Nukemap3D скачать на русском
YouTube videos - Funny Videos and YouTube MusicYouTube videos - Funny Videos and YouTube Music | Doovi
NUKEMAP at 5 years | Restricted Data
Five years ago today I introduced the NUKEMAP. It feels practically like yesterday — how fast that has flown! I occasionally get college students, not even brand new ones, who tell me that they used it in high school to do reports. That makes me feel... well, like I've contributed something, along with feeling old. So that's not bad. I've been behind on posting for awhile now, and am behind on several things at the moment (lots of irons in the fire, plus the debilitating power of a news cycle that seems to change by the minute), but I wanted to put up something about the NUKEMAP.
NUKEMAP and NUKEMAP3D page views, exported from Google Analytics and cleaned up a bit, with a few of the "known" moments of virality indicated. Note how the "baseline" had steadily increased over time.
Some statistics: NUKEMAP has been the host of over 99 million virtual detonations, according to its internal logs. Every detonation, except for ones where people have opted-out of logging, is logged. As I've said before, I don't record enough information for it to be non-anonymizing, but it's interesting to see things like where people nuke, and what they do with the tool. According to Google Analytics, there have been (as of this checking) over 25 million pageviews, over 20 million of those unique pageviews (e.g., not people coming back and using it multiple times in one session). The usage of the site predictably flares up in certain moments of "virality" (for the 70th anniversary of Hiroshima, over 500,000 people used it over two days), and still have sharp moments of heavy traffic every few months. More interesting and important to me is that the site's "slow days" are now not so slow. When it started, a "slow day" was a few thousand people using it. Today, it's more like 15,000-20,000 people using it. And, for the most part, people are really using it: the average time on page is 5 minutes, which I think is pretty healthy for a web visualization used by tens of thousands of people a day. That means people are doing more than just clicking and glancing — they're actually trying things out.
NUKEMAP3D is, for the moment, moribund. Google unceremoniously discontinued support for the Google Earth Web Plugin (the code on their end is just kaput), and no adequate substitute has yet emerged. There are some ways of crudely rendering a 3D planet on the web, but none that support buildings and skylines the way Google Earth did, and that is the whole point of NUKEMAP3D. However, I am developing a temporary substitute which is almost ready to roll out: it will allow you to export any NUKEMAP settings to a KMZ file which you can open in the Google Earths standalone program, and it will support mushroom clouds among other interesting features.
"Alas, poor NUKEMAP3D! I knew him, Horatio..." Don't worry, NUKEMAP3D isn't really dead, just waiting for better circumstances...
Some reflections: I still remain surprised that NUKEMAP has been as popular as it was. The idea of drawing concentric circles over a map is not a new one, and mine was not even the first web one. Heck, it wasn't even the first web one for me — in 2005 or so I made a terrible crude version using MapQuest (remember them?) and PHP, and it wouldn't have been sustainable to use (it literally used PHP to draw circles over static images from MapQuest, so it was very server-intensive by the standards of the day). But I did try to make a version that was easier to use than any of the other ones that were out there, and gave more intuitive, useful information. And when I upgraded NUKEMAP in the summer of 2013, I really did think it was contributing new possibilities: much more flexible detonation options, casualty estimates, a fallout model.
I still give talks about NUKEMAP all the time, whether to large groups (I was on a panel with Noam Chomsky a few years ago, talking about NUKEMAP), or to individual reporters (I did another interview on it just yesterday), or to small groups of students (I Skyped into a high school class a few weeks ago to talk about it, and how it was made, and how these students should not think of it as something beyond their capabilities to put together, something I don't mind doing if I can make the time for it). I teach a course regularly ("Visualizing Society," a sort of anarchistic data visualization/science and technology studies course) where I show students how to build NUKEMAP-like applications for other sorts of social phenomena. I still make updates and plans for updates to it: there are several projects in the works, including "refreshing" the interface a bit (don't worry, it won't end up looking painfully "trendy"; the blog could probably use a refresh, too), translating it into other languages (which requires more back-end coding than you might expect), and adding new substantive features (I have almost put the final touches on a nuclear burning model and better support for multiple detonations).
For me, the "holy grail" would be something that would let you see something like the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency made in 1973: a "personalized" view of what different damage looked like, from the street level. The technology for this isn't quite here yet, but it's not that far away, either.
I suppose one thing that I'm grateful for is that I'm not yet even slightly bored with any of it — I still find talking about it interesting, I still find it a model of how we might consider science communication to look in our present age. I strongly believe, and will evangelize about to anyone who asks me to (as many have found, probably without realizing what they were getting into), that there is something different about providing a sort of "simulation" to a user and saying, well, you figure out how this works, as opposed to a more didactic mode of education like lecturing. This has strong shades of "active learning," but I'm not just talking about an approach to the classroom. One nice thing about tools like NUKEMAP is that I can see (through referring links) how people are using them. My favorite example, and this comes up all the time, is when people use it to argue with other people on the Internet. Someone will say, wouldn't a nuclear bomb do X? And someone says, well, the NUKEMAP says it will be more like Y. And there's this kind of "calibration" of understanding, as I think of it, that starts to narrow down what these weapons do and don't do. (And it goes both ways: most people think they are more powerful than they are, but some think they are less powerful.) The NUKEMAP model, as I discuss in its FAQ, isn't perfect by any means: in some circumstances it probably overestimates the effects (by not taking into account a lot of local variables), in others it probably underestimates them, and the "real world" is much more chaotic than a simple model that can run in your browser can account for, no doubt. But it helps to concretize the experience, the order of magnitude. I think there's a lot of value in that, when we're talking about something so removed from everyday human experience (thank goodness) as a nuclear weapon detonation.
And I think this is a model we need to really do more to export to other domains: nukes are one thing in our society that people have trouble really understanding on an intuitive level, but there are plenty more. This is what my "Visualizing Society" class is all about, at its core: finding ways to make interactive data visualizations or simulations that shed light on complex real-world issues. The technical bar for doing these things is lower than most people realize; if I can teach undergraduates (very good and often technically-inclined undergraduates, to be sure, but often ones with no coding experience) the basics of this over the course of a semester, then it can't be that hard.
The original "NUKEMAP" — Hiroshima, before and after, from the view of a nuclear bombardier.
My main frustration with NUKEMAP as a communication tool is that the top-down, concentric-circles approach is the view of the military planner. It's the view of the nuclear targeteer, or as a friend and collaborator put it earlier this week, it's the view of real estate. It's not the view of the person on the ground, it's not the view of the survivor, it's not the view of the victim. NUKEMAP3D did provide some aspects of that, but the Google Earth plugin, for its communicative benefits, was clunky to use (the 3D interface was not straightforward), required a special installation, and it was never as popular as the regular NUKEMAP. (I was, however, still impressed that some 3 million people used it over its lifetime.) I'm hoping that some future projects I have in mind (no spoilers, sorry) will address these issues more directly and more intensely.
Anyway, more is on the horizon, as ever, and it is just a matter of figuring out how to get it all done. More NUKEMAP, more NUKEMAP-like creations, more work. I'm grateful for NUKEMAP: what started out a literally two-day coding job (one resting, of course, on a decade of coding experience, and even some actual code that I had written a long time ago, to be sure) has turned into something of a guiding idea for a career. It definitely increased the popularity of my blog (whose traffic is admirably high for an academic, despite the fact that I am greatly remiss in updating it lately), and became a selling-point for the kinds of hybrid technical-historical-analytical projects that I never knew I had wanted to spend my life working on (though I did have some inklings). Anyway, much more is coming. When I go silent, don't think, "what's happened to him?" Instead, think, "what's he getting ready for us, next?" There's a lot in the pipeline.
This entry was posted on Friday, February 3rd, 2017 at 9:56 am and is filed under Visions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Citation: Alex Wellerstein, "NUKEMAP at 5 years," Restricted Data: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog, February 3, 2017, accessed October 29, 2017, http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2017/02/03/nukemap-5-years/.
NukeMap3D или как взорвать атомную бомбу на картах Google
В условиях военного конфликта взаимные угрозы и обвинения в использовании запрещённого оружия обычное явление для информационных баталий. Так, совсем недавно в блогосфере появилась информация о возможном применении в Луганской области ядерного оружия сверхмалой мощности. В реальности сценарий, в котором одна из враждующих сторон применила бы тактическое ядерное оружие, весьма маловероятен. Да и скрыть применение атомного оружия практически невозможно.
Увы, весьма немногие обыватели до конца осознают, каких бед способен натворить атомный взрыв. Тем же, кто хочет получить представления о том, какие разрушения может вызвать даже небольшой по объёму ядерный заряд, рекомендуем посетить ресурс NukeMap3D, разработанный учёным-историком Алексом Уэллерстайном из Американского института физики штата Мэриленд. Сайт NukeMap3D предназначен для моделирования ядерного взрыва в различных точках земного шара.
Для представления местности NukeMap3D использует карты Google. Сам симулятор не отличается особой визуальной реалистичностью, зато он даёт более или менее точное представление о масштабах поражения при взрыве атомной бомбы. В отличие от компьютерных игр, в сюжете которых имеют место ядерные взрывы, в основу NukeMap3D положены результаты реальных испытаний атомного оружия в период с 1945 года по наше время.
Для работы с сервисом вам понадобится обыкновенный браузер с установленным плагином Google Earth. В расположенной справа панели настроек вы можете выбрать город, который должен подвергнуться бомбардировке, а заодно установить мощность заряда в килотоннах. После «взрыва» NukeMap3D покажет радиус поражения, потенциальное количество жертв и зону распространения радиоактивных осадков. В параметрах симулятора также можно задавать силу и направление ветра, позицию наблюдателя, тип визуализации и т.п.
Наиболее эффектным представляется режим «Animated mushroom cloud», позволяющий в режиме реального времени наблюдать рост и остывание ядерного гриба. Для получения более точных сведений о взрыве лучше использовать «Effects circles». Этот режим позволяет получить данные о размере огненного шара, ширине зоны смертельного радиоактивного заражения и распространении ударной волны.
По счёту это уже третья версия онлайн-симулулятора. Две предыдущих версии также использовали карты Google, но без трёхмерных эффектов. Если чего и не хватает сегодня NukeMap3D, так это возможности проведения «испытаний» в различных средах (земле, воде, стратосфере), а также визуализации причинённых взрывом разрушений.
Frequently Asked Questions about the NUKEMAP
This document is a work in progress; please excuse the poor formatting for the moment, and the typos that have not yet been corrected!NUKEMAP: GeneralWho created the NUKEMAP? The original NUKEMAP was created in February 2012 by me, Alex Wellerstein, a historian of nuclear weapons. I have a B.A. in History from UC Berkeley, a Ph.D. in History of Science from Harvard University, and I am finishing a book on the history of nuclear secrecy in the United States from the Manhattan Project through the War on Terror. At the time I created the NUKEMAP, I was an Associate Historian at the American Institute of Physics in College Park, Maryland. In 2014, I began working as an Assistant Professor of Science and Technology Studies at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, New Jersey.
Note: I am a historian of physics, not a physicist — people seem to sometimes get confused on this because of the subject matter I study and where I have worked. You can read more about my research on my blog, Restricted Data: The Nuclear Secrecy Blog.
NUKEMAP3D uses the same models, but uses the Google Earth API to display these in a 3D environment. This allows the visualization of 3D mushroom clouds, for example, by importing cloud models and manipulating them within the browser environment.
The NUKEMAP is aimed at helping people visualize nuclear weapons on terms they can make sense of — helping them to get a sense of the scale of the bombs. By allowing people to use arbitrarily picked geographical locations, I hope that people will come to understand what a nuclear weapon would do to places they are familiar with, and how the different sizes of nuclear weapons change the results.
There are many different political interpretations one can legitimately take away from such results. There is not intended to be a simple political "message" of the NUKEMAP.Who pays for the NUKEMAP? The NUKEMAP's server bills are paid for by the College of Arts and Letters at the Stevens Institute of Technology, in Hoboken, New Jersey, my employer. Stevens is very supportive of my modeling and educational work. Could a terrorist, rogue state, or other nuclear power use this for nefarious purposes? Nuclear states have people whose jobs it is to do the kinds of calculations that the NUKEMAP does, but they probably use better models that are more specific to their particular targets and weaponry. The NUKEMAP would not tell such people anything that they didn't know.
As for terrorists: If we get to the point where a terrorist group is asking, "where should I set off my nuclear weapon that I have?" then we've already gone past the point of no return. There's no way to avert a catastrophe at that point. No terrorist is going to be surprised that nuclear weapons do a lot of damage. Similarly, it isn't exactly too hard to figure out what the most attractive targets would be even without such a map (the most populous or politically important areas of a target country). So I don't really consider the NUKEMAP to be giving such people anything new. The reason terrorists don't currently have nuclear weapons (so far as we know) has nothing to do with them not being aware that nuclear weapons are impressive and devastating.
All of the effects models used by the NUKEMAP are unclassified. There is no secret information here. What the NUKEMAP does is make the models easier to visualize. I've had a hard time seeing any harm in that. A nuclear effects calculator is not a nuclear weapon. It seems like an obvious statement, but people seem prone to mixing these up.I've found a bug or have a suggestion! Send me an e-mail at [email protected] I try to reply to all of them, eventually! If you are seeing buggy behavior, a detailed description of how you triggered it (and a screenshot if possible!) would be great. Also let me know what kind of computer (e.g. your operating system) and web browser you are using. Known issues:
- NUKEMAP3D permalinks don't carry over fallout or casualty information consistently, especially for multiple detonations. (Working on this)
- NUKEMAP3D doesn't work on iPads or mobile devices. (Can't do anything about this at this point; it's a Google thing.)
- Sometimes after shuffling detonation orders in NUKEMAP, fallout contours get moved around. (Working on this.)
- Fallout contours sometimes show up at the wrong altitude after permalinks. (Working on this; has to do with the fact that Google Earth doesn't always know ground altitude until several seconds after rendering. For the clouds there are easy work-arounds because the ground-zero altitude is fixed, but for the contours it's not clear there is because they are so large and made of so many different points.)
- The "humanitarian impact" model sometimes gives crazy results because Google has weirdly-tagged data. (Trying to find some ways of filtering out the bad data here. E.g. for some reason Google has nearly every grave in Arlington National Cemetery tagged as a "place of worship.")
For NUKEMAP3D, a similar thing occurs, except that instead of simply displaying the circles or shapes in the Google Earth interface, the effects information is used to manipulate fixed 3D models (the mushroom cloud is composed of four separate models, for example: the head, the stem, the base, and the shadow) so that they look like the appropriate sized mushroom cloud. The animated version is simply the same process, except the models are rescaled according to the change in the cloud over time.
The casualty estimator uses an ambient population density database to query the number of people who are within various distances of ground zero, and applies a model of casualties to those raw numbers. See more information on this below.
A few of the equations are taken from my own curve fits of data in Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1977 edition. In particular, the original curves for the calories per square centimeter needed for various burns were significantly modified in the 1977 edition, so my equations reflect that. The blast effects were also taken from the graphs in the 1977 edition (see below).What is the difference between an airburst and a surface burst in this context? There are several differences between surface and airbursts that this model attempts to demonstrate (you can see them if you set an airburst with an altitude of "0", which is not exactly the same in this model as a surface burst). Essentially, the model seems to assume that a surface burst will result in a decreased amount of thermal output, but with a wider fireball (probably on par with the semi-circular fireball photos of the familiar shots of the "Trinity" test). Blast and radiation ignore this setting and treat every shot as an airburst of some altitude.
There are several airburst options. One is "Maximize airburst radii for all effects," which will show what the maximize size of each effect ring would be if the idealized airburst height for that effect ring was chosen. This can be a bit misleading, because it is really showing you a spread of different altitudes (each of the blast effects will indicate what the optimized height of burst is).
Another is "Optimize for overpressure." This means that for a given radius of maximum overpressure (e.g., 5 pounds per square inch), the code will figure out the altitude of detonation of the weapon that would maximize it. The reason that such optimized altitudes exist is because at certain detonation heights, the blast wave will reflect off of the ground and interact constructively with itself. This is graphed in a so-called "knee curve" that shows how at certain heights there is a big "bulge" in the radius of a given overpressure:
NUKEMAP's code uses data from Glasstone and Dolan's charts (like the one above) which has been translated into raw numbers. Unknown points are interpolated. More details on this are available in this blog post. In the case of the optimized choice, NUKEMAP will figure out the optimal burst altitude and then render the effects as if you have selected an arbitrary burst height (see below).
The "burst height" option allows you to set an arbitrary height of burst. It will scale all effects except the fireball for what the effects on the ground would be. (Generally speaking, the fireball radius matters only for ground effects if the bomb is detonated at surface or near-surface heights.) In the case of the blast effects, it takes into account whether there is Mach reflection or not (using charts like those shown above). For thermal and radiation effects, it calculates an idealized sphere of maximum effect and then uses slant range to find where it would intersect with the ground.
None of these models do not take into account terrain, building shielding, atmospheric reflection (e.g. off of inversion layers), or atmospheric opacity (e.g. there are different thermal propagation rates depending on humidity). This is because modeling these effects is much more difficult, and requires accurate information about the terrain, buildings, and atmosphere, which I do not have access to (as of yet), and even if I did, might require computational resources exceeding those of a web browser. Including these sorts of effects in a future version of the NUKEMAP is a potential goal, but there are technical limitations involved. One should consider the NUKEMAP's visualized effects to be "back-of-the-envelope," "order of magnitude" estimations that might be either increased or decreased under different local environmental situations or different assumptions about the targets.How does the fallout model work? How should the contours be interpreted? When a nuclear weapon explodes, it produces prompt (immediate) radiation, but it also produces radiation that is released in the shorter and longer terms. The "short-term" radiation, defined here as the radioactive residues of the explosion that remain active for the next few weeks or months (as opposed to years) that "fall out" of the mushroom clouds is known as the "fallout."
It is very difficult to accurately model radioactive fallout. There are many relevant variables: the height of the blast detonation, the ratio of fission to fusion reactions in the bomb (most thermonuclear weapons derived at least 50% of their yield from fission reactions), the type of terrain the explosion is detonated on or over (e.g. desert, coral reefs, inhabited cities), and, importantly. the weather conditions, including wind shear at the many different altitudes at which the cloud exists. (Mushroom clouds go up to the 10,000-100,000s of feet and are exposed to different wind conditions along that distance.)
There are two basic approaches to modeling fallout. One is to try and develop a model based on weather conditions. These are complex and computationally intensive, but yield results that match up very well to past testing results. The other are what are known as "scaling models," which present graphs that attempt to give a general idea of the approximate distances of various levels of radioactive exposure, but make no attempt to model realistically specific wind conditions.
The NUKEMAP fallout model is a scaling model. This is not because scaling models are the best, necessarily, but there are things in their favor. For one, they are computationally very easy: one does not need to know detailed meteorological data about the location of the detonation, and thus can be generalized to many times and places very easily. Their falseness is also quite apparent: people are not as likely to confuse their contours as being entirely realistic estimates of what would actually happen, but will understand them to be rough indications. Lastly, there are good pre-existing scaling models available for use, whereas detailed weather models are generally harder to get ahold of, and the prospects of them working quickly even in modern web browsers is not as clear. (If someone has a more complicated model that they'd like to share with me, I'd love to hear from you.)
The Miller fallout model works by assuming that the fallout plume is a result of both the cloud and the stem. Basically the elongated shape of it is sort of like a mushroom cloud put on its slide and smeared out. Here is a Miller's drawing of the final shape of a 1 Mt yield surface burst at a wind speed of 15 mph and with 100% fission yield:
At first glance it doesn't look much like the fallout contours one might be used to, like this one of the Castle BRAVO detonation from 1954:
But part of that is because the ones people are used to have often been "cleaned up" and modified a bit to look better. This is another version of the BRAVO contours, created by the RAND Corp. from the same data, and you can see the resemblance to the Miller model in terms of the separation of stem and cloud fallout, leading to a large downwind "hot spot":
Separately, it is worth noting that real fallout evolves over time. The scaling models are known as H+1 models, which is to say that the fallout has been "normalized" to what it would look like after 1 hour, assuming that its maximum time to its final size was 1 hour. This is quite standard in the fallout literature, despite the fact that for large detonations, the arrival time is much longer than 1 hour. Here, for example, is the evolution of the BRAVO fallout plume over 18 hours:
So of what value is the H+1 hour model? It lines up not too poorly with the final total-dose contours for the fallout plume, and as such could be taken as an idealized understanding of what your average rad dose per hour would be downwind of the blast. It is meant, by Miller and by me, to give an indication of the rough size of the contaminated area after a nuclear explosion, which has both pedagogical and planning value, even if it is a little confusing in terms of the movement of the actual cloud.
Note that this model is exclusively for modeling a surface burst, not an airburst. Airbursts do contribute to long-term fallout (e.g. the overall radioactivity in the atmosphere, or the amount of cesium-127 that eventually makes it into human diets at very, very long distances), but, by and large, contribute only negligibly to short-term local fallout. This appears to be the case even with very large yield airbursts that contain significant fission products. The line between an "airburst" and a "surface burst" in such a consideration is whether the fireball touches the ground, as this pulls up significant numbers of heavy particles (e.g. dirt, coral, buildings, people) into the rising fireball, and these heavy particles affect the "falling out" considerably. When the fireball does not touch the ground, the fireball appears to rise high enough and fast enough that the bulk of its fission products do not fallout until much later, when they have lost much of their radioactivity. (Radiation energy is inversely related to time— this is the import of "half-life" measurements. The more radioactively active a given isotope is, the quicker it reduces in quantity. This does not mean that all radioactive hazard dissipates quickly, but the nature of the hazard between short-lived, highly-energetic particles is different than long-lived, moderately-energetic particles. The former are an immediate, acute radiation hazard— e.g., they can give you radiation sickness and hurt you in a few hours or weeks —and the latter are a long-term, chronic radiation hazard — e.g., they can give you cancer and hurt you in several years or decades.)How does the casualties model work? The casualties model queries a very large and very fine-grained ambient population database known as the LandScan Global Population 2011. The database was developed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory and is licensed through a company called EastView. Special thanks to the Center for the History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics for purchasing this database for my use. "Ambient population" here means a 24-hour average of people in an area. In many respects this is better than census information, because that usually just measures where people live, as opposed to where they go when they are not at home.
In short, a spatial query is run on database whenever casualties are requested. The database spits back information about how many people live within several radii of ground zero. This information is then used to generate a list of casualties and injuries, according to data contained in a 1973 report by the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency titled DCPA Attack Environment Manual, later reprinted in the 1979 Office of Technology Assessment report, The Effects of Nuclear War:
As you can see, it primarily relies on blast effects (pounds per square inch) as a proxy for calculating injuries and fatalities.
There are limitations to this model. For some yields, especially those which are very low or very high, blast effects are less important than thermal or radiation effects. The model itself also does not take into effect the fact that highly dense urban areas have a "shielding" effect from blast effects — those buildings nearest the ground zero bear most of the brunt of the blast. It's also not entirely clear what the OTA based these estimates on.
So the numbers might be too high. They also might be too low. Without taking into account many more variables than the model can deal with, like terrain type, building type, expected reaction of the bombed populace, and radioactive fallout, it's hard to do anything more than gesture at the numbers that would be affected by a nuclear explosion. I'm not trying to say "it's too complicated, so any model is as good as any other." But in choosing a model I went with one that could be relatively straightforwardly be implemented given the data I have available, and was backed by at least one serious source. So I thoroughly encourage you to take these numbers with a grain of salt — they give some indication of how many people live in reasonably close proximity to the selected ground zero. I have seen some other official estimates of fatalities and injuries that put the numbers (especially of the injured) much higher than the estimates that are given by the casualty model here, and I have seen some other official estimates of blast effects that would put it lower depending on the building types. It's not my intention to over- or under-exaggerate the effects.How does the 'humanitarian impact' model work? The "humanitarian impact" model works by using the Google Places API to search out tagged places near the ground zero location. (This is the same algorithm Google Maps uses whenever you ask how many restaurants are near where you happen to be.) Its accuracy is 100% tied to how good Google's information is. Which is to say... it's not perfect.
The point of the "humanitarian impact" model is to emphasize some of the collateral impacts of a nuclear explosion, and to indicate the ways in which support services (e.g. hospitals and fire stations) would be themselves impacted by a nuclear attack.How does the mushroom cloud model work? The mushroom cloud model dynamics come primarily from Carl F. Miller, "Fallout and Radiological Countermeasures, Volume 1," Stanford Research Institute Project No. IM-4021, January 1963. Miller was, in his day, considered one of the premier experts on modeling mushroom cloud behavior. Some of the information also comes from curve fitting various figures (in particular the rate of cloud rise) in Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 1977 edn.
For the animated cloud, given the limitations of Google Earth's API (you can move, rotate, and scale models but not otherwise manipulate them), I had to do a little bit of fudging to make things look right aesthetically. But many of the parameters, such as the rate of rise, the changing size of the cloud head, and the final size of the cloud, are taken directly from models derived from nuclear test data.What kinds of statistics are kept about usage of the NUKEMAP? The following statistics are kept about every detonation, unless the "do not log anonymous statistics" checkbox is checked:
- The version of NUKEMAP being used.
- The size of the bomb used (kilotons).
- Whether or not the bomb was an airburst or not, whether fallout and casualties were used.
- The latitude and longitude of the "target," along with a geo-located country name of the target (because geo-location is easier to do as you detonate as opposed to doing it later).
- If available, the approximate latitude, longitude, and geo-located country of the user. This information is provided via the Google Maps API ClientLocation service. This is based on your IP address, and often just gives the location of your Internet Service Provider, which is often a few towns over from you anyway.
- How many active detonations there are, and whether the detonation was set off by "you" or whether you clicked a link to get to it.
- If it is NUKEMAP3D, the detonation type (static cloud, animated cloud, effects rings).
Why do I record this information? It's because I'm interested in broad usage patterns. You can see a write-up I did of past usage patterns here to get an idea of what I'm doing with them. I want to know whether people nuke themselves or other countries, and what types of bombs they use, and what kinds of scenarios they imagine. No government is going to knock on your door late at night because you used the NUKEMAP; they don't have access to the data, and even if they did, it wouldn't tell them much.
Separately, I use Google Analytics to keep track of web and browser statistics in general. This information is not correlated with the actual "detonations."
Have more questions? Send them to [email protected] and I'll try to answer them. This FAQ was last updated in December 2015.