Blogging – Page 3 – Super Facts

Electric Charge is not the only type of Fundamental Charge

Super fact 59 : Most people have heard of electrical charges, positive and negative. However, in nature there are also color charges—red, green, and blue—which are analogous to electric charges. In addition, there are anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue charges.

Esther’s writing prompt: 10th September : Charge

Click here or here to join in.

As you may know, atoms consist of particles. Electrons surround the nucleus of the atom. The nucleus of the atom is in the middle of the atom and it consists of protons and neutrons. Electrons have a negative charge. Protons have a positive charge. Neutrons do not have an electrical charge. Electrons are so called elementary particles. They are not composed of other particles. Protons and Neutrons, on the other hand, are not elementary particles. They are composite particles consisting of quarks, gluons and quark pairs called mesons.

The picture shows a Hydrogen atom consisting of one proton and one electron, one Carbon atom with six electrons, six protons and six neutrons, an Oxygen atom with eight electrons, eight protons and eight neutrons, and a Nitrogen atom with seven electrons, seven protons and seven neutrons | Electric Charge is not the only type of Fundamental Charge — Four elements with a nucleus and electron shells. The number of electrons, protons, and neutrons is shown. The green particles circling the nucleus are electrons. The red particles in the nucleus (middle) are protons and the blue particles in the nucleus are neutrons. The colors of the particles in this picture have nothing to do with color charges. The four elements are Hydrogen, Carbon, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. There are 118 elements. These elements can combine into millions of different kinds of molecules that make up everything. Asset id: 1555863596 by OSweetNature.

Quarks have electric charges, just like an electron and a positron, which is why a proton has an electric charge, a positive electric charge. However, in addition quarks have something called color charge. Unlike electric charges, which come in two forms, negative and positive, they come in three forms red, green and blue and in anti-red, anti-green, and anti-blue (well six forms actually). I should say that the color charges, red, green and blue, are not real colors. They are just names. Just electric charges are associated with electric forces; color charges are associated with the nuclear strong force. The strong force is even stronger than the electrical force.

If you take an equal amount of positive and negative electric charges you get something that is electrically neutral. If you take an equal amount of red, green and blue you get what is called white, or neutral. If you take an equal amount of red and anti-red you also get white. Any other mix gives you a net color charge.

vector illustration of up and down quarks in proton and neutron on white background. The proton (left) is a red and blue up quark and a green down quark. The neutron is a red and green down quark and a blue up-quark. — The proton and neutron each consist of three quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark. Neutrons consist of two down quarks and one up quark. Both protons and neutrons have a net white charge. The yellow squiggly lines are gluons transporting color charge between the quarks. Asset id: 2333679305 by KRPD.

I can add that gluons are elementary particles that in many respects are like photons. Light consists of photons. It is because of the photons that we can see. In addition, the photons transport electrical charge. Photons are massless elementary particles with the intrinsic spin of one, and they belong to a group of elementary particles called Bosons. Gluons transport color charge, and they are massless and have an intrinsic spin of one and belong to the same group of elementary particles called Bosons. Unlike photons, they are stuck inside the nucleus and unlike photons they never get to see the light of day. The pun was intended.

Matter, light, and electrical charges are all part of our daily life. We can touch matter, see light, and we come across electrical charge when we touch something that is charged or when we see lightning. However, we do not come across quarks, gluons, and color charges in our daily life because they are hidden at the center of the atoms. Yet they are fundamental to the existence of matter, of us. We know color charges exist, the existence of color charges is an important fact, and yet it is not a well-known fact and often a big surprise to people. Therefore, I think it is a super fact.

The 118 Elements and the 3,500 Isotopes

There are 118 known elements. Why not 500, or just 4 or 5, like the ancient Greeks believed? Each element is defined by it having a certain number of protons and the same number of electrons if it is to be electrically neutral. The problem with having more than one proton in the nucleus is that protons all carry a positive charge and therefore want to push each other away. Same charges repel and different charges attract. What saves the nucleus from blowing apart are the neutrons and the associated strong nuclear force (protons & neutrons) which is guided by the color charges. The quantum model for electricity is called Quantum electrodynamics or QED. The quantum model for color charges is called Quantum chromodynamics or QCD.

As you add more protons it becomes increasingly more difficult for the nuclear forces (strong and weak) to hold the nucleus together. The positive charge of the protons is pushing too hard. That’s why there are only 118 Elements. Another thing to note is that the number of neutrons does not have to be the same as the number of protons. This means that for each element there are several kinds of so-called isotopes. For example, carbon has six protons and six electrons (if the atom is electrically neutral) but the carbon atom / element can have six neutrons, seven neutrons, or eight neutrons. You call them carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14, where the number represents the number of protons plus the number of neutrons.

The picture shows a Carbon-12 isotope, a Carbon-13 isotope, and a Carbon-14 isotope | Electric Charge is not the only type of Fundamental Charge — Three natural isotopes of Carbon Stock Vector ID: 2063998442 by zizou7

Bohr model representation of the uranium atom, number 92 and symbol U. Conceptual vector illustration of uranium-238 isotope atom, mass number 238 and electron configuration 2, 8, 18, 32, 21, 9, 2. — This is a simplified Bohr model of the Uranium atom. There are 92 little blue balls circling a nucleus in the middle of the atom. Those are electrons. In the nucleus there are 92 protons. Those are the red balls with plus signs. In addition, there is a yellowish smudge around the protons in the nucleus. Those are the neutrons. Depending on the isotope, there are 143 neutrons for U-235, 146 neutrons for U-238 and 142 neutrons for U-234. Shutterstock asset id: 1999370450 by Patricia F. Carvalho

It is the electrons that determine the chemical properties of an element, and therefore isotopes with a different amount of neutrons are chemically identical. However, they are different with respect to properties that relate to he nucleus, such as radioactivity/stability, and of course weight. Also, when atoms combine into molecules their chemical properties change drastically, but again that is due to the rearrangement of the electrons. There are around 3,500 known isotopes, most of them radioactive.

What is a Quark?

To learn more about Protons, Neutrons, Quarks, Gluons, Color Charges, and Quantum Chromodynamics you can watch this 10 minute video below.

Other Physics Related Superfacts

To see the other Super Facts click here

Science Books for Babies

I think that one of the most interesting series science books for beginners that I’ve come across is the Baby University series. I bought it for our soon to be born first grandchild Jack, but I couldn’t help but go through them myself. It is a great series for those who hope to put their one-year-old toddlers in a PhD program. But seriously, these books explain science concepts as simply as it is possible to do. The books may still be a little bit tough for babies, but I think 2–3-year-olds might get something out of them. The point of the books is not to make young children understand complex scientific concepts but to introduce the vocabulary and build curiosity.

Below I am presenting five books in the series, General Relativity for Babies, Electromagnetism for Babies, Artificial Intelligence for Babies, Quantum Physics for Babies, and Organic Chemistry for Babies. I am providing my review for the book and a link to my review as well as the book and a photo of the front cover.

General Relativity for Babies

This is the Amazon link for General Relativity for Babies.

My Review for General Relativity for Babies

General Relativity as Simplified as Possible

We bought this board book for our not yet born grandson. This book simplifies the General Theory of Relativity as far as you possibly can. It uses simple language and colorful illustrations to give the reader an idea of what is going on. Different sized masses are different sized balls, space-time curvature is illustrated using a distorted grid, and objects orbiting larger masses, such as a star, are shown as small balls having their paths curved by a warped grid. There are simple explanations for what a black hole is and what gravity waves are.

A baby would not understand this book but maybe someone who is 3-4 years old would. But your expectations need to be realistic. It should also be noted that even if you understand the book, the explanations are too simplistic for you to really understand General Relativity, but the explanations are not so simple that they are wrong. The book will just give you an idea of what is going on. However, I was impressed by the fact that the author and illustrator were able to present such an abstract theory in a way that makes it possible for a child to at least have a clue. I think that the most important aspect of the book is not whether the child understands General Relativity but the interest in science that it may evoke.

Electromagnetism for Babies

This is the Amazon link for Electromagnetism for Babies.

My Review for Electromagnetism for Babies

Electromagnetism Simplified for Young Children

We bought this short and colorfully illustrated board book for our not yet born grandson. I don’t think a baby will understand it but maybe when he is 2-3 years old. The book explains in simple terms and with colorful simple illustrations the basic concepts of charges, and attraction between negative and positive charges, and repulsion between two positive balls/charges and two negative balls. It explains about electrical and magnetic fields, and the fact that charges rotate around magnets. I believe this book can spur a child’s interest in science and engineering.

Artificial Intelligence for babies

This is the Amazon link for Artificial Intelligence for babies.

My Review for Artificial Intelligence for babies

Artificial Intelligence for Small Children

We bought this board book for our not yet born grandson. He will not be able to understand it until he is at least one years old, but that is OK. The book explains the difference between a dog, a live thing, and a computer. It does this in very simple terms that I believe a young child could understand. According to the book, a computer can do some things that are impressive, such as complex calculations, and you can teach it certain skills, but it is not adaptable like a dog. I think that is about what you can make a very young child understand. Naturally, there are no neural networks or AI algorithms in the book. However, I think it sells artificial intelligence short, since artificial intelligence is becoming increasingly adaptable.

Quantum Physics for babies

This is the Amazon link for Quantum Physics for babies.

My Review for Quantum Physics for babies

Quantum Physics for Young Children and Adults who Detested Physics Class

We bought this board book for our not yet born grandson. We may need to wait until he is 2-3 years old before it makes sense to read it to him. In the meantime, it is also a good book for adults without a solid science education. The book talks about colorful balls with energy and presents a simplified version of the Bohr model of the atom. There are blue balls called electrons and red balls called protons in the middle (the nucleus). The electrons travel in circular orbits around the middle. Light can change the energy of electrons causing them to jump between the orbits.

My daughter made the comment that a baby is only going to understand that an electron is a blue ball and a proton is a red ball, which isn’t a correct description of electrons and protons. Protons and electrons don’t have specific colors, not to mention that a simplified Bohr model for the atom is quite different from the more realistic Schrödinger’s model of the atom with quantum waves and probabilistic electron clouds. However, I am still very impressed by how simple the author and the illustrator succeeded in making this abstract topic. It is a good start for budding physicists.

Organic Chemistry for babies

This is the Amazon link for Organic Chemistry for babies.

My Review for Organic Chemistry for babies

Your First Book on Organic Chemistry

We bought this board book for our not yet born grandson. We will read it to him when he is 1-3 years old. Right now, we can read it. This book simplifies Organic as far as you possibly can. It uses simple language and colorful illustrations to give the reader an idea of what organic chemistry is. Basically, atoms are balls of different kinds. Atoms make up everything. Atoms can stick to each other, and they can make different shapes. The balls we call carbon (in black) can stick to small white balls called hydrogen and other balls called oxygen. We call those organic molecules, and they make up plants, food, and medicines. I think this is simple enough for a 1–3-year-old to understand, but not a baby. In my opinion, a better name for this series would have been “for Big Boys or Girls” rather than babies, because young children don’t like being called babies.

To watch a woman read Quantum Physics for Babies. Click on the YouTube video below.

To see the Super Facts click here

The US Drug Overdose Epidemic is Extreme

Super fact 51 : In 1968 5,033 Americans died from a drug overdose. In 1978 5,506 Americans died from a drug overdose. In 1999 16,801 Americans died from a drug overdose. In 2022 107,941 Americans died from a drug overdose. 82,000 of those deaths involved opioids (about 76%). The number of people who died from an opioid overdose in 2022 was 10 times the number in 1999. More than half of all opioid deaths in the world were Americans despite being only 4.2% of the world population. The hardest hit demographic is white males.

Note the data in the super fact above is taken from Wikipedia, which in turn took it from CDC. However, the data across multiple sources look roughly the same (CDC / CDC, NIDA/NIH, Our world in Data, Wikipedia). I think this is a super fact. I should add that the statistics seem to have improved a little bit in 2023 and 2024.

I’ve posted about good super facts in this blog several times:

However, unfortunately there are also bad super facts, like this one.

The Severe Drug Overdose Epidemic in the US is a Super Fact

We recently went to the funeral for the young son (in his 20’s) of good friends of ours. He died from a drug overdose. The same thing happened to another friend of ours not too long ago. Despite all the talk about drugs, the war of drugs, and the “just say no campaign”, in the 1980’s I don’t remember this happening to people I knew when I was young, so I looked up the statistics. I knew we had an opioid epidemic with Fentanyl being the greatest culprit followed by Heroin. I just didn’t realize how severe it was and how American it was. This is important and shocking and the sources behind the data are reliable, which is why I consider this a super fact.

The United States Has by Far the Highest Death Rate from Opioids

If you play around with this graph from Our World in Data you will notice that the United States has a very high rate of deaths from drug overdoses, especially opioids, much higher than any other country. For example, take my home country Sweden, where 283 people died from opioid in 2021 (398 all drugs, data from IHME). Compare that with the United States, where 55,452 died from opioid in 2021 (70,893 all drugs, data from IHME). Adjust that for the population in each country you get a rate of 16.3 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants for the US and 2.7 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants for the Sweden. Sweden and the US are both open wealthy democracies in which certain opioids are legal for medical purposes but otherwise illegal. The graph below has slightly different numbers but notice that the year (2024) is different.

The picture shows a world map with the death rate from opioids for different countries shown in lighter to darker colors. United States out in dark brown with a death rate of 15.4. Canada also looks dark with a death rate of 6.9. Most of the rest of the world have a lighter color | The US Drug Overdose Epidemic is Extreme — Data source : Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME), Global Burden of Disease (2024). The graph is taken from Our World in Data .

Some illustrative Graphics on Drug Deaths

The graphs below illustrate both the sharp rise in drug related deaths, especially opioids, as well as how hard hit the United States is compared to the rest of the world.

The graph shows a steep increase of deaths from opioids. Deaths from other drugs such as cocaine and amphetamine are relatively minor | The US Drug Overdose Epidemic is Extreme — The population of the United States is 340 million.

In this graph cocaine is the dominant cause of death. However, at less than 1,400 it is relatively minor compared to the deaths from opioids in the US | The US Drug Overdose Epidemic is Extreme — The population of South America is 438 million

This graph shows an increase in deaths from opiods, like the US graph, but it is more moderate. — The population of Europe is 744 million.

This graph is swinging up and then down, and does not show the strong upward trend that the US graph does. — The population of Asia is 4,800 million.

The graph shows a death rate per 100,000 of 21.4 for opioids, 17.8 for synthetic opioids such as fentanyl, 4.9 for prescription opioids, 4.1 for heroin, and 6.0 for cocaine | The US Drug Overdose Epidemic is Extreme — This graph shows the contribution to US deaths from specific drugs including synthetic opioids (Fentanyl), Heroin, prescription opioids, and cocaine. Notice that the vertical axis shows the death rate per 100,000 people and not the total number of deaths. Data source : US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention WONDER. Note: Opioids include prescription pain relief drugs, synthetic opioids, excluding methadone and other opioids such as heroin. The graph is taken from Our World in Data.

To see the other Super Facts click here

Choosing Super Facts

This is my 100^th post on my Superfactful blog. There are 50 super-fact posts. The other posts are posts about the blog, like this one, or posts featuring interesting information that I think is important, or book reviews of non-fiction books, travel posts with some information, posts about me, or mysteries.

However, the goal of this blog is to create a long list of facts that are important, not trivia, and that are known to be true and yet are either disputed by large segments of the public or highly surprising or misunderstood by many, perhaps shocking. Learning or accepting such a fact will change how you view the world. This makes these facts deserving of special attention, which is why I refer to them as super facts. You can also consider the super facts as a form of myth busting, major myth busting.

As mentioned, at the time of writing this I have come up with 50 super facts and made 50 posts about those super facts, but I am hoping to come up with hundreds. I am open to suggestions for super facts as well as critique of super facts. Tell me if you think it is trivia, not important, not surprising, or not an established fact. To see the first 50 super facts click here.

A blue brain is splitting up into pieces | Choosing Super Facts — Smash your old beliefs with new surprising facts, super facts. Expand your mind. Shutterstock ID: 1685660680 by MattL_Images

Deciding on What is an Important Fact

Deciding what is an important fact or not is subjective, but for the same reason it also makes it an easy thing to decide. Ultimately, I decide what is important. It is difficult to compare the importance of facts, but my main concern is to avoid trivia. I also try to avoid facts that may be important to me but do not concern others very much.

For example, I am looking for facts that people discuss a lot, or are often mentioned in the mainstream media, or facts that people dispute fiercely despite a scientific consensus and overwhelming evidence telling us what is true. I am looking for facts from science that could change people’s perspective on nature, our world, or the universe, or facts that could change people’s view of the world, that are related to important historical events, such as the deaths of millions of people, etc.

Shocking Facts

Deciding whether a fact is highly surprising, misunderstood by many, shocking, or contentious and disputed is also not an exact science. In some cases, there are polls stating how common a certain belief is amongst the public but in most cases (that I consider) I have no polls to fall back on. I just have to use my judgment. In some cases, almost everyone I’ve spoken to about the subject is misinformed, bamboozled, or they misunderstand it. In other cases, I need to decide based on my impression. I have to guess.

A shocked woman in front of a screen | Choosing Super Facts — Super facts can be surprising, shocking, or something you refuse to believe, and yet they are true. Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

Finding the Truth

As I mentioned, deciding on what is important or highly surprising is not an exact science. I think that is OK. There’s going to be super facts that are impressive and some that are less so. However, the third criteria is the one thing that I need to get right, and that is whether the fact is true or not.

We humans are not very rational, and we often believe with intense conviction things which are false. I think that is true for all of us. We don’t know what those false beliefs are, otherwise, we wouldn’t have them. However, this is where the super facts can come in handy, as tools for personal growth if we are willing to change our minds in the face of new evidence. This is easier said than done since we are emotional beings embedded in our culture, our tribal attachments and favorite myths. We have biases, we jump to conclusions, we overestimate our understanding of subjects we don’t know much about (see the Dunning Kruger effect), and we tend to believe what we want to believe. That goes for me too.

Adding to the difficulty on deciding what is true is the fact that the internet and especially social media is full of misinformation. There are an enormous amount of YouTube videos, podcasts, and websites touting false claims, conspiracy theories, and pseudo-science. There are political think tanks deceiving the public and industry funded organizations spending billions of dollars on misinformation, as well as people claiming to have special insights and superior knowledge.

I see the most ridiculous claims on Facebook and Instagram on a daily basis and the amazing thing is that people fall for it. If it supports their pre-existing beliefs or opinions, they see it as proof or conclusive evidence and they don’t take the time to question the source. When I see this, I often point out that the source is not reliable, or it may even be a satirical site, and I often add something from Snopes to my comment assuming they’ve investigated it.

Sure, when I do this, I am raining on someone’s parade, and it is quite often not welcome. No matter how politely I try to explain the situation I end up getting insulted or blocked. I should say, I’ve also fallen for fake information myself, but I try to accept it when someone points it out to me using reliable sources. The point is, we humans are really bad at deciding what is true, and we underestimate how bad at it we are, and deciding what is true is often a quite challenging task.

Before I publish a super fact, I need to be fairly certain that it is true. Outside of mathematics and logic you cannot be 100% sure about anything, but some facts we can say with very high certainty are true. For example, the earth is not flat like a pancake, the Sun is bigger than the earth, the capital of the United States is Washington DC, the heart pumps the blood, we breathe oxygen, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the light speed in vacuum is a universal constant, time dilation is real, Cesium-137 is radioactive, etc. Most likely you only know a very tiny fraction of a percentage of the facts that we know to be true with very high certainty. Some of those facts will surprise you, shock you, or are facts you would like to dispute, and I call them super facts.

Determining What Facts Are True

When I determine whether something is true with a high degree of certainty I start with my own expertise. For example, when someone claims that the second law of thermodynamics (entropy) contradict evolution I know that to be false because I have a degree in physics (master’s degree) and I’ve taken several classes in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. In addition, I am very familiar with the faulty argumentation behind the claim because I’ve read dozens of creationist books. Yes, I was once bamboozled by creationism myself. Then I learned more about science, evolutionary biology, physics and thermodynamics.

Ludwig Boltzman’s formula from 1874 — Second law of thermodynamics Shutter Stock Vector ID: 2342031619 by Sasha701

However, my personal expertise is not enough. I also find out about scientific consensus or expert consensus and evidence from reliable sources. I should say that using scientific consensus as a reliable indicator that something is true does not fall under the “appeal to authority fallacy”. The “appeal to authority fallacy” refers to appealing to influential people or organizations who may not necessarily be experts, and regardless of the evidence. In science you don’t really have authorities, you have experts who often disagree with each other. In the event almost all experts agree on a certain fact that has been thoroughly vetted you can trust that fact with nearly 100% certainty, and that is not appeal to authority but a probability argument.

I typically select several reliable sources such as research papers published in respectable journals, national academies, government websites such as NASA, NOAA, EPA, FBI, respected research organizations such Our World in Data, Pew Research Center, and academic publications and books. I make sure that they various sites I find don’t contradict each other regarding my prospective super fact. If they all seem to agree I accept the super fact and include a few of the links in my post.

If I don’t have much personal expertise on a subject I start out by asking Google AI. I don’t ask ChatGPT because I believe it is less reliable with respect to information. Then I check Wikipedia and or another online encyclopedia such as encyclopedia Britannica. This is not to establish the truth but to get an idea. Wikipedia is not an academically acceptable source, but it is rarely wrong and serves as a good first filter to save time. Then I start focusing on the reliable sources above and I will make sure I understand the evidence.

So, in summary I will use my expertise, scientific consensus, reliable sources and better, agreement between reliable sources, to determine if I can say with confidence that something is true. I will also frequently include links from Wikipedia in my posts because Wikipedia typically feature good summaries that are easy to understand. Naturally, anyone is free to dispute any of my super facts. Just make sure you provide good evidence from an arguably reliable source, or I cannot take it seriously.

Picture shows a scale held by a pointing finger. Fact is on the left shown as a bright light bulb. Myth is shown on the right as grey ball | Choosing Super Facts — Fact or myth. Shutterstock Asset id: 2327968607

Sources I will not consider are claims from unreliable sources, political think tanks, talk show hosts, politicians, articles written by contrarians heavily funded by industry or political organizations, and random Reels or YouTube videos, and I will not entertain conspiracy theories for my purposes. Also, I will ignore, articles with click bait titles, sources making claims about a great swindle by the scientific community, articles claiming everyone is lying to you, articles purporting to reveal the hidden truth, articles insisting on presenting the truth that “they”/the-others won’t tell you, etc. Cults will tell you that everyone else is lying to you. I’ve learned not to fall for it at this point.

My Super Fact List

Finally, here are a few examples of my super facts.

To see all the Super Facts click here

We Exploded Thousands of Nuclear Bombs

Super fact 48 : Since 1945 we have set off more than 2,000 Nuclear Bombs corresponding to a yield of an estimated 42,000 times that of the Hiroshima Bomb.

According to the Arms Control Association there’s been 2,056 nuclear bomb tests. According to the UN there’s been more than 2,000 nuclear bomb tests, and according to Wikipedia there’s been 2,121 nuclear bomb tests, totaling 635 Megaton. Using the typical yield estimate for the Hiroshima bomb of 15 Kiloton that corresponds to more than 42,000 Hiroshima bombs. I think most of us know about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs and we know about nuclear testing. However, I think the number of tests and the large total yield will come as a surprise to many, at least it was a surprise to me. That is why I consider this a super fact.

Atomic bomb explosion in a city - nuclear attack on a crowded city – 3D rendering of a mushroom cloud encompassing a city with skyscrapers | We Exploded Thousands of Nuclear Bombs — Nuclear bomb dropped on a big city. Shutterstock, asset id: 2188083835 by CI Photos.

Nuclear Landscaping

It may also come as a surprise that many of these tests were not for military purposes. Another usage for nuclear bombs is nuclear landscaping. Towards the end of the 1950’s the existing Panama Canal was thought to be insufficiently large and some people, including Edward Teller, the father of the Hydrogen bomb (Thermonuclear bomb), suggested that a new wider and deeper canal could be built simply by using nuclear bombs to blow multiple huge holes across Panama. The US was also interested in creating a new harbor in Alaska using nuclear bombs.

Thus, Project Plowshare was created to achieve this. As part of the Project Plowshare 35 nuclear warheads were detonated. The Soviet Union also had a similar program named “Nuclear Explosions for the National Economy” that included 124 nuclear bomb tests. Due to concerns over radioactive fallout the nuclear landscaping projects were eventually put to rest. The last Plowshare detonation was on May 17, 1973. The book Atomic Awakening by James Mahaffey recounts the history of nuclear testing and nuclear landscaping in greater detail.

An enormous nuclear bomb explosion in the dessert featuring a huge mushroom cloud. — Hydrogen bomb test by Alones Shutterstock Asset id: 2194195335.

Project Orion

Another non-military use of nuclear bomb testing was Project Orion. Project Orion was a study conducted from 1956 to 1964 by the US Air Force, NASA, and DARPA into the viability of a nuclear pulse spaceship that would be directly propelled by a series of atomic explosions behind the craft. A thick steel pusher plate would catch the blast and accelerate the ship forward.

The “Pascal B” shot in Operation Plumb Bob in 1957 was the first nuclear weapons test of the pusher concept. The Limited Test Ban Treaty of 1963 made it difficult to continue with the project. According to the book Atomic Awakening, if the design had been successfully completed, we could have created an interstellar spaceship that could have taken a crew and a large load to other planets and stars.

I can add that According to Atomic Awakening, in addition to Nuclear Landscaping and Project Orion, Nuclear Blasts were a tourist attraction.

Number of Nuclear Tests by Country

Below is a list of countries and the number of nuclear tests that they’ve performed according to the Arms Control Association and Wikipedia.

The United States – 1,030 – According to Wikipedia – 1,032
The USSR/Russia – 715 – According to Wikipedia – 727
France – 210 – According to Wikipedia – 215
United Kingdom – 45 – According to Wikipedia – 88
China – 45 – According to Wikipedia – 47
North Korea – 6 – According to Wikipedia – 6
India – 3 – According to Wikipedia – 3
Pakistan – 2- According to Wikipedia – 2

However, it should be noted that partially due to nuclear arms control legislation such as; the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT): Signed in 1963, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT): Signed in 1974, and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) opened for signing in 1996, the number of nuclear tests have been significantly reduced. This is illustrated by the graph below from Our World in Data. The last nuclear test was done by North Korea in 2017.

The histogram graph shows how many nuclear tests took place each year since 1945. The different countries, the portion by each country, the US, USSR/Russia, France, United Kingdom, China, North Korean, India, and Pakistan are colored differently. The histogram shows the 1961 was the year when most nuclear tests took place. The vast majority of the tests took place between 1950 and 1990 | We Exploded Thousands of Nuclear Bombs — Data Source: Arms Control Association (2024). OurWorldInData.org/nuclear weapons.

Tsar Bomba

The biggest nuclear bomb ever exploded was RDS-220, or AN602, or Tsar Bomba. It was detonated by the Soviet Union on October 30^th, 1961, on the arctic island of Novaya Zemlya, and yielded more than 50 Megaton. In other words, it was 3,300 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. According to Atomic Awakening, windows in Finland 1,900 kilometers (1,180 miles) away shattered. There are no cities large enough to match the size of the explosion. This is the kind of bomb that could obliterate states or small countries.

Tsar Bomba was a so-called thermonuclear device, or a hydrogen bomb as they are typically called. Hydrogen bombs are much more powerful than fission bombs, such as Uranium bombs or Plutonium bombs. To read my related post called “Ukraine Gave up Thousands of Nuclear Warheads” click here.

Russian Tsar Bomba mushroom cloud rising high above the clouds. High quality photo realist ( 3d make ) | We Exploded Thousands of Nuclear Bombs — This is an illustration of the Tsar Bomba explosion by by mbafai Shutterstock Asset id: 2208486661. To see a photo of the actual Tsar Bomba explosion click here (it is copyrighted).

Would you pay to watch a Nuclear Bomb Test? (Nuclear Bomb Test Tourism)