4 ms·

How do these issues (threat of death from unexploded ordnance and chemical poisoning of the soil) compare to the damage done by the atomic bombs? The remaining

How do these issues (threat of death from unexploded ordnance and chemical poisoning of the soil) compare to the damage done by the atomic bombs? The remaining fissionable material in the bombs was 139 pounds of U-235 (Little Boy) and 12 pounds of Pu-239 (Fat Man). Essentially atomized and spread into the upper atmosphere, where it spread throughout the global environment and may have caused a hard-to-measure uptick in cancer, but the actual demolished territory is rebuilt and thriving today. Horrifying to think that in the long-term view, the conventional ordnance of the European theater was a bigger threat to human life and ecosystem stability than the atomic bombs.

sevenless 10y ago
There have been about 2,000 nuclear explosions in world history, plus dozens of meltdowns, innumerable leaks, etc. How about the lives that weren't lost as a result of (1) nuclear deterrence preventing wars between great powers (2) nuclear power competing with coal and preventing deaths from air pollution/coal mining/global warming though? > human life and ecosystem stability You're going to have to pick one of those.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  Humans are always more scared of things they can't see. Things like toxic gas and the mythology that built up in mining communities, cursed area/tombs killing people (possibly there are good reasons to avoid these places like biological disease presence). Religion and gods and and allthat carry on - you can't see them but they can hurt you. Radiation, particularly ionising, is somewhere in that collection of hard to understand things. Being able to detect a danger with your own senses is very reassuring.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Who are you arguing with? Fixermark said nothing about nuclear power, and said that the conventional ordnance of WWI was worse than the atomic bombs of WWII, in the long term. You're defending something no one was attacking.

sevenless 10y ago

There have been about 2,000 nuclear explosions in world history, plus dozens of meltdowns, innumerable leaks, etc. How about the lives that weren't lost as a result of (1) nuclear deterrence preventing wars between great powers (2) nuclear power competing with coal and preventing deaths from air pollution/coal mining/global warming though? > human life and ecosystem stability You're going to have to pick one of those.

lostlogin 10y ago
Humans are always more scared of things they can't see. Things like toxic gas and the mythology that built up in mining communities, cursed area/tombs killing people (possibly there are good reasons to avoid these places like biological disease presence). Religion and gods and and allthat carry on - you can't see them but they can hurt you. Radiation, particularly ionising, is somewhere in that collection of hard to understand things. Being able to detect a danger with your own senses is very reassuring.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Who are you arguing with? Fixermark said nothing about nuclear power, and said that the conventional ordnance of WWI was worse than the atomic bombs of WWII, in the long term. You're defending something no one was attacking.