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
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.
Again, I’m not questioning the destructive power. That was always reason enough to avoid poking the Bear.
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.
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.
I'm guessing the issue here would be scale. I.E. Two tiny bombs vs. hundreds if not thousands of hydrogen bombs.
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.
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.
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.”
Article says animal life thriving, exclusion zone is safe for tourists and people are living in it. Now, inside the people, perhaps.
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.
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.
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.
I hope your intrepid radiation-hunters had the presence of mind to toss their neck-gaters in the wash afterwards.
