Study: Long-term health effect of atomic bombs is overstated

pulseheadlines.com ^ | 08/14/2016 | By Marioxy Betancourt

[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.

[Steely Tom]

One less thing, right?

— Forrest Gump

[Hot Tabasco]

I was always under the impression that a nuclear bomb would render the impact site and surrounding miles inhospitable for centuries........

Hiroshima and Nagasaki proved that wrong............

[DesertRhino]

Really the VERY short term is the rub....

[Vic S]

Yeehaw!

[BeauBo]

Hiroshima, more recently:

[lacrew]

Its been a loooong time since I studied this...but aren’t the Plutonium bombs of today different than the Uranium bomb of WWII? I.E. looking at the results of Hiroshima is really not an indicator for what a modern bomb would do?

[ColdOne]

Chernobyl too. Seen photos of wildlife and plantlife in area.

[Jonty30]

I think it became obvious, as Japan’s cancer rates didn’t sky rocket despite having two bombs dropped on them.

[Red Badger]

They were bombed with Atom Bombs, fission.
The Hydrogen Bomb is a fusion device and a whole other story!
......

[Red Badger]

Correct! Fusion vs fission. Different results.....

[Bon mots]

Don't forget, some 1021 nukes were set off just outside of Las Vegas, at least 100 of which were above ground. People have lived there the entire time and they used to watch the mushroom clouds from Vegas hotels.

The Nevada Test Site is a United States Department of Energy reservation located in Nye County, Nevada, about 65 miles (105 km) northwest of the City of Las Vegas, near 37°07′N 116°03′W / 37.117, -116.05.

During the 1950s, the mushroom clouds from these tests could be seen for almost 100 miles in either direction, including the city of Las Vegas, where the tests became tourist attractions. Americans headed for Las Vegas to witness the distant mushroom clouds that could be seen from the downtown hotels.

Another myth is that our cities would be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. I disagree.

Hiroshima, Japan today.
Nearly 3 million people live in Hiroshima Prefecture, and over 1 million in the city itself.

Hiroshima took a direct hit not long ago.

[BeauBo]

“aren’t the Plutonium bombs of today different than the Uranium bomb of WWII? (in terms of long term environmental/health effects)”

Nagasaki (Fat Man) was a plutonium bomb.

Plutonium is ten times more toxic as a heavy metal (like lead or mercury), than it is as a radioactive element. So in a small area, a large dose is poisonous - but so much is consumed in the detonation, and residue is dispersed widely. Bottom line - not really an issue.

[cartan]

It used to be an essential part of Soviet propaganda in the West to exaggerate greatly the dangers of nuclear attacks. Make everybody believe that a couple nukes would render the entire planet uninhabitable for ten thousand years. Hey, so let’s just disarm unilaterally! Only the Soviets should have nukes! Who cares? Better red than dead, right?

Traces of that thinking can still be found in many places today.

[ransomnote]

Sadly, the information in the OP is false.
Because Hiroshima data revealed the damaging effects of atomic bombs, the data itself was scrambled to the point that it nullified actual information and gave the appearance of little effect. People close to ground zero were blended with records of people far from grand zero and their original information detailing their exposure, captured in a code, was permanently deleted. Problem solved - now the atomic industry brags about the false data/comparisons. It’s creepy how methodical the nuke industry is...steadily erasing cold hard data and replacing it with worthless data. WHy would they go to such problems if the data did not reveal the problem?
In the following excerpt, the data for those exposed to the flash of the bombs was compared to the data for those not exposed - and there wasn’t much difference in mortality? The reason? Because both groups were equally harmed by the fallout so deaths from fallout related damage were comparable - and reported as “no effect from nuclear bomb”

“Here then was the confirmation of why the studies of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors had not revealed any effects on their children. Everywhere in Japan, mortality rates had gone up due to the fallout, so that there was little or no difference between those survivors exposed to the direct flash and those who received the fallout in their diet over the years that followed.” Secret Fallout

[Arm_Bears]

Kinda puts the lie to nuclear winter pronouncements, eh?

[stockpirate]

A lot of people contracted cancet east of the atomic test site
This spanned 30-40 years, this study is BS.

[2ndDivisionVet]

[ransomnote]

Bombs are very efficient at converting nuclear material into heat/light etc. so they deliver a fraction of the amount of isotopes to the environment compared with the 3 nuclear core melt downs in Japan right now.

[Red Badger]

Wildlife thrives there all around Chernobyl in the 50 mile radius Forbidden Zone.

Mainly because it does not live long enough naturally for the radiation to be a problem. Humans, OTOH, do.........