Posted on 08/15/2016 3:36:53 PM PDT by BenLurkin
Former studies have found that radiation exposure increases cancer risk. It has also been found that the average lifespan of survivors from the atomic bombing was only reduced by a few months. Such findings refute any popular conception about health risks caused by exposure to radiation.
Scientists have not found health effects or any radiation-associated mutations on children of the survivors. Jordan suggested it would be possible to find subtle effects through more detailed tests on survivors’ genomes. Even then, the biologist believes that the children of survivors will face small health risks linked to atomic bombs.
“Most people, including many scientists, are under the impression that the survivors faced debilitating health effects and very high rates of cancer, and that their children had high rates of genetic disease. There’s an enormous gap between that belief and what has actually been found by researchers,” wrote Jordan in an article.
(Excerpt) Read more at pulseheadlines.com ...
Chernobyl too. Seen photos of wildlife and plantlife in area.
________________________
Then go see the large populations of people living with disease throughout their lives because they are forced to live and raise their families in contaminated zones. People don’t go see the wildlife too much because the wildlife is too contaminated to hunt and few want to breath the radioactive waste that sicked so many of their countrymen.
Nuke apologists pretend the sick and dying which continue to sicken and die from the CHernobyl of long ago - flat out don’t exist. But they suffer and they exist. Imagine expecting your first child while living in a contaminated zone that sickened your friends and family members.
Not really, H-Bombs are much more devastating than A-Bombs.......
The US government denied that their Las Vegas bomb testing was harmful until most “downwinders” died (young) and THEN they quietly arranged for financial settlements for the few who remained. There’s a freeper around here who said his wife was a downwinder and in her early 60’s - all of her highschool classmates had already died.
Well the more I researched, the more I realized that the long term effects just could not be predicted, and in fact it looked like they effects were turning out to be LESS than feared. I turned in that paper and felt awful about it, but she gave me an "A" anyways, because it was well done. I admired her for things like that. There were some honest Liberals around.
What I found out writing that paper ended up being partially responsible for my turn away from Liberalism.
” a fusion device and a whole other story!”
A higher percentage of the fuel is consumed in a more efficient weapon. Much more initially intense, but essentially similar effects, in terms of residual environmental/health effects.
Bigger blasts induce more temporary radioactive decay in the blast area (e.g. elements in the soil themselves become briefly radioactive) - but that doesn’t last much longer, it is just more intense.
Whatever kind of weapon is used, get out of the impact area and the fallout area for a few weeks, or only go in with protective and monitoring gear.
And according to the surgeon general, there is no safe amount of cigarette smoke.
The Soviets were generally ignorant of nuclear isotopes. When Chernobyl melted down, they allowed the population to hold a parade under the smoldering shadow of the plant. Photos of the parade mysteriously disappeared. Then officials calculated how teh radiation would effect the city’s population, whom were assured they were 100% safe, and were horrified to discover that, mathmatically - the entire population would be dead of radiation poisoning in a week. So, they told the population they would be temporarily bused to a clean-air area and not to bring anything from home. Once they arrived to a distant location, they were told they could never return to their homes - too toxic. The soviets documented this, hid the data, and when overthrown, it all came out. Key officials are on video admitting to all of this in the youtube videos titled “The Battle of Chernobyl”
Thermonuclear bombs are orders of magnitude more powerful in terms of blast and radius of effect than purely fission devices but the residual radiation in the form of fallout isn’t necessarily greater in proportion with the increase in blast effect. The fallout radiation comes from unconsumed fissile material and fission byproducts like cesium and radioiodine. Fusion doesn’t produce radioactive byproducts itself.
Boosted fission weapons (fission-fusion-fission) weapons might be a different story. I don’t have any information on fallout from boosted fission weapons but the secondary fission “spark plug” might be expected to create additional fission products.
A big variable in the production of fallout is the weapon height of burst. A graze (surface) or subsurface burst sweeps up huge amounts of soil and ash that are mixed with fission products. Air bursts, where the fireball doesn’t touch ground doesn’t yield anywhere near the amount of fallout while simultaneously vastly increasing blast and destruction through the Mach stem effect.
The blast and burning effects are identical with an plutonium A-bomb (Nagasaki and Alamagordo) or a U-235 A-bomb (Hiroshima) or a far larger tuneable yield H-bomb. Far more blast and fire obviously with the bigger bomb.
Radiation effects are nearly the same. Again, scaled for distance and blast size. But the blast sizes don’t go as fast - its more like an inverse cube/square relationship. Depends on height of blast also. 2x the bomb yield does NOT give 2x the damage radius.
Nuclear war = end of all life on earth was always an exaggeration. Nasty.
I wasn't aware the article was discussing the Hydrogen bomb, did I miss something in the article?
Plutonium critical mass, for a bomb, is about 11 kg. The amount of radioactive material in the reactors was many, many times that.
Yup... I trust those stats about as much as I trust the Government temperature stats The same propaganda comes for anything nuclear. In fact Radiation is now good for you.
Thank you for that info. Never thought about that.
You can’t fight in the War Room!
Thank you for that info.
No, but a lot of what I read on the thread people intermix both like they are the same and aren’t.........
Why don’t these people volunteer to move themselves and their families downwind of an atomic blast? Then they can observe the effects over a couple of generations.
In Japan, one bomb was enriched uranium, one was plutonium.
“Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels. “
Winds from the test site didn’t go to Vegas. You could watch in safety. East of there, not quite so much.
A supernova, seen from as far away as the Sun is from the Earth, or
The detonation of a hydrogen bomb pressed against your eyeball?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.