He tried to tell us.
Why didn't we listen?
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 ...
This study was paid for by the Iranians........
“Not really, H-Bombs are much more devastating than A-Bombs.......”
In blast effect, not in radioactivity.
“I wasn’t aware the article was discussing the Hydrogen bomb, did I miss something in the article? “
That’s why he said “a whole other story”.
#12 some 1021 nukes were set off just outside of Las Vegas
This would explain the increase in earthquakes... Oh wait that be a thin metal tube used for drilling oil that causes this and not a big gigantic explosion!
BTW neither is notice much by the earth.
He tried to tell us.
Why didn't we listen?
Bikini Atoll as well. The place is a virtual paradise according to National Geographic.
The Russians will be making movies about the giant lizards and flying creatures that Japan has.
And less radiation, correct?
The exaggeration and fear mongering actually served some good purpose in strengthening the MAD balance of the Cold War. It is, today, somewhat reminiscent of the climate change debate. I certainly don’t want to belittle the horrendous destruction a nuclear conflict would visit on us.
I recall reading of two adjacent, identical Japanese apartment buildings. One was built with significantly contaminated materials, therefore the inhabitants were highly exposed to radiation. The other building, no contamination.
The families lived in these residences for generations.
There was no significant difference in lifespan or disease.
This is my recolection, the facts may vary but you get the idea.
According to some, yes, but it depends on the blast elevation........
But pot is healthy. :)
So now we come to the big one, the myth that dozens of people asked me about since the first Hollywood Myths episode came out. Supposedly, John Wayne's death from cancer was caused by his work in the Utah desert in 1954 on the 1956 Howard Hughes film The Conqueror, a movie widely regarded as Wayne's worst. The location near St. George, Utah, is notorious for being downwind from the Nevada Test Site, where a large number of atomic weapons had been detonated in prior years, and thus was the recipient of much radioactive fallout. Wayne's co-stars Susan Hayward and Agnes Moorehead also died of cancer; in fact, by the time People magazine checked up on all 220 cast and crew for a 1980 article, 91 of them had contracted some form of cancer, and 46 had died of cancer.
People's inspiration was apparently a 1979 article in the tabloid The Star by Peter Brennan who merely speculated about the coincidence without doing any real research. It was repeated by such newspapers as the New York Post (August 6, 1979) and the Los Angeles Times (August 6, 1979). People went a step further, talking to a few experts and managing to track down the history of the cast and crew. This article was what really started the story; in fact, virtually anything you might find about this story takes its quotes directly from People. One of the most often borrowed was from an enthusiastic fallout activist, Dr. Robert Pendleton at the University of Utah, who said:
With these numbers, this case could qualify as an epidemic. The connection between fallout radiation and cancer in individual cases has been practically impossible to prove conclusively. But in a group this size you'd expect only 30-some cancers to develop. With 91, I think the tie-in to their exposure on the set of The Conqueror would hold up even in a court of law.
But it didn't, at least not for residents of St. George, Utah, often referred to as the "downwinders", when attorneys went door-to-door in the 1970's. The Times of London reported that some 700 such lawsuits were unsuccessful. However, ten years after the People magazine article, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act was passed and has since paid out over $1.5 billion, including many payments to people who had only to prove that they lived in certain counties during a certain time period, and had one of a list of approved diseases. Although this makes it sound like the link must have been proven, science doesn't depend on what politicians were able to convince bureaucrats to do.
And what science has found, contrary to what's reported in virtually every article published on the subject, is that any link between the film crew's cancers and the atomic tests is far from confirmed. First of all, the numbers reported by People are right in the range of what we might expect to find in a random sample. According to the National Cancer Institute, in 1980 the chances of being diagnosed with a cancer sometime in your lifetime was about 41%, with mortality at 21.7%. And, right on the button, People's survey of The Conqueror's crew found a 41.4% incidence with 20.7% mortality. (These numbers make an assumption of an age group of 20-55 at the time of filming.)
A 1979 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found no consistent pattern of correlation between childhood cancers and fallout exposure in the Utah counties, with the exception of leukemia. For reasons unknown, leukemia rates were about half that of the United States at large, but after the fallout period, this increased to just slightly above the normal rate. The authors were unable to correlate either leukemia or other cancers to fallout. Considering that the film crew spent only a few weeks there, instead of their whole lives like the people who were studied, it seems highly unlikely that they were affected.
But we can't make that declaration for certain. The data we have for the film crew is totally inadequate. Most crucial factors are unknown, like age, age of incidence, types of cancer, heredity, dose-response, and other risk factors each may have had — like John Wayne's smoking of five packs a day. And, of course, "cancer" is not one disease; it is hundreds of different diseases. Plus there's an obvious alternate explanation: The cast and crew simply got old in those intervening decades.
What about Dr. Pendleton's gloomy remarks? In an email to researcher Dylan Jim Esson, a colleague of Pendleton's, Lynn Anspaugh, said that Pendleton's reported comments were uncharacteristic and she thought they were more likely the result of media sensationalism. According to her analysis of the fallout readings from the time and place of The Conqueror's filming, she calculated that the crew received no more than 1 to 4 millirems of radiation, which was less than normal background levels. Pendleton himself had recorded high levels of radiation only when a fallout cloud was directly overhead the day following a test, and normal at other times. The most recent tests had been more than a year prior to the filming, so Anspaugh's calculations are not surprising.
From all the data we have, it was perfectly safe for the film crew, and their reported cancer histories show no unusual ill effects.
So there we have it, another line of evidence that Hollywood myths are all just a part of the show. Please let it continue, for as the early writer Wilson Mizner once said, "In Hollywood they almost made a great picture, but they caught it in time."
Fat Man used on Nagasaki was a plutonium bomb. Little Boy used on Hiroshima was a uranium bomb.
Both were fission bombs, while the big ones today are fusion bombs.
I heard that an H bomb has an A bomb to start the fusion process. But a fusion reactor has a lot less radiation and is cleaner.
If they ever make one it will be!..........
I won 50 bucks off a Nickel at
The Golden Nugget!
YeaHaa!
What Is this thread About, exactly?
I’d just as soon not having to try out their latest theory.
I’ve always rated nuclear bombs pretty low myself. They can really ruin a neighborhood.
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.
