The atomic bomb and the myth of a hundred years of radiation-induced death

One thing I have been thinking about is the consequences of atomic bombs; apart from the immediate destruction and the deaths caused by radiation, I believe we have, to some extent, been misled.

If we take the bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the worst of the radiation had already subsided after just one week. And even the effects of today’s larger bombs should be measured in months rather than decades or centuries.

Of course, atomic bombs are terrible; their explosive power is enormous, as is the immediate radioactivity that can contribute to all manner of diseases.

The duration of the radiation problem depends on whether the bombs detonate high up in the air or at ground level. At high altitude, the shockwave maximises its destructive effects whilst the radioactivity decreases, so there are no long-term effects. Detonations at ground level, on the other hand, are considerably worse and leave behind a much greater amount of radioactive fallout. But no one would reasonably detonate bombs close to the ground, as this results in less destructive power – and it is precisely the destruction that is the objective.

Why portray long-term radiation as the biggest problem? That people would have to live in underground concrete bunkers for hundreds of years, as depicted in films and popular culture? When in reality the radiation is gone after a week or two?

The idea of a ‘nuclear winter’ was probably pseudoscience, but it was nevertheless propagated by people with considerable academic credibility. Perhaps there was an agenda to deter politicians and the public, and perhaps it fitted in with the general opposition to nuclear power during the 1980s? It sounded good, but it wasn’t true. Like so many other things.