Hiroshima/Nagasaki vs conventional B-17 bombing

"hiroshima facts" wrote in message
om...


I tried to track down the 50% claim, and it apparently is based on
"Medical Effects of the Atomic Bomb in Japan" published by Oughterson
in 1956. I don't have that on hand, but I understand that on page 84,
they say that 48% of people within 2 km of ground zero were killed.
And "within 2 km of ground zero" was counted as the "affected area"
for the estimate I was quoting.


This is an oversimplification

According to the Manhattan Engineer district survey
the relationship of mortality to range was as follows

Distance in feet Per-cent Mortality
0 - 1000 93.0%
1000 - 2000 92.0
2000 - 3000 86.0
3000 - 4000 69.0
4000 - 5000 49.0
5000 - 6000 31.5
6000 - 7000 12.5
7000 - 8000 1.3
8000 - 9000 0.5
9000 - 10,000 0.0

The same source states

"Nearly everything was heavily damaged up to a radius of
3 miles from the blast and beyond this distance damage,
although comparatively light, extended for several more miles."

Clearly the area affected was much more than that within
a radius of 2 kms

Keith

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ...

The same source states

"Nearly everything was heavily damaged up to a radius of
3 miles from the blast and beyond this distance damage,
although comparatively light, extended for several more miles."

Clearly the area affected was much more than that within
a radius of 2 kms


Heavy damage usually refers to something like that caused by a 3 PSI
overpressure, which will destroy internal walls of a house and leave
the contents of the house all piled up against the far wall, but
doesn't destroy the exterior frame of the house.

I think the estimate probably was considering the area where most
structures were completely destroyed.

I concede that "affected area" was a poor choice of words on my part.
"Area razed to the ground" would be more appropriate.