Wednesday, February 10, 2016

The After math of the Hiroshima & Nagasaki Nuclear Bombing

Chaotic conditions made accurate accounts most difficult. Some victims were vaporized instantly, many survivors were horribly disfigured, and death from radiation was uncertain. It might not claim its victims for days, weeks, months or even years. The initial death count in Hiroshima was set at 42,000-93,000. That count was solely based on the disposal of the bodies, and was thus much too low. Later surveys covered body counts, missing persons, and neighborhood surveys during the first month after the bombing, yielding a more reliable estimate of 130,000 dead as of November 1945. A similar survey by officials in Nagasaki se its death toll at 60,000-70,000.
Most persons close to ground zero who received high radiation dosages died immediately or during the first day. One-third of all fatalities occurred by the 4th day; two-thirds by the 10th day; and 90% by the end of three weeks.
While casualty rates exceeded death rates, they both were highest near ground zero and declined at similar rates by increasing distance from ground zero. But the cumulative death rates percent  in both cities rose dramatically during the first two weeks, then leveled off in subsequent weeks.
The first  two weeks resulted in mainly burns from rays and flames, and wounds (trauma) from blast and falling structures. The 3rd week through 8th week symptoms of damages by radioactive rays, resulted in loss of hair, anemia, loss of white cells, bleeding, and  diarrhea. Approximately 10% of cases in this group were fatal. The 3rd and 4th months there was “some improvement” in burn, trauma, and even radiation. Acute stages ran overall from initial exposure to 4th month, with both primary and secondary thermal burns. Numerous A-bomb casualties occurred almost simultaneously with explosion, but both injury and mortality rates fell with increased distanced.
But then came “secondary injuries” of disfiguration, , blood abnormalities, sterility (both sexes), psychosomatic disorders, and severe scar formations (keloids).
Keloid is an overgrowth of scar tissue on the wound surface of a thermal burn during the reparative stage. It forms an irregularly shaped protrusion that resembles the shell and legs of a crab, t in contrast to a simple heaping up of scar tissue (hypertrophic scar). The latter is usually caused by a secondary burn, and a keloid results from a primary thermal burn. Plastic surgery was performed on many to remove keloid scars, though recurrence of these scars was not uncommon.

Even now, after over half a century later, many after effects remain such as leukemia, A-bomb cataracts, and cancers of thyroid, breast, lungs, salivary glands, birth defects, including mental retardation, and fears of birth defects in their children, plus, of course, the disfiguring keloid scars.


Sources:
1. http://atomicbombmuseum.org/3_health.shtml
2. http://www.atomcentral.com/hiroshima-nagasaki.aspx
3. https://www.google.com/search?q=google+images+of+the+hiroshima+and+nagasaki+bombing&rlz=1CAACAG_enUS679&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=633&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjVp4KXq-7KAhUNyWMKHffKAJsQ_AUIBigB&safe=active&ssui=on



2 comments:

  1. That's horrible. Were American scientists at all aware of the effects of such high radiation doses and releases of energy from testing during the Manhattan Project, or was the atomic bomb dropped without any knowledge of the injuries it could cause? Was there any way to protect against radiation i.e. being behind concrete/lead-painted walls that weren't destroyed?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I remember reading accounts on the bombings when I studied in Asia and they were brutal. This made me wonder how the world at the time saw the event and how the world now sees it. Do people have drastically different perspectives on the bombing? How is it taught differently around the world? I came across this article and found it interesting:
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/08/06/how-the-hiroshima-bombing-is-taught-around-the-world/

    ReplyDelete