This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

How The World Nuked Itself Over 2,000 Times

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Who needs a wartime nuclear exchange when you have peaceful countries nuking the gamma rays out of their own sovereign territories - now that the environmental theme is rather popular, the following video by Isao Hashimoto shows all the nuclear "tests" conducted by the world in the period between 1945 and 1998. Based on public data, the world's peaceful countries have already nuked themselves at least 2,054 times, with the US nuking the state of Nevada and its immediate neighbors about one thousand times. And keep in mind - the fallout does not just miraculously "disappear." Feel free to consider that next time you look at bargain properties on the strip. Anyway, as Idealist.ws asks, "How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place?" One thing is certain - Congress would be stunned and appalled, and the disgraced CEO of Nukes R Us, Inc., who previously gave trillions in campaign contributions to every Congressional critter, would be facing a very unpleasant and theatrically televised day.

From a discussion on advanced fallout maps:

'Civilized countries' - that now form what we dub the 'nuclear club' - conducted over 2,000 nuclear blasts on the Earth, and these entities - the executioners of her slow death - vigorously deny any irreversible, incurable damage. 

If you're looking for fallout maps, you won't find any such map here or anywhere that will satisfy your whim or sophisticated inquiry.  Why?  Because the executioners, to their best of their satisfactions, don't want you to see them.  What you can and will see - if you seek it - are bits and pieces of the destruction: a high reading of radioactivity in wheat or milk here, of air over there, a trajectory map here, and a rare truthful analysis there.  Put them together and you have what would happen in a small-but-non-mutually-destructive nuclear war (that we erringly refer simply to as the Cold War): the radioactive fallout circling - for eons - around the Earth and within her biosphere as a consequence of our historic, 'peaceful' tit-for-tat nuclear testing exchange is no different than the fallout in the event of an actual nuclear exchange had 400 or so atomic and hydrogen bombs fell only in remote regions of land and sea on the globe.   How would your life be different if you were taught in school a small nuclear war already took place?  How would that change the way you see your life and your health? Or your country or the world?

Full must watch clip:

And another way to represent the explosions:

h/t Rusty Shorts


 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:16 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

"One thing is certain - Congress would be stunned and appalled, and the disgraced CEO of Nukes R Us, Inc., who previously gave trillions in campaign contributions to every Congressional critter, would be facing a very unpleasant day."

That is the funniest thing I have read today. You actually assume they have some type of moral or ethical integrity.


Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:05 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

Hey Gully... you hit the nail on the head! let's get rid of them.... we now poentially have a new political tool at our disposal... sooooo...

If you want this nightmare to end why not help me plan it out at "How to Peacefully Overthrow an Oligarchic Kleptocracy" (for Dummies) in the General Forum threads... please tell this nutty critter why it can not be done and win some kind of prize!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 23:11 | Link to Comment dnarby
dnarby's picture

Everyone interested should examine the current state of Chernobyl, then form their own opinion. 

It's probably the best example of uncontrolled, concentrated release of radioactive material into a local enviroment (without the heat & pressure blast).

In particular follow up on plant and wildlife populations.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:21 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

And we didn't even have a nuclear winter.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:53 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Nuclear winter was Karl Sagan's one pseudo-scientific fear without validity. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:29 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

He had that weird tick where he couldn't pronounce "billions" too.   If he'd lived, he could have got past that to the new era, where everything big is in "trillions".   Also, he had a problem pronouncing "nucular" too.   Fracking retard.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:08 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

People seem to like odd speech when it comes to pop science. Take Stephen Hawking, who is only famous because he's... in a wheel chair.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 23:18 | Link to Comment dnarby
dnarby's picture

He's good at math, and has had to learn to think differently because of his disability.

Still doesn't prevent him from being shackled by the cult of Einstein, unfortunately.

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 00:21 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Yes, he's a brilliant theoretical physicists, which is nearly all math, and his work on the radiation of black holes was fantastic. Sorry. It's just that he explains some things all wrong in his books. He also pretends to speak for his entire community who often disagree and act like what he says is the fact of the land. It's hard for laymen to tell, but the guy is totally full of himself.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:59 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

Compress all the TN (fusion) events into a few days instead of decades, and set off each one in the middle of a built-up area so everything combustible withing 100 square mile area reaches flashover temps - could have a different result. Not necessarily a worst case nuclear winter, just a mildly radioactive autumn for a few years. Without the pretty leaves of course.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:08 | Link to Comment aerojet
aerojet's picture

Seriously.  Some of you need to study the difference between mostly underground testing as compared to what an airburst or ground-level burst would do to the environment.  There is no comparison!  1,000 nuclear warheads used in anger would be devastating to the planet.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:23 | Link to Comment merehuman
merehuman's picture

so clearly there are no negative repercussions within the earth.

Right.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:31 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

So what are we to make of this...you're a rock lover?    We the living care about the biosphere, where the life is, and above all where we are.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Actually, some life thrives in intense radiation. Remember when life was discovered in the water used for cooling nuclear power plants?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:26 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

Encouraging. Maybe 1000 generations eating & breathing isotopes would produce a radiation-tolerant human. Worth a try.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:35 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

It is encouraging for scientists studying new ways to prevent the degeneration of DNA that leads to cancer which can result from radiation (free radicals and such). Life that can rebuild itself is totally worth studying. I want that trick. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

who cares ? Its not that big of deal.

 

Ask the guy who designs them, Dr. Bill Wattenberg.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S4VCSdmGPs

 

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:36 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

"Compress all the TN (fusion) events into a few days instead of decades, and set off each one in the middle of a built-up area..."

It's what gets very high into the atmosphere that counts for sustained global cooling effects.   Most of the particulate from burning wouldn't get up there where it would stay, and much of the particulate carried to the top of the mushroom clounds wouldn't be of a type to hang out very long up high.   Giant volcanic explosions throw much much more of exactly the wrong types of stuff much higher.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:19 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

"Most of the particulate from burning wouldn't get up there where it would stay"

In the middle of 1997 forest fires burning in Indonesia began to affect neighbouring countries, spreading thick clouds of smoke and haze to Malaysia and Singapore. Seasonal rains in early December brought a brief respite but soon after the dry conditions and fires returned. By 1998 Brunei and to a lesser extent Thailand, Vietnam and the Philippines had also felt the haze from the smoke of the forest fires. By the time the 1997-98 forest fires were finally over some 8 million hectares of land had burned while countless millions of people suffered from air pollution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Indonesian_forest_fires

The bigger and hotter the fire, the higher the thermal 'chimney' grows into the atmosphere, so global consequences are posssible with enough combustion.

As for volcanos, the Iceland eruption was small potatos. But there are historical records of "years without summer" from more significant ones.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:35 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Indeed, that's why I brought the example of giant volcanic eruptions.   The sun blocking material has to be blown that high..i.e. go ballistic.   It doesn't reach up there by sort of wafting up on thermals.   Also, the gases and particles volcanoes can send that high, in such absolutely enormous quantities, are different both in type and quantity than what you have at the top of a..by comparison tiny...nuclear mushroom cloud.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:23 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Thanks Tyler.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:53 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

thank you rusty

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Frank Owen
Frank Owen's picture

Awesome, Rusty. Thanks for sharing.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:27 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

un-fucking real.. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:37 | Link to Comment Cookie
Cookie's picture

Very scary

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:36 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

See, Tyler, how you're scaring people over something no one here seems to understand? You're taking advantage of our country's lack of scientific education and the ignorance of the masses.

Cookie, keep in mind the rate of exposer to high energy radiation falls off by the square of the distance. If you go from one mile away to two miles, the intensity should be one-fourth; a thousand miles away...

It reminds me of the fear about the discovery of little black holes or the fear of creating one in a particle accelerator. The fear comes from lack of knowledge.

Radiation is one of those things we can't exist without (the sun being the biggest source). But, yes, too much of a good thing can be really bad. You're still more likely to over-eat than to be over-radiated. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:17 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

You're talking about being in the path of direct radiation emission, and there the inverse-square rule holds true.

The greater danger from nuclear explosions is from inhaled or ingested radioactive particles. Once lodged in the body, the distance from nearby cells is insignificant.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:49 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Actually, the distance always matters. The body is mostly empty space from the perspective of high energy particles. Mass is equally important, which is why water (most of our mass) is our natural defense against natural radiation since water molecules get hit the most and pass through the body as waste.

But point taken. Our bodies have to deal with enough high energy radiation from internal sources (carbon, potassium) and external (solar, cosmic) as well all of the lower energy radiation (down on to just heat from chemical reactions), to be welcoming any additional sources.

The greatest danger, to me, though, is still just being instantly burned by the blast.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:22 | Link to Comment Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

its anti nuclear propaganda, its no big deal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S4VCSdmGPs

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:01 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Awesome!

That actually made my day.

Thanks. Seriously.

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:38 | Link to Comment Spitzer
Spitzer's picture

Dr. Bill Wattenberg knows his stuff.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 21:34 | Link to Comment thisandthat
thisandthat's picture

Propaganda for the nuclear industry...?

Cool nuclear rods are safe - so is DU ammo; but once you hit a target with these they'll volatilize into DU nano-particle dust, for which living organisms have no physical protective barriers (cell walls, cell core walls can't block them out), causing what became known as the Gulf War Syndrome. Since Iraq invasion, Fallujah, etc., the cases of several types of cancer, as far as in Israel, doubled.

Tue, 06/29/2010 - 18:04 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

some numpty anonymously junked you, but I'm here to eat that junk!

+100 - the women of Fallujah have been told best not to have children, the deformities are becoming the "norm". . . AND, all those boys sitting on DU shell boxes as they trundle through the land in their protective tanks?  they go home and pass the radiated sperm into their partners vagina. . . crazy making, indeed.

(one can only imagine the despair / fury that will be experienced when the "heroes" realise there will be no long-term healthcare for their troubles. . .)

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:38 | Link to Comment CombustibleAssets
CombustibleAssets's picture

The nature of nuclear energy is very different form the politics of nuclear energy...

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:51 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Yeah, I wonder how the sun would vote on this issue.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:39 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

Your map missed some.

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Safrica/Vela.html

The Vela Incident

On 22 September 1979 around 00:53 GMT, the Vela 6911 satellite detected the characteristic double flash of an atmospheric nuclear explosion apparently over the Indian Ocean or South Atlantic. The test location was later localized at 47 deg. S, 40 deg. E in the Indian Ocean, in the vicinity of South Africa's Prince Edward Island, by hydroacoustic data. Due to the position ambiguity of the initial detection (the Vela optical sensors were not imaging sensors and could did not detect location), the location is variously described as being in the Indian Ocean or South Atlantic. The characteristics of the light curve indicated that it was a low kiloton explosion (approximately 3 kt). The hydroacoustic signal indicated a low altitude explosion. A major and lingering controversy erupted over the interpretation of this apparent detection.

The Vela satellite program was an nuclear detonation (NUDET) detection system setup after the 1963 limited test ban and was designed to detect nuclear explosions in space and (later) air. There were two groups of Vela satellites developed. The original Vela were equipped only with sensors for space detection and were launched in three pairs between 1963 and 1965. They operated for at least five years, far beyond their nominal design life of six months. A second generation called Advanced Vela were launched in 1967, 1969 and 1970. These satellites added "bahngmeters" - optical sensors for detecting atmospheric tests - and had a nominal design life of 18 months, but were later rated with a seven year lifespan, although they were all operated for more than ten years, with the last one being turned off in 1984 -- after 14 years of successful operation

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1951&dat=19850428&id=cF4hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8IUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1057,8641291

 

http://www.damninteresting.com/the-vela-incident

 

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:01 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

As you probably know, that was Israel in conspiracy with South Africa

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:55 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Run for your lives!  Back in 1979 there was a couple kiloton flash over an ocean somewhere!!!!     We're dooooomed!!!!    Doooooomed!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Paladin en passant
Paladin en passant's picture

Exactly. 

Hysteria is embarrassing to those not caught up in it.  And, ironically, hysteria is the underlying emotional dynamic of the economic bubbles most of these posters rail against. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:07 | Link to Comment Shylockracy
Shylockracy's picture

Regarding the Vela Incident, there's some interesting speculation about the destiny of three decomissioned South African warheads the Brits bought and subsequently 'lost'. Israel may have the warheads, which would falseflaggingly explain its insistence in warning the West about "terrorists" and "mushroom clouds". On the other hand, it may well be that the famously venal and unprincipled Brits simply sold the wares to the highest bidder, which would also help to account for part of Israel's hysterical histrionics.

 

http://mycatbirdseat.com/2010/06/gordon-duff-israel-scams-u-s-%E2%80%9Cg...

http://www.paltelegraph.com/columnists/peter-eyre/6357-israel-extremely-...

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:40 | Link to Comment cossack55
cossack55's picture

Too bad they didn't have one go haywire and hit DC in 1965.  May have saved the world a lot of grief.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:48 | Link to Comment Missing_Link
Missing_Link's picture

That clip was retarded.  Tyler, for heaven's sake, please don't call something a "must watch clip" if it's going to be nothing more than an Atari 2600 game in ultra-slow-motion.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:57 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Once again Missing_Link graphically shows us how s/he's Missing the Link.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:58 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

It was actually brilliantly designed to fool retards who fear what they don't understand.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:00 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

amen.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 21:22 | Link to Comment Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

I kinda liked it.  But then again, I have a fairly low entertainment threshold.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:50 | Link to Comment Ragnarok
Ragnarok's picture

Two suprises for me, 1) France went to town, 2)USSR < USA, go figure.

 

The more you know. (insert rainbow)

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:18 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Most US citizens are very surprised how many underground tests were conducted on US soil. Of course, it wasn't exactly discussed on the front page of your local newspaper, let alone the national papers. I always like to show people pictures of the pock marked ground to illustrate the magnitude of over 900 underground tests.

I wonder how many of the 900 are leaking radiation? 

Zoom in on this Mapquest image for a bigger picture of the "test range".

http://www.mapquest.com/mq/10-KWQBImKLUL1WTtjYh2P3

Most US citizens have no idea that Great Britain conducted over 20 underground tests in the US.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:59 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Don't know if you noticed the teeming populations of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, living on above ground test sites?     And now we're supposed to worry about tests done in deserts, siberia, and remote ocean areas?     More radiation has been released into the atmosphere by burning coal than from these tests, I'd guess.   There's radioactive stuff all around us and raining down from space since billions of years.   Relax.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:09 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

Zero plutonium in the biosphere before 1945, now, it's everywhere, and will persist for a long, long time...half-life of 24,000 years.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:21 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Ummm.  BFD?   Nagasaki took a plutonium bomb right on its head  People live there.  Any thoughts?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

You don't want to go there. Thought you were a little smarter than that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6nkLANrVlM&feature=related

 

I'll follow up later this evening, got to go see my Dad.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:12 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Quite simply you don't know what you're talking about. But that's OK. Most don't.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:19 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Oh, OK, so no-one lives in Nagasaki or Hiroshima anymore.  I shouldn't trust maps, wikipedia entries, satellite photos, or people I've met saying they're from there.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 22:58 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

"..Some 70,000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects.  This included about twenty American airmen being held as prisoners in the city.  By the end of 1945, because of the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects, the Hiroshima death toll was probably over 100,000.  The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200,000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold..."

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

 

"... An excess risk of leukemia was one of the earliest delayed effects of radiation exposure seen in the victims, and today, more than 50 years after the bombs, this excess is reflected as the most widely apparent long-term radiation effect (“Leukemia…”).  Currently, unlike Nagasaki, Hiroshima, where radiation effects are more pronounced, appears to have continued increased leukemia rates...Thus, although leukemia is a rare disease, accounting for only 4% of all cancer deaths in the world, leukemia deaths constitute about 20% of the total excess cancers reflected by the study in Japan."

http://artsci.wustl.edu/~copeland/atomicbomb.html

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 00:33 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

This seems to be about people who were nuked or who were around when the fallout was hot.   Note Hiroshima, a U-235 bomb, supposedly had worse radiation effects than the plutonium bomb, as per cancer rates.   Moral of story: don't get directly nuked and don't hang around in the fallout either.  

I'm not seeing here the bit of text that incriminates persisting plutonium affecting current residents who did not get nuked.

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 01:39 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Rusty Shorts's picture

"I'm not seeing here the bit of text that incriminates persisting plutonium affecting current residents who did not get nuked."

 

HA, the "masters" are going to incriminate themselves???

 

 - this..

http://www.exacteditions.com/exact/browse/307/308/5368/3/15

 

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:25 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

So what are your qualifications, Mr. Expert?  

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:49 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Even humans produce black body radiation, which is why night goggles work. Next, we'll be afraid of being around too many people....

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

Well, I am afraid of being around too many people ... not because of 'black body radiation' but because (a) they are people and (b) there are too many.

Otherwise I will take this in the jocular sense as it was surely was intended. Obviously everyone understands the difference between non-ionizing radiation (such as infrared, which is what any warm-blooded creature actually emits) and ionizing radiation (e.g. radioactive decay particles, not to mention medical x-rays) which can permantly damage living cells.

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:16 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

That's not the divide I would've chosen. Why the focus on electrons?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:31 | Link to Comment IBelieveInMagic
IBelieveInMagic's picture

Pretty!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:50 | Link to Comment I need more asshats
I need more asshats's picture

Nice to see that you kissed enough ass to be able to show images in your posts.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

Ahh, the perfect time to give it a try!

 

[Edit] Yeah, no luck. Moving on...

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 21:28 | Link to Comment Fish Gone Bad
Fish Gone Bad's picture

People would go to Las Vegas, take in a meal and watch a nuke go off.  Serious fun.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 10:53 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

To think I wrote 40,000 words on 125 pages to describe our insane asylum and Tyler did a much better job in under 400 on one page.

That video alone was worth 40,000 words and the chart another 20k. Nice job. I saw the video link left in the comment section of the US warship transit of the Suez Canal by Rusty Shorts. Thank you Rusty for posting it and Tyler for expanding on it.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/12-american-warships-including-one-aircraft-carrier-and-one-israeli-corvette-cross-suez-cana

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Rusty Shorts
Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:34 | Link to Comment merehuman
merehuman's picture

No Rusty, the thanks is due YOU. Like CD i too noticed your earlier link. A bit of a shock to realize just how stupid our government is

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 10:33 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

Dear CD,

You unleash parts 1-4 in quick succession, but now you're holding up the finale... what gives?  Looking forward to it.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:06 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

Much ado about NOTHING.

People should really do themselves a favor and do research on the Chernobyl Dead Zone.  It literally, as reported by scientists, is one of the cleanest places on earth.

The politicians who received this report were dumbfounded, "how can this be," they asked.  All the humans left.  Wild animals don't live long enough for radiation effects to manifest and mammals outbreed this type of deleterious condition.

We may give ourselves cancer, but the rest of the biosphere is hoping for a nuclear war so as to make it inhospitable for humans.  We fled the Dead Zone and left it to nature almost entirely.  Now it's clean water, pure air...just of highly elevated radioactivity.  In fact one of the scientists actually observed that if we wanted to set aside areas for wilderness and to guarantee they would never be developed, perhaps nuking them would be the best bet.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:33 | Link to Comment New_Meat
New_Meat's picture

"... but the rest of the biosphere is hoping for a nuclear war so as to make it inhospitable for humans."

A little projection going on here? - Ned

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:00 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Don't worry, he's not brave enough to act on it.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:38 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

That or perhaps humans are overly scared of radiation for no good reason?
People still live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and they aren't addled with cancer--the rate isn't devestatingly high there.

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

We seem to fear most what we understand the least. Only a small portion of the US population has probably ever taken one year of college level physics or taken the time to study physics on their own. Still living in the dark ages. (No surprise they don't understand why gold is a resource for humans.)

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:39 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Yes, but they've had thousands of hours of Hollywood and TV physics, so there's that going for them!

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 00:24 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

One of 'em junked you for saying that.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:06 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

trav7777

Get out of here Stalker!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:59 | Link to Comment tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

i was too just thinking of that movie reading trav's post.  awesome film.

he's got a point about chernobyl though.   nature is a mysterious creature.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:07 | Link to Comment I need more asshats
I need more asshats's picture

A nuclear event bombards us everyday. Without it humans wouldn't exist. El Sol. Fossil fuel propaganda keeps the sheeple fully informed....

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:23 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

It's worse than being about nothing. It actually part of an anti-progress and anti-science movement so that we don't move to nuclear fusion. Fear of dark magic. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:15 | Link to Comment Jonathan E
Jonathan E's picture

All those atmospheric tests....

and there we were thinking our aerosols and fridges had ripped holes in the ozone layer....

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

On the other hand, most "harmful" (high energy) radiation comes from space.

You do know that the sun is a giant fusion bomb that is so massive in scale that it's explosion just seems to go on forever? 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:29 | Link to Comment Jonathan E
Jonathan E's picture

Yes the fact that the harmful radiation comes from the stars is why we need the Earth's atmosphere intact!

Please forgive me if my physics is poor.

However we are talking about two types of reaction: fusion and fission in the case of man made bombs.

Also and regardless of the relatively 'small' scale of these bombs, the fusion of the Sun isn't taking place within the Earth's stratosphere, it takes place at the Sun's core, hence the Earth is spared much of the intensity of this process, the solar energy/radiation released is the by-product.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:41 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Yes, the atmosphere shields us from the solar wind and plasma surrounding us, though it's our EM fields that really shield us the most with lots of help from the gravity field in preventing our particle shield (atmosphere) from being blown off; like a spaceship traveling too close to a star, we needs lots of shielding.

We're not just talking about fusion vs fission though. Another poster wanted to focus on ionization. I think radiation is way to complex in all its forms to be broken down into two types.

For fun you might consider learning more about the sun. It, too, is way more complicated than I ever imagined. Did you know that it has an outer layer that is hotter than a layer beneath it? How does this cooler layer persist between two hotter layers?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:41 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

How does this cooler layer persist between two hotter layers?

==> Endothermic process occuring there.  Some physical processes absorb heat.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:26 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

You're guessing. But so are the baffled researchers who can't yet find agreement on this.

As for your guess, you're saying that the outer corona that is hotter than the surface must be producing its own heat since the inner layers' heat is being absorbed at the surface? Wouldn't that imply that the surface layer has an infinite heat capacity or at least somehow avoids equilibrium?

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 00:35 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

"You're guessing."      Bingo!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:27 | Link to Comment polizeros
polizeros's picture

Ask the Downwinders in Utah about the Nevada tests. The government deliberately waited until the wind was blowing away from Las Vegas and L.A. and towards Utah before doing nuke tests in the 50's. Livestock died, people got sick and died. The government covered it up for years.

Those residents were contemptibly described at the time in a top secret memo as a "low-use segment of the population." One of those who died years later from multiple myeloma cancer was Scott Matheson, governor of Utah from 1977-1985.

http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nucleartestingandth...

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:08 | Link to Comment Gully Foyle
Gully Foyle's picture

 polizeros

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/374/did-john-wayne-die-of-cancer-caused-by-a-radioactive-movie-set


I'm horrified to have to report this, John, but your girlfriend's claim is only slightly exaggerated. Of the 220 persons who worked on The Conqueror on location in Utah in 1955, 91 had contracted cancer as of the early 1980s and 46 died of it, including stars John Wayne, Susan Hayward, and Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. Experts say under ordinary circumstances only 30 people out of a group of that size should have gotten cancer. The cause? No one can say for sure, but many attribute the cancers to radioactive fallout from U.S. atom bomb tests in nearby Nevada. The whole ghastly story is told in The Hollywood Hall of Shame by Harry and Michael Medved. But let's start at the beginning.

The Conqueror, a putative love story involving Genghis Khan's lust for the beautiful princess Bortai (Hayward), was a classic Hollywood big budget fiasco, one of many financed by would-be movie mogul Howard Hughes. Originally director Powell wanted to get Marlon Brando for the lead, but John Wayne, then at the height of his popularity, happened to see the script one day and decided he and Genghis were meant for each other. Unfortunately, the script was written in a cornball style that was made even more ludicrous by the Duke's wooden line readings. In the following sample, Wayne/Genghis has just been urged by his sidekick Jamuga not to attack the caravan carrying Princess Bortai: "There are moments fer wisdom, Juh-mooga, then I listen to you--and there are moments fer action--then I listen to my blood. I feel this Tartar wuh-man is fer me, and my blood says, 'TAKE HER!'" In the words of one writer, it was the world's "most improbable piece of casting unless Mickey Rooney were to play Jesus in The King of Kings."

The movie was shot in the canyonlands around the Utah town of St. George. Filming was chaotic. The actors suffered in 120 degree heat, a black panther attempted to take a bite out of Susan Hayward, and a flash flood at one point just missed wiping out everybody. But the worst didn't become apparent until long afterward. In 1953, the military had tested 11 atomic bombs at Yucca Flats, Nevada, which resulted in immense clouds of fallout floating downwind. Much of the deadly dust funneled into Snow Canyon, Utah, where a lot of The Conqueror was shot. The actors and crew were exposed to the stuff for 13 weeks, no doubt inhaling a fair amount of it in the process, and Hughes later shipped 60 tons of hot dirt back to Hollywood to use on a set for retakes, thus making things even worse.

Many people involved in the production knew about the radiation (there's a picture of Wayne himself operating a Geiger counter during the filming), but no one took the threat seriously at the time. Thirty years later, however, half the residents of St. George had contracted cancer, and veterans of the production began to realize they were in trouble. Actor Pedro Armendariz developed cancer of the kidney only four years after the movie was completed, and later shot himself when he learned his condition was terminal.

Howard Hughes was said to have felt "guilty as hell" about the whole affair, although as far as I can tell it never occurred to anyone to sue him. For various reasons he withdrew The Conqueror from circulation, and for years thereafter the only person who saw it was Hughes himself, who screened it night after night during his paranoid last years.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:16 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Those residents were contemptibly described at the time in a top secret memo as a "low-use segment of the population."

I've seen many references over the years of the US gov't deliberately targeting Southern Utah for radioactive fallout downwind tests on populations, the "reasoning" being that those communities are overwhelmingly Mormon and would "believe" the children born with deformities, downs-syndrome, etc. were "special gifts from God."

Years ago, whilst I was living in the UK, BBC2 ran a documentary series called "Banned in the US" - one of the best was "Dark Circle", a doc with first-person accounts, and government lies (back when many amrkkns believed their gov't looked out for their health *eye roll*) that decades later still resonates. . . I'd recommend it to anyone who touts the "safe environmental" nuclear nonsense. (various places to view, or purchase can be goog'd)

Also, "Killing Our Own: The Disaster of America's Experience with Atomic Radiation" by Harvey Wasserman & Norman Soloman is available online, and is a good place to start understanding how the US population is considered test subjects for those who consider themselves global. . .

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/KillingOurOwn/KOO.pdf

(hey Dubya, how's that Paraguay escape hatch working for ya?)

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:31 | Link to Comment Übermensch
Übermensch's picture

If it's not love, then its the bomb, the bomb that will bring us together. - Morrissey

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:05 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Well it definitely helped us avoid an all out war between the USSR and the NATO.    Here's a toast to ICBM's, and the long prosperous peace we've enjoyed thanks almost exclusively to them, and the brilliant, courageous people who built them and operate them. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 11:28 | Link to Comment BeerGoggles
BeerGoggles's picture

WHat is evident from this clip is that France is trying to overtake the world :) :)

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:03 | Link to Comment sangell
sangell's picture

Maybe once a decade the atmospheric test ban should be set aside and a multi megaton hydrogen bomb set off for the world's current political and military leaders to observe.

The public too would enjoy the educational and spectacular sight of a thermonuclear explosion that has not been seen in almost 50 years!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:15 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Don't worry, thanks to the unseriousness of our anti-proliferation committments, and the pro-proliferation U.N., you'll see some genuine mushroom clouds in your lifetime, and get plenty of gruesome footage.   In high def, maybe even 3D, maybe directly, right in your neighborhood.    For what its worth, its a bi-partisan clustershtupp I'm talking about, although the majority of the blame is on the naive, well meaning, peacey-lovey souls that make up one party in particular.  

We should not be respecting the sovereignty of psycho-states.  

Might sound shocking now.  But that will be a common belief, a giant shared regret, after that mushroom cloud or clouds appear.  And don't get me started about what would actually be an even worse kind of nuclear attack, in terms of loss of human lives:  A surprise EMP attack initiated by people who dream of returning the human sweat driven era of the caliphate.   Hundreds of millions would die, a significant number of them as food for cannibals.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment IBelieveInMagic
IBelieveInMagic's picture

Now that you have had this thought, I think it is only fair that we pre-empt the hinted states and nuke them. Pre-emption at it's best.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:44 | Link to Comment TBT or not TBT
TBT or not TBT's picture

Do you go after flies that get in your house with a sledgehammer?   The answer I'm looking for is "No".  

The problem in Iran is a small minority, not the whole of the people there.  Au contraire.  

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:12 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

A few general observations:

1) Early U.K. testing took place in (U.K. controlled) Australia

2) Early French testing took place in French Algeria (followed by French Polynesia)

3) Brazil is only BRIC country to NOT conduct nuclear testing

4) British received vindication for American Revolution by becoming the only foreign nation to detonate nukes on American soil

5) U.S. proclivity for West Coast testing may help to explain... well, California

6) Tsar Bomba pales in comparison to The Gap Band

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment Gold...Bitches
Gold...Bitches's picture

Yes, I noticed that as well, UK and France nuked other peoples land and area instead of their own.  Pretty smart at the end of the day.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:20 | Link to Comment bigdumbnugly
bigdumbnugly's picture

And all this while I thought Las Vegas was powered by hydro-electric from the Hoover Dam. 

so that probably explains why i haven't seen many power or utility poles  there...  i guess all that glitter would need a greater source of power than they could provide.  and come to think of it, that local female companion I ended up with did have a certain glow about her.  hmmm...

but what happens in vegas stays in vegas.

was wondering why a certain part of me now looks like a darth vader light saber.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:26 | Link to Comment fiasco
fiasco's picture

that's a funny about bringing somebody to a congressional committee.

hey, give credit where credit is due.  the soviet union perfected the show trial, so even in it's devious and rapacious ways, these guys no invent nothing.

there's a big paradigm shift.  before we look to the past and say 'stupido'.  now we look to the past and the future and say 'stupido'. 

this is the meaning of the end history

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:30 | Link to Comment Anarchist
Anarchist's picture

Whole populations in the Marshall Islands were devastated by the Bikini tests. Up to 90% of the young and old suffered thyroid damage so bad they required surgery. The genome of the effected groups was damaged forever and horrific birth defects are very common.

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19900203&slug=1054079

In the 40 and 50's there was a large influx of Shepardi Jews into Israel. The ruling Ashkenazi elite decided that this large influx would eventually lead to the Shepardi becoming the majority and then taking political control. In response the Ashkenazi elite, include Nobel prize winner Shimon Peres, consulted with their American counterparts for a solution. The response was the US shipped dozens of specially designed X-ray emitters. Over 100,000 Shepardi children were secretly taken out of school and then strapped to chairs where fatal levels of radiation was pumped into their craniums. The cover story was that the Shepardi were dirty lice ridden people and that the use of radiation was a new method to kill lice and their eggs. The net result was that 5000 Shepardi children died the first week and to date over 60,000 have died. Another interesting effect of having such a high dose of radiation pumped into the brain was that the IQ of the Shepardi children dropped well below that of the Ashkenazi children who were not exposed. Of interest is the large number of Shepardi Jews who settled in France have normal IQ. Do a search for "100,000 radiations". The Israeli TV special on the subject may still be on Youtube.

 

 

 

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:49 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Reminds me of our insane radiation "therapy" for illnesses such as cancer. If the disease doesn't kill you, the treatment surely will.

Chemotherapy on HIV-Pos is another good way to kill patients who might had otherwise survived the disease.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:42 | Link to Comment JohnG
JohnG's picture

Fuck you a million times, in the ass dry with a pineapple.

You are showing the true depth of your idiot mind.

Do a little research before you embarrass yourself again.

Radiation oncologists have this little thing called a risk/reward analysis.  In other words: How likely are you to die from radiation treatment versus how likely you are to die from there being ONE SINGLE CANCEROUS CELL LEFT OVER FROM CHEMO.

Fucking asshole.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:24 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

Damn, I have been dinging thesapein all over this thread and now gotta I ruin my streak and agree.

First, there are always cancerous cells left over from chemotherapy. Thousands at least. By natural selection they become the new improved breed for the next recurrence.

Second, even the newest radiation treatments are blunt instruments. Like chemo they don't distinguish between normal and cancerous cells, and usually cause collateral damage. Possibly more cancer; maybe just tisssue damage that results in death or lingering organ failure. Someday radiation oncology will be remembered as along with bloodletting, only in a less favorable light.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 20:11 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

To be clear, modern medicine saved my life once, and even before that accident I was always more skeptical of alternative medicine and favoring empirical studies. But because of my passion for natural philosophy and science, I loath the superstition still persistent in our modern medicine. Granted, no discipline is perfect, and there will always be wrong ideas (or less accurate maybe) at work in popular establishments, but it's a good ideal to work towards, nonetheless, no?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:42 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

This topic requires a lot more than just a little research. I suggest you do a lot of research. If you really cared, you would. Kary Mullis' research is a good place to start, maybe.

You're not the only who has felt loss because of cancer, btw.

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 22:12 | Link to Comment Unscarred
Unscarred's picture

Why would anyone junk this comment!?

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 00:28 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

The way I figure it, if I don't get junked, I'm not doing something right.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:50 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

+ a de-junk for your post Anarchist. . .

found a link, will be watching it soon - thanks.

anyone still doubting might find this article from American Scientist of interest:

 

Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks

Exposures 50 years ago still have health implications today that will continue into the future

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2006/1/fallout-from-nucl...

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:30 | Link to Comment Rogerwilco
Rogerwilco's picture

Fourth-generation nukes will solve all these problems. We will have eco-friendly battlefields. LOL

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 12:43 | Link to Comment bebasvemir
bebasvemir's picture

Kraftwerk seems appropriate... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaScyfSHc-Y

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Sir Lancelot
Sir Lancelot's picture

This is actually interesting and relevant, which is unusual for this site. Well done.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

Wow, that's a brilliant backhand. Hurts no matter which way it's served.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:34 | Link to Comment FrankIvy
FrankIvy's picture

If what this site posts is usually either uninteresting or irrelevant, or both, then why do you spend time here?  What's your point?  Why not surf elsewhere?

I never get you spammer types.  If you don't like the Yankees, then why are you in the bronx?  Go down to Queens and watch the Mets.

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:29 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

breathing in 1 particle of depleted uranium,  can give you lung cancer. what's really scary, is the inept manner, that contaminated areas, are dealt with, by the best, and brightest.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:31 | Link to Comment Thorny Xi
Thorny Xi's picture

Look around and find out how many people post WW2, born and raised in the era of above ground testing, now have had thyroid cancer or are taking synthetic thyroid hormone for hypothyroidism.  Strontium 90, released in massive quantities in the fallout from every above-ground blast test, was consumed by millions of dairy cattle and measured in milk when I was a kid, but determined to be at 'safe' levels.  Strontium goes directly to the thyroid gland.  Every school kid got milk at lunch. 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:30 | Link to Comment Kali
Kali's picture

Not just strontium has been detected in our bodies, but cesium and plutonium too.  Most baby boomers and every generation afterwards are born with radioactive particles in their bodies now.  Along with a whole soup of other chemicals developed since and after WWII.  We are gradually changing our bodies, we don't know what a lot of these changes are doing to us.  We do know some of them though.  Feminization of males (undescended balls, infertility and breast growth), autism and a host of others.  I read a research paper by some brain researchers recently that said that brains of "normal" children born now are showing subtle structural changes that were not seen in previous generations. 

What I find most disturbing about the oil leak thread and this thread, is how absolutely ignorant people are of science.  This country is a nation of scientific illiterates.  I cannot believe the number of people here, who consider themselves intelligent, who proclaim to know so much about, what they obviously do not know anything about, to those who do.  We are fucked as a specie for that alone.  The only thing that I absolutely can't stand, is that we are gonna take a large amount of the living things on this planet along with us.  Let the Kali Yuga begin.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:51 | Link to Comment BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

Some of the most ignorant are the trolls (above) who keep acting like they have PhD's in particle physics cause they read the wikepedia page under "atom" or something. I think a epidemiology crash course might be in order for some of the "radiation is good for you" posters here; I cannot wrap my head the logic of these posts. Perhaps it's that need to be contrarian many of us outgrew at age 7.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:59 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

when people, particularly those born in amrkka, begin to truly understand that they are merely guinea pigs / test objects for the military industrial complex, and corporations that OWN this country, the point-of-view will shift dramatically, and with that clarity will come the anger and resistance that people here call for daily.

until then, there's always TV, sports & porn.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:18 | Link to Comment ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Don't assume the knowledge of the posters here is the same as that of the general public. Im sure we're better versed here in the financial sphere than others, but at the same time we must lack in other regards.

I know nothing about science on my end, and thus i greatly enjoyed the comments. Couldn't distinguish right from wrong but i feel i can do some research it whatever i'm more interested in after getting a quick and dirty introduction in this thread.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 14:57 | Link to Comment Ruth
Ruth's picture

When I grow my other arm I'm going to swim up there or slide over and see how the otherside lives!  Just don't be taking nukes downtown, they don't like competition!  fAILOUT BITCHES!  <spellchecked twice>

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:22 | Link to Comment bpj
bpj's picture

One thing nobody discusses is that the Nagasaki blast (B-29 Bock's Car) was directed at the only christian enclave in Japan. Although it was a secondary target, it killed 20,000 catholics who were descendants of japanese that had the misfortune of coming in contact with the same proselytizing fools that enslaved the indians in what is now San Jaun Capistrano.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 15:51 | Link to Comment ATG
ATG's picture

The Navy teaches its nuke recruits that nucular power is safe with 1 in 1000 dangerous side effects or less, don't you know.

Apparently they do not expect their recruits to divide 6 billion people by 1000 to get

6 million people sickened by man made nuclears such as depleted uranium widely used in Iraq and Afghanistan that have produced grotesque birth defects and cancers, with a half life of 4.47 Billion years, truly Biblical Wormwood Revelations in scope:

http://www.google.com/images?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:offi...

Time to leave USA for the dogs...

 

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:20 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the 'worrying number of anophthalmos cases -- babies born without eyes' in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling.

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0330-02.htm

the above article is from 2003, while the US was still denying that DU was being used, national security secrets don'tcha know. . .

 

the women in Fallujah are being told not to get pregnant now, as the proportion of birth defects is devastating. . . genocide anyone?   what is just beginning to get notice is the incidents of US soldiers returning home, and passing the radiation to their sexual partners, and ultimately, unborn children.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a professor of nuclear medicine at Georgetown University, is a former army medical expert. He told nuclear scientists in Paris last year that tens of thousands of sick British and American soldiers are now dying from radiation they encountered during Gulf War I. He found that 62 percent of sick vets tested have uranium isotopes in their organs, bones, brains and urine. Laboratories in Switzerland and Finland corroborated his findings.

In other studies, some sick vets were found to be expressing uranium in even their semen. Their sexual partners often complained of a burning sensation during intercourse, followed by their own debilitating illnesses.

How in the world can we possibly do this to our own troops?

 

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/depleted-uranium-one-of-the-gr...

the above is a very good article linking the depleted uranium and other toxic waste spread in Iraq, and Afghanistan - all of which was denied because these are ILLEGAL WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, eh. . .

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment CombustibleAssets
CombustibleAssets's picture

Hey what's a little mutation among friends...

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:02 | Link to Comment HCSKnight
HCSKnight's picture

Classic.  Such fear mongering and visual distortions from Sweds who get almost 50% of their power from nuclear....http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf42.html

Tyler, I'm beginning to get the impression you're less a "Tyler Durden" and more a classic college kid who's really a geek whose daddy has paid for everything and clings to one day having the guts to be Tyleresque.....

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:23 | Link to Comment ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

How are the Swedes (or other Scandinavians) doing in terms of cancer rates? (not rhetorical)

Also, there's a clear difference between a nuclear reactor operating under stable conditions than it is being detonated across fields. Fear mongering. Where?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:22 | Link to Comment Rogerwilco
Rogerwilco's picture

"breathing in 1 particle of depleted uranium,  can give you lung cancer. what's really scary, is the inept manner, that contaminated areas, are dealt with, by the best, and brightest."

No, what's really scary are people who might believe drivel such as you write. We all ingest thousands of "radioactive" particles every day. Every breath inhales Radon atoms, and hundreds of high-energy cosmic rays (pieces of fractured atoms) pierce our bodies every hour. We don't die because our bodies can, most of the time, repair the damage. Should we go out of our way to test the limits? Of course not, but please stop the sensationalist bullshit. It does no one any good when real, rational decisions are needed.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:23 | Link to Comment delacroix
delacroix's picture

the depleted uranium residue is causing realtime health problems, in iraq, yugoslavia,and even in US soldiers. when you inhale the dust, you get a lot more, than 1 particle. falluja, is a toxic waste dump. there are some things, your body cannot fight. the denial idiocy, may not be worth fighting, but I try. radon-uranium= apples and oranges. a dust particle, is quite a bit more, than an atom. rocky flats colorado. acres of contaminated ground. government solution= 1 foot thick asphalt paving. we're on our own folks. the gov. brings the problems, not the solutions.we don't need yucca flats anymore. we'll just dump our waste, out the barrel of a gun, on the unfortunates, who get in the way .

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:32 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

. . .please stop the sensationalist bullshit. It does no one any good when real, rational decisions are needed.

y'know Rogerwilco, I could list a dozen really good links here, but I can't do your thinking for you. . . people have all kinds of belief systems -  I suggest you use your favourite search engine & enter "depleted uranium + US soldiers birth defects" - spend some quality time updating your point of view, I promise it will serve well in the coming months.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 17:26 | Link to Comment seventree
seventree's picture

France gets most if its electric power from nuclear. That doesn't make them blase about the dangers of radiation. In fact they are very aware of the dangers and very careful (except for occasional nuking of the ocean for scientific purposes, but let's not dwell on that).

From some of the comments in this thread it seems that everyone has to be either a tree-hugging crazy opposed to any form of nuclear power, or be in total blind denial of any danger of nuclear weapon testing and the careless handling of radioactive material. Ain't that simple, even if some folks are.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 18:02 | Link to Comment thesapein
thesapein's picture

+2, one for you and one for France.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:05 | Link to Comment Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

Yawn... all the nuclear tests combined contribute less than 1 mrem - about the same as watching TV (out of 300 - 400mrems/year typical exposure), most of those from a handful of especially dirty test bombs - like Russia's 50MT device (thanks Kruschev)  You get far, far more radiation exposure from your dentist, from the use of coal in power plants, and cosmic rays from space.

If you really are concerned about radiation, don't fuss about nuclear tests - even if they started new underground testing.  If you want to reduce your radiation dose, then:

1. STOP SMOKING.  It exposes you to polonium-210 and can add up to 1000 mrems to your annual dosing.

2. Get your house tested for naturally occuring radon.  If present, your exposure could be many, many times the average.

3. Don't fly as much.  You get a couple mrems on a typical transatlantic flight.

4. Don't live in certain parts of Brazil and India.  Naturally occurring radiation there is much higher than average.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 19:28 | Link to Comment ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Interesting. Are you speaking from professional experience, or otherwise?

Can you comment on cell phone usage?

Finally, i hear tests on certain types of radiation haven't been studied long enough to determine whether or not x millirems cause y to you in a specific amount of time. Thoughts?

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 23:13 | Link to Comment Anarchist
Anarchist's picture

Electromagnetic "radiation" from a cell phone is related in name only to high energy "particles" emitted by radioactive sources. As with many "exposure" risks in life, numerous factors determine how suceptable you are to different dosages, age, genetics, method of exposure ..etc. Of course if the "dose" is high enough for either type of "radiation" you are "cooked". Some of the new 3 and 4 G cell systems around the world use 2.1 GHz. This is very close to 2.45 GHz used in microwave ovens. 2.45 GHz is the result of studies that shown is was close enough to the average resonant frequeny of the water molecule and would not interfere with any widely used microwave communications equipment. 3G and 4G phones will also require higher average transmit power to close the link. The farther you are from the tower the higher the phone will turn up its transmitter.

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 02:24 | Link to Comment Quantum Nucleonics
Quantum Nucleonics's picture

I think the question is still out on cell phones.  Earlier studies showed no effects, but had the taint of industry support.  More recent, independent studies seem to show some correlation with certain brain cancers, but the statistics are not conclusive.  The nature of cell phone usage has changed a lot from antenna right up to your ear to now lots of blue tooth devices and speaker phones.  All those things make it hard to control the variables and get meaningful statistical inferences from research data.

There has been lots and lots of research on radiological effects, but a millirem is such a low dose that you'll never say, "ahhh, that 1 mrem a year I got from watching TV caused my lung cancer.  Certainly not that 2 pack a day Marlboro habit."  If you get 500 rems then it will kill you quickly and you'll know the source, but can you define the odds of getting Y from a few mrems, nay probably not.  Too many variables.

Astrophysics was my initial career, then I decided it would make a good hobby and went into finance.

 

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 20:14 | Link to Comment dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

so the U.K. nuked us 24 times..  can they do it one more time in the GoM???  please??

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 20:54 | Link to Comment Milestones
Milestones's picture

Gully, you mention Yucca Flats. My old unit, 95th Combat Engineer Battalion did a lot of the construction for those tests and in fact were less than a mile from ground zero in slit trenches on several of the detonations. Got to talk to some of the non coms about that time period. I didn't get my "welcome" letter til 1955 and was assigned to that unit when I finished my basic training while at Fort Ord which I understamnd is no longer.

Listened to some pretty interesting stories from members of the "Desert Rats". They were given practially nothing but a blanket to cover themselves with. Probably most died from cancer later on.

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 21:39 | Link to Comment Profit Prophet
Profit Prophet's picture

***********************************

By Golly!  I think I just came up with a

solution to the global warming problem!

(wink wink)

Profit Prophet

***********************************

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 21:44 | Link to Comment bigkahuna
bigkahuna's picture

I am pretty sure that blasts of radiation and organic material do not play nicely together. In fact, the nasty radiation from nuclear explosions probably is not tollerated by anything. I hope we have learned something as a people--and please keep the nuclear blasting apologist remarks!!!

Sun, 06/20/2010 - 21:47 | Link to Comment The 22nd Prime
The 22nd Prime's picture

Greetings ZHers. First Post.

I apologize I have not read all the comments on this thread so am I not about to join the fray just yet.

I did watch the Isao Hashimoto video, actually twice and found it very impressive and strangely beautiful.

Happy Father's Day to all.

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 08:03 | Link to Comment Grand Supercycle
Grand Supercycle's picture

 

EURO buying support i've mentioned over the past few weeks has resulted in a bullish basing pattern on the daily chart. The important weekly chart remains bearish though.

http://stockmarket618.wordpress.com/about

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 10:32 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

Dear CD,

You unleash parts 1-4 on us in quick succession, but now you're holding up on the finale?  What gives? 

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 12:05 | Link to Comment Ludic Fallacy
Ludic Fallacy's picture

After reading here that Chernobyl was a biologically "clean" zone, I decided to do a bit of reading.  Apparently, bird species are considerably affected by the radiological impacts of the fallout, at least.  The "garden of eden" has never been formally studied by scientists, so it's all anecdotal if any information is available.

 

http://www.metafilter.com/64203/Chernobyl-wildlife-garden-of-eden

Mon, 06/21/2010 - 12:07 | Link to Comment Ludic Fallacy
Ludic Fallacy's picture

I recommend Skeptic magazine (and the skeptic society) for folks here who have a scientific bent.  They look at all topics scientific with a skeptical bent.  The cellphone radiation threat was debunked in their most recent newsletter.

Fri, 10/22/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

2 questions:

 

1)at what point did they finally decide the damn things worked ,and maybe they could stop testing?

2)how many of these were detonated by al qaeda?

 

makes me want to ask who the real terrorists are....

oh, never mind

 

Mon, 05/09/2011 - 00:59 | Link to Comment kingston123
kingston123's picture

i always like to read some good and informative
blogs and this blog is also so good and helpful.
thanks for taking time to discus this topic..
http://city32.com

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!