Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Bon mots

Nukes are not dangerous?

Dude, ten people in my famiy have cancer in a family with no cancer for generations. We all were growing up during the atmospheric testing back in the fifties. We all drank milk at a time when str 90 was circling the globe.

Come back and tell me that after your family has gone through this. I don’t know the mechanism but I know our gene pool was changed. I know this didn’t come out of the blue.


64 posted on 06/26/2010 5:37:44 AM PDT by cajungirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]


To: cajungirl
Nukes are not dangerous?

Dude, ten people in my famiy have cancer in a family with no cancer for generations. We all were growing up during the atmospheric testing back in the fifties. We all drank milk at a time when str 90 was circling the globe.

Come back and tell me that after your family has gone through this. I don’t know the mechanism but I know our gene pool was changed. I know this didn’t come out of the blue.

You were downwind when atmospheric testing was being done with old-fashioned 1950's era nukes were being detonated. During the filming of the movie "The Conqueror" starring John Wayne, they used sand from the desert that was contaminated by these very old and dirty nukes:

41% of "The Conqureror's" crew later came down with cancer (including Wayne, who got it twice). The common factor? The movie was shot in Utah's Escalante Desert, where 11 atomic bombs had been tested, including two particularly dirty ones.

When I say nukes are not as dangerous as people say, I simply mean that we have been led to believe that a limited nuclear exchange between say, India and Pakistan would end the world as we know it. India and Pakistan have less nukes and less powerful nukes than those set off in the Nevada Desert.

Also notice, that some 5 million people live in Hiroshima and the surrounding prefecture after a particularly dirty bomb was set off there with the intent to kill people and break things. Levels of cancer and other disease are NOW no higher in Hiroshima and Nagasaki than in any other comparably sized metropolitan area.

I'm sorry about your family and their exposure to particularly dirty nuclear fallout - but I will stand by my statement that modern, clean nukes are not as terrifying as advertised. A single nuke set off deep undersea, nearly 50 miles off the coast, tuned to minimize radiation and maximize heat and blast represents a lesser danger to the gulf coast population than a 10-30 year gusher spewing oil, methane and a panoply of chemicals into the environment.

72 posted on 06/26/2010 5:50:02 AM PDT by Bon mots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: cajungirl

Perhaps you have overlooked this simple fact, but the genetic makeup of your family is changing constantly. It’s from marriage and procreation, not nuclear testing.


79 posted on 06/26/2010 5:58:17 AM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

To: cajungirl

“Nukes are not dangerous?”

Now I think I`ve finally heard everything.


110 posted on 06/26/2010 7:43:23 AM PDT by chessplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson