Page 1 of 1
9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Wed Jan 05, 2005 1:53 pmby Ace_777
They said on Sky News the energy which the earthquake in SE Asia produced was the equvelent (sp) of 9,500 Hiroshima bombs. Can anybody find a website verifying this please ?
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:14 pmby flyboy 28
"Nines" on the Richter Scale are pretty dern big. I wouldn't at all be surprised.
And besides, Sky News is a pretty verifyable station. They wouldn't be ones to make stuff up.
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:22 pmby ozzy72
Sky News is a pretty verifyable station. They wouldn't be ones to make stuff up
Since when?
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Wed Jan 05, 2005 4:25 pmby Craig.
since sky news is basically Fox in the uk (both owned by Murdoch) i wouldn't trust everything they say. but this is quite possible
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:10 pmby Ace_777
Since when?
They said this a couple of days after the disaster
The reason why I need some sort of verification is because some jackass (who thinks hes always right) at school thinks I'm wrong
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:41 amby Politically Incorrect
I find that to be highly exaggerated.
Considering the damage of one bomb, 9,500 would mean total devistation of not only that area but most if not all the world
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 1:10 pmby ozzy72
That said the Hiroshima bomb wasn't all that powerful compared to modern nukes. I'll keep looking to verify this...
But I'd trust Sky/Fox about as far as I could spit an An-225
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:04 pmby Craig.
remember once again that an earthquakes power is multiplied by 10 for each point on hte scale, so a magnitude 9 is 10 times more powerful than an 8 on the richter scale. when you look at the amount of water displaced it still wouldn't surprise me, but i still want more proof
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 2:29 pmby Woodlouse2002
It's all worked out by energy. The Hiroshima bomb let out a lot of energy in a short amount of time. This energy to make up the 9,500 bombs worked out here would be in the forms of sound, heat and kinetic. And remember that hardly any of that would have been the wave. Think of the energy needed to push two of the earths plates together.
If you look at it it's quite reasonable. But "Sky news" is a bit of a misnomer.
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Thu Jan 06, 2005 6:15 pmby Politically Incorrect
It's all worked out by energy. The Hiroshima bomb let out a lot of energy in a short amount of time. This energy to make up the 9,500 bombs worked out here would be in the forms of sound, heat and kinetic. And remember that hardly any of that would have been the wave. Think of the energy needed to push two of the earths plates together.
If you look at it it's quite reasonable. But "Sky news" is a bit of a misnomer.
That is a very good point! Something to think more about now.
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:16 pmby flyboy 28
Since when?
since sky news is basically Fox in the uk (both owned by Murdoch) i wouldn't trust everything they say.
Oh I never knew that. I thought it was sorta the same as CNN.
Re: 9,500 Hiroshima Bombs
Posted:
Thu Jan 13, 2005 12:52 pmby Chris_F
9500 Hiroshima bombs wouldn't suprise me. Earthquakes release an ENORMOUS amount of energy, and this was a very, very big quake.
"I find that to be highly exaggerated.
Considering the damage of one bomb, 9,500 would mean total devistation of not only that area but most if not all the world "
Only if they are distributed properly. 9500 Hiroshima bombs may be able to destroy 9500 cities but only if one is set off in each city. Set all those bombs off at the bottom of one spot in the ocean and you'll probably just produce one heck of a large wave...