Of the type performed by N. Korea, what are the environmental implications for nuclear testing?

Answer 1

Was it all a hoax by a sick wannabe? They're not sure that the blast was nuclear because of the lack of radioactive gas. It would be just like that goof to plant 500 Tons of TNT in the ground and claim membership in the Bad Boys Club.

Answer 2

Regarding David's answer, the blast caused a magnitude 4+ earthquake to be read in south korea. when Nukes are called a "10 megaton" or "20 megaton" that refers to the TNT equvilant. and 500 hundred tons of TNT would be the equivilant of a .5 megaton bomb. Seeing in how HIroshima was estimated at 10-15, 500 tons of TNT wouldn't be a blip on a richter scale. Regarding the environmental implications, if they actually detonated a bomb above ground, there is the fall out of radioactive material, which would taint the groundwater, degrade soil so that it is unusable as well as countless other effects.

Answer 3

no effect on the environment.

It was a minuscule bomb (at best 1KT), minuscule compared to all the much larger bombs tested by the US, Russia, France, Great Britain, etc.

And it was undeground, unlike some amusing tests such the Bikini air test which did a lot of damage, including to human populations.


I do worry that a rogue state should have a nuclear bomb. But I find it a bit pathetic that nations who happily blasted bombs 1'000 times, or 10'000 times, or up to 45'000 times more powerful than the N.K. bomb, and did so in the air if you please (fallout and the like), would suddenly say, "oh what horror!"

Answer 4

It is looking like the "type" detonated by N. Korea was "non-nuclear".

Answer 5

radiation below rad levels of 500 mrem per year don't really have a signifigant impact on the enviroment.

Answer 6

bad!