Radiation

gacob · May 1st 2016, 2:59pm

Hey!
Today, I did my first attack with a nuclear bomb. Really i love it. My suggestion is add radiaton to the game.

Q: What's radiation?

A: This is a negative effect in the zone of the blast of a nuclear bomb.

Q: What does this negative effect?

A: This negative effect does than the territory never will have poblation(0 production) or units. If an unit join in the territory, the unit will die little by little.

Q: This is possible of see in the map?

A: Yes, a special effect for the territory and an icon would be enough.

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 3:44pm

This is already present in-game with a 3-day morale drop. Also, radiation from nukes isn't actually that bad. Now, if you make a dirty bomb or blew up/destroy a nuclear power plant then you are going to have some problems, but, still not that bad (kinda sorta maybe).

Also, you're idea takes radiation way too far.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 8:59pm

I like the idea...
would love to see fallout, and that hurting the units that pass...
nice idea

I dont think the moral drop is enough.. would rather it be longer than 3 days

but this radiation zone.. I dont think it should be for the entire Provence..
if that is what you are suggesting

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 9:43pm

oceanhawk wrote:

would love to see fallout, and that hurting the units that pass...

This doesn't happen in real life you know. So it would be stupid.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 9:50pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

would love to see fallout, and that hurting the units that pass...

This doesn't happen in real life you know. So it would be stupid.

of course it does
:wallbash

you think you are safe walking around Chernobyl?
no suit, just walking around, a day after the incident?

and none of the WW2 Era tanks had NBRC Equipment

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 10:06pm

oceanhawk wrote:

you think you are safe walking around Chernobyl?
no suit, just walking around, a day after the incident?

Like I said earlier, nukes are different to dirty bombs and exploding reactors. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had people rebuilding less than a week afterwards, I think.

oceanhawk wrote:

and none of the WW2 Era tanks had NBRC Equipment

So? They die in the blast but when the bomb is blown not much is left. Especially since nukes are used as air-bursts.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 10:25pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

you think you are safe walking around Chernobyl?
no suit, just walking around, a day after the incident?

Like I said earlier, nukes are different to dirty bombs and exploding reactors. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had people rebuilding less than a week afterwards, I think.

oceanhawk wrote:

and none of the WW2 Era tanks had NBRC Equipment

So? They die in the blast but when the bomb is blown not much is left. Especially since nukes are used as air-bursts.

there was huge radioactive spill all of Chernobyl..
I never mentioned japan..

they still cant live in Chernobyl today..

the radioactive fallout, would kill them..
or even just driving through the wasteland, will give them radiation positioning..
unless they have some iodine handy, they screwed..

and even still with Iodine, they still prob screwed

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 10:30pm

oceanhawk wrote:

there was huge radioactive spill all of Chernobyl..
I never mentioned japan..

they still cant live in Chernobyl today..

the radioactive fallout, would kill them..
or even just driving through the wasteland, will give them radiation positioning..
unless they have some iodine handy, they screwed..

and even still with Iodine, they still prob screwed

Alright, like I've said twice now, nukes do not do that.

Only dirty bombs and reactors do that, not nukes.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 10:32pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

there was huge radioactive spill all of Chernobyl..
I never mentioned japan..

they still cant live in Chernobyl today..

the radioactive fallout, would kill them..
or even just driving through the wasteland, will give them radiation positioning..
unless they have some iodine handy, they screwed..

and even still with Iodine, they still prob screwed

Alright, like I've said twice now, nukes do not do that.
Only dirty bombs and reactors do that, not nukes.

your right, now imagine what a nuke would do..

a lot more... damage

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 10:36pm

oceanhawk wrote:

your right, now imagine what a nuke would do..

a lot more... damage

Are you kidding me? @Pablo22510 feelings over facts.

Nukes do not do that, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 10:39pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

your right, now imagine what a nuke would do..

a lot more... damage

Are you kidding me? @Pablo22510 feelings over facts.
Nukes do not do that, look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

in game there are no nuclear plant incidents..

Im referring to nuclear detonations.. they are more serious in terms of damage dealt than a plant incident..

again you are making no valid point, or argument

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 10:42pm

oceanhawk wrote:

Im referring to nuclear detonations.. they are more serious in terms of damage dealt than a plant incident..

Nukes do not do that for cripes sake!

oceanhawk wrote:

again you are making no valid point, or argument

You don't even have a fracking source or real life counterpart, you are just typing words. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki gave people cancer or whatever just for walking through. In fact, today they are bustling cities.

Also, you talked about the Japanese power plant incident. During that, elderly people volunteered to go in instead of younger people as rescue workers because the radiation would take 30 years to kill them and they only had about 15 years of life left.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 10:52pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

Im referring to nuclear detonations.. they are more serious in terms of damage dealt than a plant incident..

Nukes do not do that for cripes sake!

oceanhawk wrote:

again you are making no valid point, or argument

You don't even have a fracking source or real life counterpart, you are just typing words. Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki gave people cancer or whatever just for walking through. In fact, today they are bustling cities.
Also, you talked about the Japanese power plant incident. During that, elderly people volunteered to go in instead of younger people as rescue workers because the radiation would take 30 years to kill them and they only had about 15 years of life left.

what?

your so off, its a joke..

you completely lose the argument and just say random rubbish..

eehh... are you thick mate?
people were born with mutations, and are still after Hiroshima and Nagaski..

atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects16.shtml

k1project.org/explore-health/h…-long-term-health-effects

I now have evidence.. so your rubbish out of the air arguments are useless..

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 10:57pm

oceanhawk wrote:

atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects16.shtml

This source is about people exposed to the bomb, so an invalid point. Lol.

oceanhawk wrote:

k1project.org/explore-health/h…-long-term-health-effects

Hahaha. From your source.

Following the atomic explosion over Hiroshima, many survivors feared that nothing would grow on the decimated earth. By the time spring of 1946 arrived, the citizens of Hiroshima were surprised to find the landscape dotted with the blooming red petals of the oleander. The oleander flower, called the kyochikuto in Japanese, dispelled worries that the destroyed city had lost all its fertility and inspired the population with hope that Hiroshima would soon recover from the tragic bombing.
Now the official flower of Hiroshima, the oleander offers a beautiful symbol for the city as a whole; while some feared that the city and its population were irreparably destroyed—permanently cut off from normality by the effects of radiation—many would be surprised to learn of the limited long term health effects the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 have had.

All your two sources are about people that were exposed to the bomb.

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 10:59pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects16.shtml

This source is about people exposed to the bomb, so an invalid point. Lol.

oceanhawk wrote:

k1project.org/explore-health/h…-long-term-health-effects

Hahaha. From your source.
Following the atomic explosion over Hiroshima, many survivors feared that nothing would grow on the decimated earth. By the time spring of 1946 arrived, the citizens of Hiroshima were surprised to find the landscape dotted with the blooming red petals of the oleander. The oleander flower, called the kyochikuto in Japanese, dispelled worries that the destroyed city had lost all its fertility and inspired the population with hope that Hiroshima would soon recover from the tragic bombing.
Now the official flower of Hiroshima, the oleander offers a beautiful symbol for the city as a whole; while some feared that the city and its population were irreparably destroyed—permanently cut off from normality by the effects of radiation—many would be surprised to learn of the limited long term health effects the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 have had.

All your two sources are about people that were exposed to the bomb.

read on mate...

"For all other cancers, incidence increase did not appear until around ten years after the attacks. The increase was first noted in 1956 and soon after tumor registries were started in both Hiroshima and Nagasaki to collect data on the excess cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure. The most thorough study regarding the incidence of solid cancer (meaning cancer that is not leukemia) was conducted by a team led by Dale L. Preston of Hirosoft International Corporation and published in 2003. The study estimated the attributable rate of radiation exposure to solid cancer to be significantly lower than that for leukemia—10.7%. According to the RERF, the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual."

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 11:02pm

oceanhawk wrote:

cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure.

oceanhawk wrote:

the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual."

Sooooooo..... exposed to the blast and you are 5 times more likely to get cancer?

oceanhawk · May 1st 2016, 11:06pm

Quasi-duck wrote:

oceanhawk wrote:

cancer risks caused by the radiation exposure.

oceanhawk wrote:

the data corroborates the general rule that even if someone is exposed to a barely survivable whole-body radiation dose, the solid cancer risk will not be more than five times greater than the risk of an unexposed individual."

Sooooooo..... exposed to the blast and you are 5 times more likely to get cancer?

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away. Now much more attention has turned to the children born to the survivors. Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero), studies, such as one led by E. Nakashima in 1994, have shown that exposure led to increases in small head size and mental disability, as well as impairment in physical growth. Persons exposed in utero were also found to have a lower increase in cancer rate than survivors who were children at the time of the attack.
One of the most immediate concerns after the attacks regarding the future of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki was what health effects the radiation would have on the children of survivors conceived after the bombings. So far, no radiation-related excess of disease has been seen in the children of survivors, though more time is needed to be able to know for certain. In general, though, the healthfulness of the new generations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide confidence that, like the oleander flower, the cities will continue to rise from their past destruction.......

is that not an effect on the health no?
but true I am talking about if they walked along the grounds after the bomb..
so here comming up is the thingy..

Quasi-duck · May 1st 2016, 11:11pm

oceanhawk wrote:

Nearly seventy years after the bombings occurred, most of the generation that was alive during the attack has passed away.

Not surprised, 70 years is a long time.

oceanhawk wrote:

Regarding individuals who had been exposed to radiation before birth (in utero),

Sooooo.... bomber during pregnancy?

oceanhawk wrote:

. So far, no radiation-related excess of disease has been seen in the children of survivors

Lol, nice source. I should've used this.

oceanhawk wrote:

the healthfulness of the new generations in Hiroshima and Nagasaki provide confidence that, like the oleander flower, the cities will continue to rise from their past destruction.......

Haha. Thanks, it is great that you support my statement.

oceanhawk wrote:

is that not an effect on the health no?

No.

Pablo22510 · May 2nd 2016, 11:02am

I agree with both here. Nukes don't cause a tenth of the health problems that nuclear catastrophes like Chernobyl do, but they still mutate unborn children and survivors to the blast. However, very few mutations have been observed in people born after the blast THAT WERE NOT SONS/DAUGHTERS OF PEOPLE WHO HAD SURVIVED THE BLAST. The mutations can be passed on through generations.

Btw, the USA is developing nukes that don't cause any radiation at all.

Quasi-duck · May 2nd 2016, 11:59am

Exactly, only people exposed to the bomb and descendants of them will have problems, usually very few. There is little to no chance of an invader from Algeria getting radiation poisoning because he walked through London after it was nuked.

Share

Similar Threads