x35+ times more energy it would take to vaporize same lead, all this within a fraction of a sec. Then we know even without doing the calcualtions that it is imposible. Even if you just think about it logically it would not make sense. If it can heat up a brick of lead to 1749 °C that it in freefall and not even touching the core yet, in less then a fraction of a sec. It would vaporize anything below itself and make a hundreds of meter hole down into the concrete within the first few minutes. And the first helicopters did not get there withing hours of the accident.

[@paulrichardson2554]

@@steffenjespersen247 Tf is your point? It's a hostorical event even if your little calculations are right that doesn't change the fact that it happend.

[@steffenjespersen247]

@@paulrichardson2554 My point is this video is a reaction and adjustment of the details of the Kurzgesagt video, so the details should be precise. And the detail about lead bricks vaporizing before they could hit the ground is not correct.

[@psymcdad8151]

Nitpicky here; If you include Stuff like the "Demon Core", "Tokaimura nuclear accidents" and a couple others, there certainly are more than "just Chernobyl" accidents where someone died... Not on the scale of every year coal-related death, but still worth to keep in mind and, even more important: to keep in perspective. Great Video :D

[@8749236]

RBMK reactor was too big to build a containment vessel to keep it. However it does have a thousand tons lid covering on top of it. IIRC the explosion was estimated to be over a hundred tons and it flipped that lid upside down, containment vessel won't make it better against an explosion of that scale.

[@mobiuscoreindustries]

It can, because what allow a PWR's containent vessel to be safe is how insanely huge it is compared to the core. If the core ruptures and a steam explosion happens the steam actually has the space to expand and that saps all the energy from the blast. Remember the reason why that lid got launched in such a way is because the water flashed to steam (which takes about 800 times more volume) and it was basically right under that plate. As a result the plate had no chance of holding against that pressure, but when the steam exposion hits the containment walls it has expanded so much that comparatively the pressure is minuscule compared to what the building is rated to endure.

[@TheMagicalCheeseWizar_d]

Now this isn’t what we learn in science class but if we ever do , I am recommending your channel to my teacher . Even if we don’t learn it , I’m doing it .Your channel is so interesting.

[@tfolsenuclear]

Thank you!!

[@libraryofgurkistan]

Build-a-Nuke Tutorial: 1. get about 1,5x the instable mass of 85-%-purified uranium-235 (~15kg) Note: Has to be SPLIT INTO TWO HALFS! 2. get some TNT (50 kg) 3. get a steel cylinder (2 m lenght, 40 cm width) 4. place one of the uranium pieces into one end of the cylinder 5. closenthe cylinder on that side 6. make holes in the cylinder through which you can fit metal 'sticks' 7.put one of these 'sticks' close to the first half uranium and one about somewhere in the middle 8.insert the second uranium piece at the open end 9. fill almost full with TNT 10. add a igniter which can be remote controlled 11. close the end 12. place bomb 13. go ~50 km away 14. ignite and have fun!

[@s4geplays471]

They compare the high-speed winds to a hurricane, and they show that it can cause a 'fire storm' as it draws in oxygen. If I am remembering high school geography correctly, hurricanes often hit near shore, as they initially form over the ocean before making landfall. Their winds pull water far onto land in what's called a 'storm surge'. If a nuclear weapon landed close enough to the coast, would something similar happen? Would the crazy high heat counteract this by swiftly evaporating all the water? Would this depend on a specific location and on the weather at the time?

[@n484l3iehugtil]

I highly doubt nearby water is gonna take much heat away from the explosion

[@gwathanaur]

There is a problem of scale here, nukes affect an area of a few to a few dozen square miles only, the effects are locally much worse than a cyclon, but it is still much more localised than a cyclon. None of the large scale effects of a cyclon would be replicated by a nuke.

[@adiyn_]

i remember the series of 4 movies "Tchernobyl", the engineers were literally melting in their beds at some point, like the firefighters...

[@terranhealer]

What was the yield on this explosion?

[@tfolsenuclear]

Based on how big the fireball and blast was in the video, it was around a 3 megaton surface detonation

[@terranhealer]

@T. Folse Nuclear thanks 😊 figured it was Big. By chance do you know where I can find that rule of thumb to estimate size of detonation based on a photo or using height of fireball or plume?

[@tfolsenuclear]

NukeMap gives a decent rough estimate

[@samuels1123]

Trouble is its much easier to make a nuclear weapon than a nuclear reactor, the specific processes and measures are locked up but the general idea is basically public knowledge at this point. To know how to make a nuclear reactor you need to know how to avoid making a nuclear bomb or at least a runaway fission reaction.

[@dustypaladin9216]

I want to make it clear that eliminating all nuclear weapons is a great idea on paper and horrible in reality. The risk of a rouge nuclear weapon would actually be higher. All it would take is a single country that decides to break the vow of no nuclear weapons and they suddenly would literally be unstoppable. Here’s a simple step by step way to take over the world if everyone destroyed all nuclear weapons 1: build nuclear weapons in secret 2: nuke the leaders of all major powers, while keeping soles nukes in reserve 3: tell everyone to submit to your rule or get nuked 4: nuke who doesn’t submit with reserves 5: now you rule the world

[@sheev9852]

There would be no world left to rule. You overestimate how gallantly countries would use nukes

[@bfwebster]

Yeah, my thought is that this is a high-yield device, given the size they cite for the fireball.

[@apollocosmic3780]

On the argument of no nukes ill simply say this i trust peoples sense of self preservation a lot more than peoples want to do good for the world like he said it would be very hard if not impossible to enforce a no nuke policy but if everyone has nukes but everyone is afraid to use them bc they know there will be a nuclear retaliation then at least to me thats a lot safer of an option people will do anything in the goal of self preservation and thats something that i can trust

[@clytle374]

I was under the impression that the burning graphite and nuclear fuel fire of things Chernobyl were way worse than most nuclear bombs. At least way worse than a air burst as the're wasn't the constant creation of long lived isotopes.

[@blacklight683]

I mean they did say they give their videos to professionals before post them

[@phillip6083]

Arent there 3 stages of thermal pulse? Stage 1 is infrared radiation traveling at the speed of light. Stage 2 is the air and surfaced not immediately vaporized heated hundreds of degrees. Stage 3 is hot wind traveling just under the speed of sound?

[@godassasin8097]

Quick question since the sun is probably the most spherical object in the solar system would a nuclear fireball be more spherical ?

[@petersmythe6462]

"A lot of people would die slow painful deaths." Yes thankyou. If you're at ground zero and not in subway tunnel, you die in seconds or less and might even be obliterated and vaporized if the fireball reaches the ground. But the vast majority of people are NOT at ground zero. Building collapse, third degree burns, flying debris, fallout radiation, waterborne disease, etc are the likely dominant causes of death. If your city gets nuked, you are very unlikely to get vaporized. Dying in a fire or having a flimsy building dropped on you, or suffering from Typhoid of ARS or CRS radiation sickness, however, is very possible. And whether you live or die is dependent on exactly the circumstances of you and if the detonation.

[@Zunnerchia]

I like that they made that video darker and scarier than the others. In contrast this video has only two humorous moments in it (the comment about "tacky sculptures" and the people taking out their phones to take pictures of the mushroom cloud) and both are in the first half of the video. And it gets more sad as the video continues. It's important that people know just how scary nuclear weapons are. It's fun to pretend we're nuking random stuff in an abstract sense but nukes should never be used in the real world.

[@danieleduardo8767]

Just a silly question Tyler, if we put a thermonuclear bomb inside a perfect sphere with a radius about 6ft and made it out of tungsten carbide, will the sphere hold all the pressure and all the heat that the bomb produces? sorry if some words are wrong, english is not my first language, and thanks for this video, pretty interesting!

[@tfolsenuclear]

I like silly questions! Let’s just say it will take a lot more than a 6 ft shell. Thermonuclear bombs have a temperature of over 150 million degrees C, compared to heat of maybe 1000 C or so for tungsten based alloys. The pressure would also be too much for a yield of several hundred kilotons or, in the case of this video, about a 3 megaton surface blast.

[@danieleduardo8767]

@@tfolsenuclear Thank you Tyler! and thank you for sharing your knowledge.

[@paulshuttleworth6261]

In theory you could just encase it in concrete. But it would need presumably to be many miles thick. You can stop a bullet with paper if there’s enough of it.

[@Linggo-]

yes yes, now how do I make a nuclear reactor.

[@cewla3348]

Honestly, a majority of people would not be angry at those who caused the blast - they would be sorry, mourning for the losses, or trying their hardest to help without increasing the kill count.

[@MrSebmeister]

Great reaction, very balanced, informed outlook. Would be great to see your reaction to the 1980's British TV docu-drama on a hypothetical limited nuclear exchange, "Threads"....…very harrowing, caused quite a reaction from the UK government.

[@seandonohue6793]

US hospitals were very under prepared for COVID because it’s a for profit system. Civilised systems have supplies (even if not as much as was actually needed for covid) as the idea is to help people when needed, not rinse them for money 😄

[@leaguemastergg3647]

15:09 It’s kinda like gun control, the countries that you REALLY don’t want to have the nukes will keep them whether they are legal or not. So it may be best for everyone to have them so nobody uses them. If you get rid of all your nukes but Russia doesn’t, then what?

[@Minexorek]

Well, USA is the one that is the most irresposible with their nuclear weapons though, they literally lost a nuclear bomb, by droping it by mistake in europe and they are the only ones that actually used a nuclear weapon. So I REALLY don't want USA to have nuclear weapons

[@ScotsmanDougal]

"you basically bleed from the inside out." Everyone bleeds from the inside, out. There is no other way to do it

[@jade_carp]

u nuke city = everyone dies: that's what happens

[@7thBatallion]

Got a book from a Value Village. “The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.” Can’t understand half of it, it’s far beyond my knowledge, but holy fuck is it terrifying. Forget Stephen King, that’s true horror.

[@topazokenni4869]

Sorry for the late comments, this video pop on the front page, so I decided to ask you one of the question that until now I don't know the explanations are... In nuclear bomb explosion, what exactly that "explodes"? As you know the term explosion is a sudden increase of volume because of phase change ( solid to gas or liquid to gas), that travel on high speed... What explodes in nuclear bomb? There are no significant increase of volumes, and I think there are no phase changethere... only massive amount of energy. And massive amount of energy is not equivalent with explosion... As I know, if a nuclear reactor explodes, it is the water tank that explodes, generating steam on a high speed (phase change)... but what happened in a bomb?

[@tfolsenuclear]

Great question! There actually doesn’t need to be a phase change for it to be considered an explosion - when hydrogen explodes, it remains a gas. You are correct that an explosion is a rapid increase in volume with an extreme outward release of energy, usually with high temperatures. You are right that a massive amount of energy is not necessary an explosion (the sun continuously releases massive quantities of energy in the form of light). However, there IS a massive increase in volume (from a couple of meters to several kilometers) brought on by the increase in heat and pressure from the nuclear reactions inside the bomb. Temperature goes from ambient to over 100,000,000 C in a fraction of a microsecond.

[@greenl7661]

There's also actual conventional explosion inside every nuke, which compresses containment with nuclear fuel and makes it go supercritical

[@lolipop20864]

for the nuclear weapons part thare is a suggestion that every country must stop creating nuclear weapon and destroy the weapon "slowly" part by part just so the countries will still feel safe but the problem is there will be a group of people/organisation that need to be unbias so they can check whether the country really had destroy the weapon

[@MatCatSoft]

The problem with prohibition is that it never works. Nuclear weapons are one of those cats out of the bag type things, once it's known you can, there will always be someone that does, and there will be nothing you can do to stop them from doing it, short of going to war with them, ironically. Also people gravely misunderstand nuclear weapons, most people have this odd concept that if a nuclear war broke out, that earth would become an unlivable barren wasteland, and in reality that's just not true. Yeah, a good chunk of the worlds population could be wiped out, but it won't be all, and there will still be plenty of land to grow food on and exist. Let's hope that never happens, but live with the understanding that there is no realistic way to stop them from existing.

[@MrBanzoid]

The Doomsday Clock now stands at ninety seconds to midnight - the closest it's ever been.

[@acidcosti19]

12:51 Everyone know The Chernobyl accident was caused by 1 single man, that man was the Boss of all the people around him when the incident ocured, that man had take a dose of radiotion in the past of his life and at Chernobyl he take the second dose, withaut to die until he had 70 years old, some people belive God keep him alive to see and sufer from every problem he cause, what is a fate worst than dead, that man was not a good team leader, and cause many deads to people all around the Europe

[@Fireballl14]

Last message aged like fine milk.

[@CoderBoi_YT]

I wonder what the weakest element on the periodic table is, that could survive a nuclear explosion from any distance from the first blast point and stay the same element?

[@deepdive35]

When seeing nukes I think of this line "i am mighty time the great destroyer of worlds and ive come here to destroy all people"

[@As3th8r]

"The day after" is a wonderfull traumatic movie that shows the horrors of this scenario.

[@danm9006]

As is the British film, "Threads."

[@hypemanD]

This was a fantastic value add. Great to see you kept things simple and constructive, instead of getting into the nitty gritty.

[@2006hondacivic0]

I'm not a retiree, but I feed the pigeons at the park

[@johnfish1194]

The people in the direct blast zone would feel and not know anything happened. Human's nervous systems work in hundredths of a second. You would be vaporized in a nanosecond. You would not even realize that anything happened at all. Alive one second, cabonized into atoms the next. They would be the lucky ones.

[@Merennulli]

The "you first" as you put it is the core issue with nuclear disarmament. I do realize Kurzgesagt made this before the invasion of Ukraine, but that invasion is a poignant reminder that, no, we can't unilaterally decide to go first. We've seen active threats to use them if Russia doesn't get its way. We also saw in the Korean war that using them for expediency was a consideration by General MacArthur who was commanding US forces when we had a monopoly on that power. There is no "first" with disarmament. It has to be a collective action of all nations in possession of even the capability of producing these devices. And that will never happen with the current political realities of the current nuclear powers. We can and should do all we can to negotiate fewer of them, but we also must be aware of the full issue and work to resolve the issues that create a need for these weapons before we can expect them to go away.

[@moonliteX]

a "shake" sound SOOOOOO much like an ametican unit. like a hand, foot, leg, barleycorn etc

[@moonliteX]

pleasentell me an american invented that

[@sergiyhoncharuk5396]

you know, i somehow never thought of it before, but now that you mentioned Ukraine, our current situation as humanity is all the more messed up: the only country that actually willingly denuclearized themselves by diplomatical means (also being one that at some point posessed third most powerfull nuclear arsenal with all the means of it's delivery and industry to produce such) is now the one that's being attacked. like who the hell would throw their literal nuclear shield out of the window after that ?!