Nuked Fridges

Montana Smith · Dec 12, 2010

Rocket Surgeon said:
Haven't had time to even skim the contents but this might be interesting reading for some:

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons
Editor: SAMUEL GLASSTONE

Prepared by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Published by the UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
June 1957

A great find, and also cool that it was located in the "Marshall" collection'.

I checked the index for fridge and refrigerator, but no luck.

Checking the text, however, brought this up:

Sixteen trailer coaches, of various makes, intended for use as mobile homes, were subjected to blast in the 1955 test. Trailer parks and dealer stocks are generally situated at the outskirts of cities, and so the mobile homes to be tested were placed at a considerable distance from ground zero. Nine trailer-coach mobile homes were located where the peak blast overpressure was 1.7 pounds per square inch, and the other seven where the overpressure was about 1 pound per square inch. They were parked at various angles with respect to the direction of travel of the blast wave.

At the higher overpressure two of the mobile homes were tipped over by the explosion. One of these was originally broadside to the blast, whereas the second, at an angle of about 45’, was of much lighter weight. All the others at both locations remained standing. On the whole, the damage sustained was not of a serious character. There were variations from one trailer-coach to another subjected to the same blast pressure, due to different methods of construction, types of fastening, gage and design of die-formed metal, spacing of studs, and window sizes.

...

The interiors of the mobile homes were usually in a state of disorder due to ruptured panels, broken and upset furniture, and cupboards, cabinets, and wardrobes which had been torn loose and damaged. Stoves, refrigerators, and heaters were not displaced, and the floors were apparently unharmed. The plumbing was, in general, still operable after the explosion. Consequently, by rearranging the displaced furniture, repairing cabinets, improving window coverings, and cleaning up the debris, all trailer-coaches could have been made habitable for emergency use.

So, not much of a blast wave in these tests, at the distance where the trailers were located.

This is referring to houses in the Nevada 1955 tests:

... refrigerators, ranges, room heaters, clothes dryers, and water heaters suffered to a moderate extent only. There was some displacement of the appliances and connections which was related to the damage suffered by the house. However, even in the collapsed two-story, brick house, the upset refrigerator and range were probably still usable, although largely buried in debris. The general conclusion is, therefore, that domestic gas (and also electric) appliances would be operable in all houses that did not suffer major structural damage.

That's it for fridge references, but there was this on food testing:

To determine the effects of a nuclear explosion on foodstuffs, some 90 food products were exposed in the 1955 tests.

...

Food samples were exposed at distances ranging from a quarter of a mile to about 15 miles from ground zero. In some instances, the main purpose was to determine the effects of either the initial nuclear radiation or the residual radiation (fallout). The present discussion will be restricted to the effects of blast.

Fresh food products, such as potatoes, apples, and onions, packaged in the usual light wooden boxes, suffered from bruising and crushing. Apart from this, there was relatively little direct blast damage. There were very few (if any) failures of glass or metal containers due to the high overpressures, although some were pierced by sharp missiles, especially flying glass. The damage to packaged goods resulted mainly from dislodgement from the shelves in the kitchen and subsequent breakage of glass containers. Where the cans or jars had been stored on shelves in the basement, the damage was negligible, even when the main structure of the house was demolished.

What this does tell me, is that as evidenced by the photos from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where certain objects inexplicably remain standing, the blast wave in the test detonations also appears 'erratic' in the damage and effect it inflicts. Sometimes even a flimsy structure can provide inexplicable protection.

Here's more general description of the surface burst, as in the test bombs.

In a surface burst, the ball of fire, in its rapid initial growth, will touch the surface of the earth. Because of the intense heat, a considerable amount of rock, soil, and other material located in the area will be vaporized and taken into the ball of fire...In addition, the high winds at the earth’s surface will cause large amounts of dirt, dust, and other particles to be sucked up as the ball of fire rises.

An important, difference between a surface burst and an air burst is consequently, that in the surface burst the atomic cloud is much more heavily loaded with debris. This will consist of particles ranging in size from the vary small ones produced by condensation as the ball of fire cools to the much larger particles which have been raised by the surface winds.

...

At a fraction of a second after the explosion, a high-pressure wave develops and moves outward from the ball of fire. This is the “blast wave” ... which is the cause of much more destruction accompanying an air burst.

...

When the blast wave strikes the surface of the earth, it is reflected back, similar to a sound wave producing an echo. This reflected blast wave, like the original (or direct) wave, is also capable of causing material damage. At a certain region on the surface, the position of which depends chiefly on the height of the burst above the surface and the energy of the explosion, the direct and reflected shock fronts fuse. This fusion phenomenon is called the “Mach effect.” The “overpressure,” i. e., the pressure in excess of the normal atmospheric value, at the front of the Mach wave is generally about twice as great as that at the direct shock front.

...

In addition to the ground wind (or afterwind) due to the updraft caused by the rising ball of fire strong transient winds are associated with the passage of the shock (and Mach) front. These winds may have peak velocities of several hundred miles per hour at points fairly near ground zero; and even at more than 6 miles from the explosion of a 1-megaton nuclear bomb...

Darth Vile · Dec 13, 2010

Montana Smith said:
KOTCS stumbles, that's without question. It stumbles in many regards, when compared to ROTLA. The first steps away from ROTLA were taken by TOD, and continued by TLC. You could call them faltering steps, or merely inevitable ones. You either leave Indy with ROTLA, or you make the best of it and see the others in that inevitable light. They aren't Raiders. Nothing could be Raiders again. You can't repeat the magic.

So, the steps become far more ragged in KOTCS. The constant need to present spectacle, believing this is what the average Indy fan expects.

I'm forced to rationalize each new spectacle, or ditch the movie in it's entirety. Okay, so there's things in KOTCS I downright dislike. There are also things that evoke that original spark of magic.

The fridge was maybe a spectacle too far, yet inevitable. We know where it came from (The Atomic Kid and the unfilmed BTTF script). It was a statement, a homage, even '50s kitsch. Indy is not a real man, but a concept. The concept moved into the '50s, and George just couldn't help himself.

The answer: it was an absurd joke.

Now, to rationalize an absurd joke: see the events occurring in a place that is not quite real. Not quite as we expect our world to operate. Add Indy's luck into the mix, and all the other paramaters that are necessary to make sure the fridge blasts clear, and it lands in such a way to protect it's passenger.

Impossible?

Probably.

Yet, there's just that absurd chance that it could work. Maybe not in our world, but in a world that has giant rolling boulders, automatically resetting light traps, Germans digging up half of Egypt, foreign bars in Nepal, and a golden box with a selectively murderous intent.

The quantity of outrageous plot devices is where my disappointment lies. The unfunny snake/sandpit scene; the waterfalls; swinging with the monkeys; the unbelievable Mac; the under-used Irina; and the very character of Mutt himself.

I'm happy that the movies continue to break the original formula, but not happy that they took so much effort to outdo themselves. It just makes more work when it comes to suspending disbelief.

Man of faith? Hogwash!

Great post Montana. I don't necessarily agree that KOTCS presents us with any more (in terms of quality/quantaty)outragous plot devices than the other sequels do (if that is what you are positing), but I do agree with you overall sentiment.

kongisking · Dec 13, 2010

Darth Vile said:
Great post Montana. I don't necessarily agree that KOTCS presents us with any more (in terms of quality/quantaty)outragous plot devices than the other sequels do (if that is what you are positing), but I do agree with you overall sentiment.

Seconded. Great argument, even though I think KOTCS is the best since Temple of Doom.

Montana Smith · Dec 13, 2010

Darth Vile said:
Great post Montana. I don't necessarily agree that KOTCS presents us with any more (in terms of quality/quantaty)outragous plot devices than the other sequels do (if that is what you are positing), but I do agree with you overall sentiment.

Thanks, Darth.

I would argue that the outrageous elements are scaled up in KOTCS. Specifically the waterfalls and the fridge. One waterfall would have been enough, but since that's been done before (TOD), they felt the need to go further. It just means you have to work harder to rationalize the movie along the lines of those that preceded it.

Less is sometimes more. At least Indy retained his character, though even that was under attack. Maturity and responsibility are threatening to overwhelm him, but I don't believe he's a lost cause yet!

EDIT: And thank you, kong.

:hat:

Indy's brother · Dec 15, 2010

Happy Holidays everyone

Trust me, this link is relevant.....and worth the click that gets you there. :hat:

mattzilla2010 · Dec 15, 2010

That just made my day.

Redinight421 · Jan 18, 2011

Wow, I just watched Iron Man and I got to say that I am a little upset that no one complained about a man in mech suit fly hundreds of feet in the air only to nose dive and survive it. Yeah, no broken bones. He totally nuked the fridge there and no one belly ached over that in the same summer.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 18, 2011

But Iron Man was a good movie, Crystal Skull sucked.

How can you compare a film that features fine performances with Crystal Skull?

As for sequels:

Who would have thought Mickey Roarke's Russian accent would outclass Cate Blanchett's?

But it did.

Darth Vile · Jan 19, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
But Iron Man was a good movie, Crystal Skull sucked.

How can you compare a film that features fine performances with Crystal Skull?

As for sequels:

Who would have thought Mickey Roarke's Russian accent would outclass Cate Blanchett's?

But it did.

Iron Man a good movie? It's better than it should have been perhaps, and RD Jnr is always watchable... but good? It's a happy meal movie.

Indy's brother · Jan 19, 2011

If I may. Ironman, while just a man in a mechanical suit, is still a superhero. Indy is an action hero. The world of Tony Stark presupposes a reality that is obviously science fiction. Indy's reality is more like ours. In fact, his has supposed to have already taken place in our history.

Also, Stark actually got dinged up right off in his big-screen debut while the Indy of KOTCS rides the fridge without a scratch, and remains unscathed until Dovenchenko's fist in the Ant fight hits him apparently with more force than an atomic blast. (bloody nose/lip) By then of course, we don't believe any of it anyway. It's true that Stark survives some unbelievable stuff, but hey, he's not an everyman. He's a billionaire superhero that holds conversations with his computer, operates on himself, and flies around in a metal suit.

Indy may not be the common man, either. But he's more like us than Stark is. Or at least he's supposed to be, imho.

Darth Vile · Jan 19, 2011

Indy's brother said:
If I may. Ironman, while just a man in a mechanical suit, is still a superhero. Indy is an action hero. The world of Tony Stark presupposes a reality that is obviously science fiction. Indy's reality is more like ours. In fact, his has supposed to have already taken place in our history.

Also, Stark actually got dinged up right off in his big-screen debut while the Indy of KOTCS rides the fridge without a scratch, and remains unscathed until Dovenchenko's fist in the Ant fight hits him apparently with more force than an atomic blast. (bloody nose/lip) By then of course, we don't believe any of it anyway. It's true that Stark survives some unbelievable stuff, but hey, he's not an everyman. He's a billionaire superhero that holds conversations with his computer, operates on himself, and flies around in a metal suit.

Indy may not be the common man, either. But he's more like us than Stark is. Or at least he's supposed to be, imho.

They are both action/adventure movies. It's not like Iron Man is set in an alternate universe (a la Watchmen) or in an obvious fairytale world like Burton's Batman movies. It's supposed to be a 'version' of reality that's supposed to reflect our own (to some degree). Indiana Jones lives in a universe where Nazi's get smighted by heavenly angels of death, where hearts can be plucked from living victims and crystal skulls hold dominion over bugs and local tribesmen. That's as far removed from reality as flying suits or web slinging kids.

If Iron Man is somehow more believable than Indiana Jones (and I'm not saying it is or isn't) then I'd posit that it's to do with our own interpretations and expectations rather than what's actually portrayed on screen.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 19, 2011

A good movie. Absolutely. It says Ironman on the title screen, but beyond being a polished product, there were some fine emotional performances...something I cannot say for Skull.

Darth Vile · Jan 19, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
A good movie. Absolutely. It says Ironman on the title screen, but beyond being a polished product, there were some fine emotional performances...something I cannot say for Skull.

It's definitely up there with Flash Gordon, Batman Forever and The Hulk. I thought Gwyneth Paltrow's performance as Pepper Potts was an absolute triumph. I also thought Jeff Bridge's was good. It's an absolute travesty that he's been touted for an Oscar for his portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, when his performance as the mutli faceted Obadiah Stane was completely overlooked (not even a nomination).

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 19, 2011

Darth Vile said:
It's definitely up there with Flash Gordon, Batman Forever and The Hulk. I thought Gwyneth Paltrow's performance as Pepper Potts was an absolute triumph. I also thought Jeff Bridge's was good. It's an absolute travesty that he's been touted for an Oscar for his portrayal of Rooster Cogburn, when his performance as the mutli faceted Obadiah Stane was completely overlooked (not even a nomination).

HA!

Your particular pick of putrid peliculas is provocatively peculiar, and not proportional.

Ok, are you comparing Iron Man to Skull or Iron Man to True Grit/Oscar hopefuls?

Darth Vile · Jan 19, 2011

Rocket Surgeon said:
HA!

Your particular pick of putrid peliculas is provocatively peculiar, and not proportional.

Ok, are you comparing Iron Man to Skull or Iron Man to True Grit/Oscar hopefuls?

Lol - I thought you were more discerning than Iron Man?

To your question. It depends on what your definition of "good" is... and wether or not it's relative to what it's being compared with. I'd say that both Iron Man and KOTCS are expensive, well manufactured 'Hollywood' movies... both hugely disposable, neither of which specifically stir the imagination nor push the boundaries of contemporary cinema (even in relation to their specific genre and the mindless drivel that comes out of Hollywood). I'm sure you'll disagree, but I actually find the churn out of lavish interpretations of Marvel comics a lot more insidious, unimaginative and cynical (especially Iron Man 2) than the output from Lucas/Spielberg and Ford... but maybe I'm being too generous.

I think KOTCS at it's worst is the failing/tiring bast*rd child of the original movie. Iron Man (and its sequel) is an invention designed to be a cash grab from the off... made to appeal to 30/40 year old man children and devoid of any real imagination. There are enough intelligent people involved in the making of Iron Man for it to be at least superficially engaging/watchable, but lets not kid ourselves that in the world of cinema/culture, Iron Man is no more significant than a greasy fry is in the world of international cuisine.

Montana Smith · Jan 19, 2011

I think I liked Iron Man more than KOTCS.

My bad.

Rocket Surgeon · Jan 19, 2011

Darth Vile said:
Lol - I thought you were more discerning than Iron Man?

Call it a guilty pleasure if you must...

Darth Vile said:
To your question. It depends on what your definition of "good" is... and wether or not it's relative to what it's being compared with. I'd say that both Iron Man and KOTCS are expensive, well manufactured 'Hollywood' movies... both hugely disposable, neither of which specifically stir the imagination nor push the boundaries of contemporary cinema (even in relation to their specific genre and the mindless drivel that comes out of Hollywood).

I agree with what you've written. In context of Redinight's post/comparison, Iron Man was a better product. Indy's brother hits what high notes there are:

Indy's brother said:
..while just a man in a mechanical suit, is still a superhero. Indy is an action hero. The world of Tony Stark presupposes a reality that is obviously science fiction. Indy's reality is more like ours.

...the Indy of KOTCS rides the fridge without a scratch, and remains unscathed until Dovenchenko's fist in the Ant fight hits him apparently with more force than an atomic blast. By then of course, we don't believe any of it anyway.

Stark survives some unbelievable stuff, but he's not an everyman. He's a billionaire superhero that holds conversations with his computer, operates on himself, and flies around in a metal suit.

Indy's more like us than Stark is.

Darth Vile said:
...I actually find the churn out of lavish interpretations of Marvel comics a lot more insidious, unimaginative and cynical (especially Iron Man 2) than the output from Lucas/Spielberg and Ford... but maybe I'm being too generous.

The appeal is rooted in witnessing how they deal with the material. The latest adaptation, not only of medium, but it's modern sensibilities was a success, Skull did not fare as well. The GI Joe film is worthy of your bile, vile, but Iron Man brings more to the table...it has a more human story, and takes the time to tell it.

Darth Vile said:
I think KOTCS at it's worst is the failing/tiring bast*rd child of the original movie. Iron Man (and its sequel) is an invention designed to be a cash grab from the off... made to appeal to 30/40 year old man children and devoid of any real imagination. There are enough intelligent people involved in the making of Iron Man for it to be at least superficially engaging/watchable, but lets not kid ourselves that in the world of cinema/culture, Iron Man is no more significant than a greasy fry is in the world of international cuisine.

I think Crystal Skull may be that greasy fry, but I'd give Iron Man crusty mashed potatoes over my shepherds pie.

I wasn't talking Culture/Cinema but I'm interested in your list (whatever length) of the best in Cinema/Culture.

Montana Smith said:
I think I liked Iron Man more than KOTCS.

You'll never walk alone...

Redinight421 · Jan 19, 2011

Comic Book movies are trash. They are all very generic, heartless, uninteresting, stories that are retold with different names and situations. Names like Tony Stark and Peter Parker and the situation is almost always a science project gone wrong or used differently.... Not one comic book movie will be remembered as compared to Indiana Jones. The stories are stuff of cheap comics, because that's what they are. Talk about formulaic... All the characters are the same, they have a Marvel or DC counter part and who cares which came first? They are gaudy extravaganzas that fall flat because they are pretentious self absorbed stories that bank on people with little imagination to accept them as something worth watching. They are like comics, you look em over and your mom gets tired of the pile and they end up in the trash. They are similar to Scify original movies with little to no intent to inspire or impress because the next film is all ready in the works... The film makers simply ask which character is next?

The visual work for the suits looked more glaringly fake than anything in Skull too. Oh yeah suits. Yeah cause the villain built a suit to battle the good guy suit because...ugh who cares.

Sharkey · Jan 19, 2011

Redinight421 said:
Comic Book movies are trash. They are all very generic, heartless, uninteresting, stories that are retold with different names and situations. Names like Tony Stark and Peter Parker and the situation is almost always a science project gone wrong or used differently.... Not one comic book movie will be remembered as compared to Indiana Jones. The stories are stuff of cheap comics, because that's what they are. Talk about formulaic... All the characters are the same, they have a Marvel or DC counter part and who cares which came first? They are gaudy extravaganzas that fall flat because they are pretentious self absorbed stories that bank on people with little imagination to accept them as something worth watching. They are like comics, you look em over and your mom gets tired of the pile and they end up in the trash. They are similar to Scify original movies with little to no intent to inspire or impress because the next film is all ready in the works... The film makers simply ask which character is next?

The visual work for the suits looked more glaringly fake than anything in Skull too. Oh yeah suits. Yeah cause the villain built a suit to battle the good guy suit because...ugh who cares.

Turn into the skid...

Yeah, Mutt swinging through the trees like Peter Parker was much less glaringly fake then ANYTHING in Iron Man.

For love of God, shut the hell up!

Redinight421 · Jan 19, 2011

Sharkey said:
Turn into the skid...

Yeah, Mutt swinging through the trees like Peter Parker was much less glaringly fake then ANYTHING in Iron Man.

For love of God, shut the hell up!

Oh, my!! How could I forget the one shot that destroyed everyone's hopes and dreams for the new Indy film? Of course it looked fake.... well, no maybe not as fake as a robot suit through an entire film. I must of hit a touchy spot for some Iron Man fans, I wasn't aware of me skidding all over, but I'm back on track now. Thank You.

Nuked Fridges

Active member

New member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

New member

New member

Guest

New member

Guest

New member

Active member

Guest

New member

Guest

New member