What happened when the Trinity test bomb detonated, from the creation of green glass to fallout that drifted over 1,000 miles
Though they chose a somewhat secluded area of the desert, people lived less than 20 miles away.
It was impossible to hide the light, noise, shockwave, and fallout from the bomb.
At approximately 5:30 a.m. on July 16, 1945, the world's first atomic bomb exploded in the New Mexican desert. It was bright, hot, and loud.
Scientists and military personnel crouched nearby in bunkers. Less than 20 miles away, residents awoke to a brilliant light, jolting sensation, or rumbling sound that officials later blamed on an ammo dump explosion.
Over the next days and weeks, the fallout cloud from the Manhattan Project's Trinity test would drop radioactive debris on nearby ranches and farms before moving onto dozens of states and two other countries.
Here's what it was like to witness the Trinity test, from its dazzling light to its drifting, deadly radioactive flakes.
The heat was 10,000 times hotter than the sun's surface
Ground zero: The heat generated when the plutonium device imploded was 10,000 times hotter than the sun's surface, National Geographic reported.
Something that surprised physicist McAllister Hull was seeing in photographs the way the heat completely vaporized instrument-containing balloons that had been tethered to the tower. The tower itself disintegrated, too.
Fusing the desert's quartz and feldspar sandstone with bits of the bomb, the heat created a new material called trinitite, which is a glass-like substance that's mostly shades of green but also sometimes red. Trinitite is radioactive and the Atomic Energy Commission buried most of it in the 1950s.
Bunkers (6 miles away): To the south of ground zero, a member of the Special Engineer Detachment (SED), Hans Courant, saw the flash, and then, "My hands got warm from the heat from the bomb, which just grew and grew," he later said during a 2015 interview with the Atomic Heritage Foundation.
Base camp (9.5 miles away): Nobel Prize winner Enrico Fermi protected his face with a piece of welding glass inserted into a board. "My first impression of the explosion was the very intense flash of light and a sensation of heat on the parts of my body that were exposed," he said.
The light emitted shades of gold, purple, violet, blue, and more
Ground zero: Upon detonation, about one-third of the total energy from the bomb was in the form of ultraviolet, visible, and infrared light, according to physicist and Manhattan Project expert Bruce Cameron Reed.
Bunkers (6 miles away): For physicist Val Fitch, then part of the SED, his welding glass wasn't enough to block out the "enormous flash of light" from the bomb, which he estimated took 30 microseconds to arrive. To Warren Nyer, another physicist, "it looked like a living thing with a blue glow," creating a contrast between the mountains and sky.
This was the location of many of the cameras that recorded the explosion. None, however, picked up the many colors Brigadier General Thomas F. Farrell said he witnessed, "golden, purple, violet, gray, and blue."
Base camp (9.5 miles away): Through his dark glass, Fermi had the impression the desert was suddenly brighter than day. He "could see something that looked like a conglomeration of flames that promptly started rising," he wrote. "After a few seconds the rising flames lost their brightness and appeared as a huge pillar of smoke with an expanded head like a gigantic mushroom that rose rapidly beyond the clouds."
It was the brightest light physicist I. I. Rabi had ever seen: "It blasted; it pounced; it bored its way into you." Though it only lasted a couple of seconds, he said he felt like it would never end.
Campañia Hill (22 miles away): Before the blast, Edward Teller liberally applied sunscreen to protect his skin from the UV light. SED member William Spindel was instructed to keep his eyes closed for 10 seconds after the detonation so he wouldn't be blinded.
Hans Bethe compared the flash to a giant magnesium flare. He calculated the rising white ball of fire at 268 mph (120 meters per second). "After more than half a minute, the flame died down and the ball, which had been a brilliant white became a dull purple," he wrote.
Alamogordo Air Base (60 miles away): One of General Leslie Groves's officers reported the flash lit "the entire northwestern sky." Not far off, a rancher awoke as though "somebody turned on a light bulb right in my face," according to Janet Farrell Brodie's book "The First Atomic Bomb: The Trinity Site in New Mexico."
Sandia Mountains (110 miles away): After spending the night camping in the Sandia Mountains, Manhattan Project chemist Lilli Hornig saw boiling clouds and color — "vivid colors like violet, purple, orange, yellow, red."
Amarillo, Texas (280 miles away): Despite the distance, some residents saw the sky brighten when the bomb went off.
Sound from the explosion was heard as far as 95 miles away
Bunkers (6 miles away): After the flare of light and the fireball, it took a while for the sound, which travels slower than light, to catch up. When it did, Fitch remembered it coming "a long time afterwards, the sound. The rumble, thunder in the mountains."
Campañia Hill (22 miles away): Estimating the time it would take for the sound to travel over 20 miles, SED member Spindel waited through the most "intimidating minute I've ever spent" after seeing the fire rise into the sky.
Albuquerque (95 miles away): Residents all over the area heard the blast. When Hornig stopped for breakfast near Albuquerque after her night on Sandia Mountain, she recalled that the man behind the counter asked if she knew anything about the explosion.
The shock wave shattered the windows of homes 120 miles away
Ground zero: The implosion device looked like a soccer ball, with 32 lenses made of explosives surrounding a plutonium core, about the size of a softball. The simultaneously detonated lenses created a shockwave that compressed the plutonium, triggering the explosion.
The resulting blast was between 15 and 20 kilotons of force. When the blast wave reflected from the ground, it met up with the original wave and formed the stem of the mushroom cloud.
Equipment bunker (½ mile away): Shelters containing seismographs to measure the bomb's ground shock and other instruments were located about 2,400 feet from ground zero. The cables were strewn about, and the top of the bunker was bare, all the dirt the SED members had layered on top of it was gone, according to Brodie.
Schmidt/McDonald Ranch House (2 miles away): The government took over the Schmidt/McDonald ranch in 1942, and scientists and military personnel later used it as the assembly site for the Trinity test bomb. Though the explosion blew out the windows and doors, there was little structural damage to the house.
Bunkers (6 miles away): It took about 30 seconds for the shock wave to reach Fitch, by his calculations.
Base camp (9.5 miles away): Some observers were knocked over by the force of the blast when it arrived, according to Reed. "Thirty seconds after the explosion came first, the air blast pressing hard against the people and things," Farrell wrote.
Fermi, who was a few miles farther than Fitch, put the time of the shock wave at 40 seconds.
15 miles away: The force caused sheepherder Jack Denton to fall off of his cot, Brodie reported.
Silver City (120 miles away): Whole houses shook, windows shattered, and dishes and cabinets rattled when the shock wave reached nearby cities.
Fallout rained down, burning cattle located 30 miles away
Ground zero: In the minutes after the blast, the mushroom cloud stretched 50,000 to 70,000 feet into the atmosphere, the New York Times reported. As the fireball cooled, vaporized fission products condensed into a cloud of particles while also sucking in water from the atmosphere.
This debris became radioactive fallout, according to Reed. In addition, 10 pounds of highly-radioactive plutonium never underwent fission and got caught up in the fallout cloud, according to National Geographic.
Bunkers (6 miles away): Prior to the test, scientists set a limit of 5 roentgens, a legacy measure of radiation exposure, then bumped it up to 10 for evacuations. One bunker did evacuate for what may have been a false reading, according to Reed. Director of the health group at Los Alamos Louis Henry Hempelmann later called the numbers "just arbitrary," according to the book "Atomic Doctors: Conscience and Complicity at the Dawn of the Nuclear Age" by James L. Nolan Jr.
"Exposure rates in public areas from the world's first nuclear explosion were measured at levels 10,00 times higher than currently allowed," a 2010 report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found.
Author and journalist Jennet Connet noted that as close as the men were to ground zero, they had little protection. "Had the wind been blowing the wrong way, they all would've been showered in a fair amount of radioactive dust," she said.
A few days after the test, a technician found radiation had destroyed some of the camera film, according to Brodie.
Bingham (12 miles away): About four miles outside the town of Bingham, some equipment measured 6.5 roentgens per hour, but the town's residents weren't evacuated, according to Brodie.
Chupadera Mesa (30 miles away): Fallout rained on cattle near Chupadera Mesa, giving them serious beta burns, which appear similar to a sunburn. Their fur fell out, then grew back gray or white, according to Nolan. The government purchased some of the cows for testing.
Oscuro (45 miles away): Strange white flakes fell for days on a family farm, where later the chickens and family dog died.
Ruidoso (50 miles): Some teenage girls at a dance camp fell out of their bunks and heard an explosion. Later, what felt like warm snow drifted down on them. They put on their bathing suits and rubbed the flakes on their faces, according to National Geographic. Only two of the girls lived past the age of 30, Nolan reported.
Tularosa (51 miles away): Eleven-year-old Henry Herrera watched the fallout cloud drift away then return to Tularosa. Black ash covered the Herreras' laundry on the clothesline, according to Brodie.
Over 100 miles away: The cloud split into three, mostly drifting northeast, raining fallout over an area of about 100 miles long by 30 miles wide.
A 2023 Princeton University study used weather data and modeling software to show how the cloud spread over northeast New Mexico, as well as to the south and west of ground zero.
Trinity test "downwinders" have been lobbying to receive compensation from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA). Members of the Tularosa Basin Downwinders Consortium say their families have unusually high rates of cancer, which they attribute to living close to the atomic bomb testing site.
Over 1,000 miles away: In August 1945, Kodak customers complained that their X-ray film, sensitive to radiation, was ruined. Kodak physicist Julian Webb found that the culprit was the strawboard, a packaging material made of straw, from a mill in Indiana. The Trinity test fallout had reached the Midwest.
The Princeton study showed radioactive fallout reached as far as Canada and Mexico over the course of 10 days.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
4 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Hundreds of NASA employees, past and present, sign letter of formal dissent
In an email statement, Bethany Stevens, the NASA press secretary, said NASA would never compromise on safety. 'Any reductions — including our current voluntary reduction — will be designed to protect safety-critical roles,' she said. Advertisement 'To ensure NASA delivers for the American people, we are continually evaluating mission lifecycles, not on sustaining outdated or lower-priority missions,' Stevens said. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Upheaval within NASA continued Monday, when Makenzie Lystrup, director of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., announced she was 'stepping aside' on Aug. 1. In an email sent to center employees at 12:45 p.m. and shared with The New York Times, she did not give a reason for her departure. Cynthia Simmons, the center's deputy director, will take over as acting director. 'I am honored to have been part of this incredible journey with you,' Lystrup wrote. The NASA letter follows similar letters of criticism by federal employees at the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the NIH director, said he welcomed respectful dissent, but the EPA placed 144 employees who signed that agency's letter on leave. Advertisement 'We're scared of retaliation,' said Monica Gorman, an operations research analyst at Goddard. She said that staff members 'go to the bathroom to talk to each other, and look under the stalls to make sure that no one else is there before we talk.' Gorman is one of 287 current and former NASA employees who signed the letter, although more than half did so anonymously. More than 15,000 people work at the space agency. Prominent scientists outside of NASA, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, also offered their names in support. The NIH letter inspired some people at NASA to put together a similar effort. The NIH letter writers had called their dissent the 'Bethesda Declaration' — the agency is in Bethesda, Md. — and the NASA letter writers called theirs the 'Voyager Declaration,' in honor of Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, the two NASA space probes launched in the 1970s that continue to function as they fly through interstellar space. 'One of the messages that NASA management has been passing down to every employee is that no one is coming to save us, including Congress,' said one of the organizers of the letter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear for retaliation. 'So the Voyager Declaration is one effort to raise our voices and speak out to save ourselves,' the person added. The letter is framed as a 'formal dissent' — an official process at NASA for registering disagreements that managers may not want to hear. It was part of changes instituted at NASA after the losses of the Columbia and Challenger space shuttles when concerns of some engineers were brushed aside. Advertisement Stand Up for Science, a nonprofit organization that has organized opposition to the Trump administration's cutbacks of science research, has helped coordinate the letters to the three agencies. In its budget request to Congress in June, the Trump administration proposed slashing NASA's budget by almost 25 percent. NASA's science mission directorate, which includes earth science, solar system missions and astrophysics, would face a cut of 47 percent, to $3.9 billion from $7.3 billion. Nineteen currently operating science missions, including the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the Juno mission at Jupiter and the two Orbiting Carbon Observatories, would be turned off and discarded. In her statement, Stevens said, 'The reality is that President Trump has proposed billions of dollars for NASA science, demonstrating an ongoing commitment to communicating our scientific achievements.' Congress does not appear to agree with making draconian cuts. A Senate subcommittee proposed providing $7.3 billion for NASA's science mission directorate for fiscal year 2026, the same amount as the current year. Its counterpart in the House of Representatives was less generous, proposing $6 billion for the science missions. While NASA has so far avoided widespread layoffs, thousands of employees have left or are planning to leave under early retirement and buyout offers. 'Some I know have left because they want to make space for other younger people to stay,' Gorman said. One complaint of the letter writers is that NASA leaders have made decisions based on the president's proposed cuts, without waiting to see what Congress will provide. Another concern is that even if Congress provides money for science missions, the administration could refuse to spend it. Advertisement Last week, in a letter to Duffy, two Democratic members of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology -- Reps. Zoe Lofgren of California and Valerie Foushee of North Carolina -- accused NASA of illegally implementing Trump's priorities. 'Congress directs NASA to spend money on certain missions, programs and priorities; and Congress sets the policies that NASA must implement,' Lofgren and Foushee wrote. 'These congressional actions are not friendly requests. They are the law.' This article originally appeared in
UPI
4 hours ago
- UPI
Hundreds of current, former NASA workers oppose Trump administration cuts
July 21 (UPI) -- Several hundred current and former NASA employees, including at least four retired astronauts, backed a letter that opposes the Trump administration's significant cuts to the federal space agency. The letter, which included 131 signatures and 156 unnamed ones out of "fear of retaliation," is titled "The Voyager Declaration." It is named after the two NASA spacecraft exploring space when they launched in 1977 from Florida. The retired astronauts who signed the letter include Cady Coleman, Steve Swanson, Dorothy Metcalf-Lindenburger and John Herrington. Scientists outside NASA, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, also have given their support for the agency that was found in 1958 before the first unmanned satellite launched. The letter was addressed to Sean Duffy, who was named interim NASA administrator on Juy 10 and continues to serve as Transportation Secretary. He replaced acting NASA Administrator Janet Petro, a long-time agency employee. "In light of your recent appointment as Interim NASA Administrator, we bring to your attention recent policies that have or threaten to waste public resources, compromise human safety, weaken national security, and undermine the core NASA mission," the letter reads. They urged Duffy to oppose a 24% budget reduction and 31% workforce cuts as proposed by the Trump administration. Out of the 17,000-plus NASA employees, 2,600 have lost their jobs, according to Politicio. And at least $117 million in NASA grants already have been canceled. Congress sets U.S. spending. Workers at other federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency, have penned similar letters opposing cutbacks. "The consequences for the agency and the country alike are dire," the letter says. The signers of the letter cited wasteful efforts affecting the workforce. "Major programmatic shifts at NASA must be implemented strategically so that risks are managed carefully," the letter reads. "Instead, the last six months have seen rapid and wasteful changes which have undermined our mission and caused catastrophic impacts on NASA's workforce. "We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety, scientific advancement, and efficient use of public resources. These cuts are arbitrary and have been enacted in defiance of congressional appropriations law." The letter lays out several things on which the letter writers say, "we dissent": Changes to NASA's Technical Authority Closing of missions appropriated by Congress "Indiscriminate" cuts to NASA science and aeronautics research "Non-strategic staffing reductions" Canceling of NASA participation in international missions Termination of contracts and grants "unrelated to performance" Elimination of programs for supporting NASA's workforce The Technical Authority was established in wake of the 2003 Columbia shuttler disaster that killed seven astronauts. It allows workers in all levels of the agency to voice concern outside a usual chain of command. The letter was dedicated to the Columbia astronauts, as well as Gus Grissom, Ed White And Roger Chaffee, who died aboard Apollo 1 at the launch pad in 1967, and seven killed in the 1987 Challenger explosion. "Their legacies underpin every conversation about our shared commitment to safety and dissenting opinions at NASA," the letter reads. Monica Gorman, an operations research analyst at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., told The New York Times: "We're afraid of retaliation." She added: "I'm already at risk of losing my job, and I'd rather speak out and try to save something at NASA, rather than just hide under my desk until I get laid off. But I am scared." Ella Kaplan, who also works at Goddard, as a contractor for website administratipon, signed the letter. Kaplan told she doesn't expect Duffy to read the entire letter but the declaration is "about getting our dissent out to the public and saying, 'Hey -- this is what's happened at NASA, and this is not OK.'" NASA spokesman Bethany Steven told that NASA is not interested in sustaining "lower-priority missions." "We must revisit what's working and what's not so that we can inspire the American people again and win the space race," she said. Makenzie Lystrup, Goddard's direct since 2023, resigned, effective Aug. 1, after the letter was released, according to an internal email obtained by CNN. NASA, with the retirement of the shuttle in 2011, mainly relies on SpaceX, a private company, to send astronauts to the International Space Station. NASA is leading the Artemis program to send humans to the moon again in a few years. The agency is working with SpaceX, Blue Origin and Intuitive Machines as well as foreign public agencies.
National Geographic
13 hours ago
- National Geographic
A century ago, there was a race to make the first color photos. Now there's a race to save them.
The revolutionary invention of autochromes changed photography. As those pictures decay, they're revealing a new kind of beauty. First digitized in 2008 (left), this 1937 photo of a dance performance in Mississippi was created using Dufaycolor, an early color-film product. By 2023, it had been transformed by a form of chemical deterioration known as vinegar syndrome. Photograph by J. Baylor Roberts, National Geographic Image Collection In the early 1980s, the late National Geographic Society photographer turned archivist Volkmar Wentzel was delving through storage when he stumbled onto something both breathtaking and heartbreaking: a box of delicate glass panels, most of them the size of postcards, displaying color images captured in the early 20th century. Many were deteriorating, their once crisp scenes speckled with ghostly snowflakes, obscured by halos, and otherwise rendered surreal by time and neglect. They were autochromes, the products of a turn-of-the-20th-century race to capture the world in all its color. And now the race was on to preserve them, even as time transformed them in extraordinary ways. Introduced in 1907 by French inventors Auguste and Louis Lumière, autochrome technology was revolutionary in its day, relying on a light-sensitive silver emulsion covered with a fine layer of potato starch. That powdery extract—then popular as thickener, adhesive, and fabric stiffener—was crucial to capturing the chroma of the era. Microscopic particles dyed green, orange, and violet were scattered across a plate and sealed on with varnish. When light struck the plate through a camera's open shutter, each colored granule blocked a range of wavelengths corresponding to colors of the visible spectrum, exposing the emulsion beneath to countless tiny dots of variously filtered light. Some autochromes—early 20th-century color photos on glass plates—now have freckles from oxidizing silver particles, as in this undated, unidentified landscape. Unknown Photographer, National Geographic Image Collection After a few chemical baths in a darkroom, the transparency that appeared on glass was, seen up close, a pointillistic mosaic. But pull back and shine light through the plate—covered with another glass layer, for protection—and a vivid, painterly image emerged. National Geographic magazine's first full-time editor was an autochrome champion, commissioning and procuring glass plate works from photographers around the world. Because exposure times were long, much of early color photography consists of still lifes and landscapes, but National Geographic acquired dynamic images of life as it's lived: of crowded bazaars in Albania, of masked dancers in Tibet, of riders atop brightly garbed elephants in India. Autochromes, together with similar processes involving glass plates, remained the primary means of making color photos until the 1935 debut of Kodachrome film, with its layers of emulsion that were themselves photosensitive. In the film era, the Society's glass plates were not carefully preserved. Wentzel, during more than 40 years as a National Geographic field photographer, saw value in the old photos while many of his peers were focused on innovation. When the Society thinned its collection in the 1960s, he rescued plates from the trash, taking them home for safekeeping and eventual return to the archive. Others simply moldered, forgotten, until Wentzel rediscovered them in off-site storage upon becoming the Society's first official photo archivist, in 1980. A Syrian desert patrol on camelback visits the ruins of Palmyra in a 1938 Dufaycolor. This version was scanned in 2012, before its acetate film began visibly degrading. Photograph by W. Robert Moore, National Geographic Image Collection In the past 13 years, the telltale blotch of vinegar syndrome has set in. 'Dufays' and autochromes are kept in cold storage today, which slows but doesn't halt such deterioration. Photograph by W. Robert Moore, National Geographic Image Collection Wentzel made it a mission to preserve, catalog, and exhibit the old photos, and today National Geographic's Early Color Photography Collection comprises some 13,000 plates, including one of the world's largest assemblages of autochromes (the largest is at the Musée Albert-Kahn, outside Paris). But as with many remaining early color photos, National Geographic's have been altered by light, heat, humidity, and improper handling. Plates have cracked and fissured. Oxidizing silver particles have created radiant, amoeba-shaped orange blotches. On the autochrome descendants known as Dufaycolors, violet bruises are evidence of 'vinegar syndrome,' a chemical decay affecting layers of film between glass. Named for its telltale scent and contagious from plate to plate, vinegar syndrome is 'a plague amongst photographic archives,' says Sara Manco, director of the National Geographic Society's photo and illustration archives. Degrading always sounds bad, but they're also developing, from documentary objects into a weird science-history project. Rebecca Dupont , National Geographic image archivist It all sounds rather tragic, but the blemishes also have given many of the plates a strange new beauty. No longer pristine documents of history, they've become testaments to the ravages of time: abstracted, fragmented, and obscured, like so many ancient and admired artifacts. What's more, says image archivist Rebecca Dupont, witnessing the deterioration—a process that will only ever play out once—offers lessons about the science behind these objects. 'If you think about it, photography is still a relatively new medium, only 150 years old,' Dupont says. And the objects in the collection 'haven't yet reached the end of their lives. They're in a special stage right now where we get to see what happens to them.' (These 18 autochrome photos will transport you to another era.) Exposure to humidity caused this Dufaycolor to fade and its film base to shrivel. As National Geographic archivist Sara Manco says, 'We'll never know what that image was like.' Photograph by Rudolf Balogh, National Geographic Image Collection Even as the plates continue to deteriorate, some measure of permanence has been achieved. With a 2020 grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities, Manco and a team of archivists spent three years digitizing the entire collection. These days, the originals are carefully organized in temperature-controlled storage. Those afflicted with vinegar syndrome are sequestered, and many broken ones have been painstakingly pieced together. Despite all that care, the archivists know they can't preserve the plates forever—and they're OK with that. 'Degrading always sounds bad, but they're also developing, from documentary objects into a weird science-history project,' Dupont says. 'Are the images we're looking at being lost? Or are they just being changed into something new?' A version of this story appears in the August 2025 issue of National Geographic magazine.
