What harmful effects does radon have on plants and animals?

Answer 1

Yes! The radiation and the chemicals that are given off during nuclear testing give off green house gases and help to make the hole in the ozone layer even bigger. This is banned in many countries now.

Categorically, there are three types of nuclear testing: atmospheric (detonations above ground/water), submarine (detonations underwater), and subterranean (detonations far underground).

Radioactive fallout from both submarine and atmospheric tests can be considerable, and, more importantly, is subject to prevailing wind patters. However, fallout does not have any measurable impact on the climate. What both submarine and atmospheric tests do produce is three things that concern climatologists: (1) huge amounts of water vapor [if the test was underwater, or conducted over water, as most atmospheric tests were], (2) particulate matter from soil [ if the test was over a landmass, or near an island], and (3) greenhouse gas production.

In the first case of water vapor, the concern is injection of large-to-huge volumes of vaporized water into the stratosphere. Up to a cubic kilometer or so of water can be vaporized by a large nuclear weapon, much of which will be thrown up into the stratosphere. Water vapor in the stratosphere will stay up there significantly longer than in the lower troposphere. From a climate standpoint, water vapor is a cooling agent - it reflects sunlight but does not trap infrared heat. So, overall, pumping large amounts of water vapor into the upper atmosphere can produce global cooling. This particular effect is rather short-lived (months, at most), so even during the 1950s where dozens of atmospheric and underwater tests occurred, the change was minimal, at best.

The second cast of particulate matter is much more concerning. If the test is not near any substantial land mass, the particulates injected into the atmosphere are minimal. However, if the test is such that the primary fireball touches land, then a noteworthy amount of soil and rock are injected directly into the stratosphere and possibly the mesosphere. This very-fine dust and rock particulate cloud blocks sunlight easily. A typical low-megaton atmospheric detonation over land produces a dust cloud roughly equivalent to one-tenth the size of the Mount St. Helen's volcano eruption - this kind of cloud is radically larger if the explosion happens over some form of highly combustible surface (such as a forest or city). This kind of particulate matter can stay up in the atmosphere for at long as a decade.

Finally, the radiation and energy given off by the nuclear explosion produces a noticeable change in the composition of the local atmosphere - such enormous amounts of energy being distributed cause all manner of various chemical changes. Production and destruction of Ozone is a primary instance - a significant increase in ozone in the lower atmosphere (where it is a greenhouse gas) and a minor, but noteworthy reduction in the upper-atmosphere ozone layer.

Underground testing has none of these impact, and thus, from a climate perspective, is harmless.

Overall, however, nuclear testing has a quite small impact on the climate - each detonation (even of huge 10MT or larger) is done in a manner to enhance measurements (the whole point of testing), not to maximize damage to the climate. In addition, even during the heyday of nuclear testing (the 1950s), less than two dozen tests per year were conducted, worldwide. That's simply not enough to produce any significant climate impact for more than a very short time.

It should be noted that use of nuclear weapons in any sort of a war scenario (where even a limited exchange would expect several hundred weapons to be used) is a very significant threat to the climate. The very large number of explosions in the "surface-burst" mode are particularly "dirty", and the use of larger weapons over cities would produce enormous amounts of particulate matter. In terms of equivalence, use of around 100 weapons would produce effects similar to the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991, and 1,000 would produce something similar to the Thera eruption in antiquity.

Answer 2

The effects completely depend on the wavelength of the radiation. If the frequency

is below, say, 100 GHz, the animals can use the radiation to operate their TV sets

and cellphones, detect approaching thunderstorms, and warm their leftover meatloaf.

If the wavelength of the radiation is in the range of perhaps 350 - 750 nanometers,

then they can use that radiation to maintain awareness of their surroundings and avoid

bumping into things. Radiation with wavelengths shorter than that causes the animals'

exposed skin to secrete enhanced pigmentation and turn darker, while even shorter

wavelengths are often used to record images of the internal structure of their teeth

or broken bones. It all depends on the wavelength of the radition.

Answer 3

There are many different ways that nuclear testing effects animals. These animals could develop mutations from the toxic nuclear chemicals.

Answer 4

See certain sections of the report referenced below

Answer 5

it effects your penis size by making it smaller like a babies

Answer 6

Radioactive waste would affect plants and animals by making plants die and growing larger or smaller. The animals would probably glow because of it and then sooner or later, it would die. :(

Answer 7

Can cause cancer in animals and sometimes is good for plants in small amounts.