Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!

Are Nukes Actually Real ?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by duggers_dad, Mar 7, 2025 at 9:18 AM.

Page 1 of 4
  1. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:18 AM #1
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    DISCLAIMER: I am by no means questioning their destructive power, but rather the radiation narrative.

    In his book Hiroshima Revisited, Dr. Michael Palmer MD writes;

    “Studies from neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki furnish any clear evidence of radioactive fallout commensurate with the purported nuclear detonations.”

    The Hiroshima City website states:

    “The radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today is on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth.”

    Food for thought …

    Questioning the Nuclear Weapon Narrative
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:30 AM #2
    wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    31,304
    2,026
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    No one has used anything other than first generation weapons on people yet (or in highly populated areas for that matter). There were multiple failed resettlement attempts at the Bikini test sight. Still not recommended for settlement to this day, though you can still go there under certain criteria. The radiation wont kill you there, but the soil is still basically poisonous.
     
  3. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:34 AM #3
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Again, I’m not questioning the destructive power. That was always reason enough to avoid poking the Bear.
     
  4. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:37 AM #4
    wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    31,304
    2,026
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    And again, to make conclusions from the effects of first gen weapons 80 years later about what nukes would do to people now is a fool's game. Moreover, its one I dont want to see a test case for. Even if the radiation recedes, the area affected can still basically be uninhabitable without essentially a massive terraforming project and soil replacement. Modern weapons will kill many more people on impact too than Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:43 AM #5
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    I disagree. I believe it would be useful to test one in the open. Mutually agreed upon. Perhaps that would bring deterrence back into play. You’ve not explained why the latest nukes would yield different effects other than flattening larger and larger areas.
     
  6. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:48 AM #6
    CHFG8R

    CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

    7,329
    627
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    St. Augustine, FL
    I'm guessing the issue here would be scale. I.E. Two tiny bombs vs. hundreds if not thousands of hydrogen bombs.
     
  7. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:49 AM #7
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Destructive power ? Certainly …
     
  8. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:50 AM #8
    wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    31,304
    2,026
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    I mean, the fear of nuclear war wasnt that a couple of bombs would be dropped and its over, as bad as that would be. There is simply no way to test the effects of two nuclear powers shooting hundreds of missiles at each other with dozens if not hundreds of detonations over a short time span. "Not that bad" in that scenario still means hundreds of thousands if not millions dead, large areas uninhabitable for generations, unpredictable health complications for survivors, etc.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Mar 7, 2025 at 9:56 AM #9
    CHFG8R

    CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

    7,329
    627
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    St. Augustine, FL
    Those bomb are, individually, something like 50x Hiroshima. I'm assuming they leave more bad stuff behind, have higher concentrations of radiation, etc. IDK. I'm not a physicist, but it seems logical.
     
  10. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:04 AM #10
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    At the very heart of this is the supposition of the long term effects of radiation. Obviously horrific deaths have occurred while handling fissile materials. But I suspect the popular conception is rooted in that memorable line from the 1981 movie China Syndrome in which the professor soberly intones “would render an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable.”
     
  11. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:06 AM #11
    archigator_96

    archigator_96 GC Hall of Fame

    4,147
    3,643
    1,923
    Apr 8, 2020
    Is one of those criteria a Godzilla proof vehicle?
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  12. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:07 AM #12
    wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    31,304
    2,026
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    I think we can all agree that the threat of Kaiju is greatly overstated
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:08 AM #13
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    I believe marine life was thriving shortly after Bikini Atoll.
     
  14. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:10 AM #14
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
  15. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:39 AM #15
    CHFG8R

    CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

    7,329
    627
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    St. Augustine, FL
  16. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:47 AM #16
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    Article says animal life thriving, exclusion zone is safe for tourists and people are living in it. Now, inside the people, perhaps.
     
  17. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:53 AM #17
    CHFG8R

    CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

    7,329
    627
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    St. Augustine, FL
    But there are still hot spots. Here. Enjoy. I watched this a couple years ago and it's pretty fascinating. They have Geiger counters. You be the judge.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Mar 7, 2025 at 10:57 AM #18
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    From the article …


    10. Is it safe to visit the area now?
    One may certainly visit the Chernobyl area, including even the exclusion zone, which is a 30 kilometre radius surrounding the plant, all of whose reactors are now closed. Although some of the radioactive isotopes released into the atmosphere still linger (such as Strontium-90 and Caesium-137), they are at tolerable exposure levels for limited periods of time. Some residents of the exclusion zone have returned to their homes at their own free will, and they live in areas with higher than normal environmental radiation levels. However, these levels are not fatal. Exposure to low but unusual levels of radiation over a period of time is less dangerous than exposure to a huge amount at once, and studies have been unable to link any direct increase in cancer risks to chronic low-level exposure.
     
  19. Mar 7, 2025 at 11:01 AM #19
    CHFG8R

    CHFG8R GC Hall of Fame

    7,329
    627
    443
    Apr 24, 2007
    St. Augustine, FL
    What are you arguing about! Just watch it or don't. It's interesting and first-hand accounts you can view with your own two eyes. Or just live in the bubble created by this "article" that seems to give you so much comfort. I don't really give a crap. Sorry for making the mistake of sharing something I thought you might enjoy. And which adds to the conversation.

    But, I get it. You like to be obtuse.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. Mar 7, 2025 at 11:16 AM #20
    duggers_dad

    duggers_dad GC Hall of Fame

    18,156
    1,296
    2,088
    Jan 5, 2022
    I hope your intrepid radiation-hunters had the presence of mind to toss their neck-gaters in the wash afterwards.
     
Page 1 of 4