7 ms·

Don't forget about radiation exposure from nuclear weapons (including test bombs here in the US) that will continue to cause cancer deaths among people that are

Don't forget about radiation exposure from nuclear weapons (including test bombs here in the US) that will continue to cause cancer deaths among people that are alive today. This map shows just how many people were exposed to fallout from a single nuclear test: http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.aspx?key=xi6i6nJGw48vKULXvfEIZOOm8IOPKgCE http://www.americanscientist.org/include/popup_fullImage.asp...

angersock 10y ago
There is a qualitative difference between stepping on a land mine and maybe--possibly!--having a higher chance of getting cancer.
- komali2 10y ago
  The lesson we can learn from the poisoned battlefields of WWI can be applied as a counter-argument to anyone saying we should nuke something - consider not only the short term implications of the nuke, but the long term effect on local and global environments.
  - mangeletti 10y ago
    And on the flip side... they didn't have nukes, so they used all that artillery.
    - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
      s/nukes/tanks
      - Millennium 10y ago
        s/tanks/mines
      - bashinator 10y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but the tank was invented in WWI.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  The only difference is how easy it is to aim the blame. Thousands of people are dying either way.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- 7952 10y ago
  But both issues relate to death or injury within a larger population. The chance of getting killed by most risks is very small, but the magnitude of the impact is obviously massive. The end result (death) is the same. It is reasonable to feel aggrieved about risk you have not consented to simply because it is an injustice. Perhaps the injustice won't be visited upon me in particular but that is not the point.
jomamaxx 10y ago
There follow on health effects from nuclear testing on the continental USA are negligible. You're more at risk getting an x-ray at the dentists office.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Source? Also, why specify the continental US? Is irresponsible offshore testing somehow okay?
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    You can look up your own source. If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject. A small distance away from 'ground zero' of the nuclear test sites there is basically zero difference in background radiation from elsewhere in the US in 2016. Here's some data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/10/the-health-effects-of-a-nuclear-test-can-last-decades/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/10/the-h... This is from Norway - they were close to the very large and frankly unsafe tests the Russians did. It claims some health-hazard, but then admit that the effective exposure of the population from all that testing was the equivalent of 2 medical x-rays. Not entirely benign, but not a massive health hazard either - and this is back in the 1950's right after the testing was done. The lingering effects from nuclear testing in SE USA are really, really small and from a health perspective, completely irrelevant. An airline pilot will be exposed to significantly more radiation than anyone living near the test sites. I mentioned 'continental testing' because most testing in the US is not 'high yield'. The tests they did out in the Pacific were orders of magnitude greater, and there are almost zero health effects for anyone but the surrounding animals, granted the effects on sea life is not immaterial. In the grand scheme of things, nuclear tests are a non-starter in terms of public health. Nothing has come of it. Nuclear energy is a little bit of a different story, but even there there is a lot of hysteria and misinformation.
    - jomamaxx 10y ago
      "Is irresponsible offshore testing somehow okay? reply" What is more irresponsible - having the world taken over by a ruthless Empire that has invaded an occupied dozens of nations, and actively overthrowing states to install vassal dictators? Or taking steps to ensure that this does not happen? The 'cold war' was not a choice. It was the result of the occupation of vast territories by the Soviets who chose to globalize their Imperial military revolution. The 'balance of power' in the world is a fact, it cannot be ignored. Power vacuums imbalances are what cause war. Stable equilibriums create peace. Peace is not created by ignoring the facts. The dangers of nuclear technology are in their use as weapons, and partially it's use as an energy source. The health hazards of nuclear testing have been effectively negligible. In contrast to the 100 000 000 who died and 100's of millions injured in world war 2, a tiny increase in the possibility of someone getting cancer is basically besides the point. My friend, in the 1950's there were no seat belts in cars! Think of how many actual and recorded fatalities an injuries ensued? That was an actual 'health hazard'.
colechristensen 10y ago
>This map shows just how many people were exposed to fallout from a single nuclear test: No it doesn't. That map shows the wind disbursement of detectable fallout over a course of days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospher... That map shows how exposure was effected. It notes that today background radiation is increased by 5µSv per year. xkcd helps us understand it https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ So the yearly increased dose from testing... is like getting a dental x-ray, taking a short flight, eating 50 bananas, or spending 4 days in Colorado.
- samatman 10y ago
  While true, that doesn't account for the many millions of older people who were exposed to much higher levels of radiation closer to the tests. Many of whom will die of cancers caused by that higher level of exposure.
  - ekianjo 10y ago
    Contamination from nuclear weapons is not a binary thing. Basically the worst form of contamination is your breathe air with radioactive particles or eat veggies growing in radioactively contaminated soil. Depending on your level of exposure the effects vary widely so pretending cancer is very likely is not really true.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  The most serious fallout damage from a US test was Castle Bravo[1], which had a yield roughly triple the predicted yield, so the damage from fallout was much worse than they had originally predicted. Most of the other tests did not cause significant increases to cancer risk for all but those very close to the tests 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Fallout
- dyne 10y ago
  True unless you are doing something to concentrate the radiation, like drinking milk from a backyard cow. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100835/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100835/

angersock 10y ago

There is a qualitative difference between stepping on a land mine and maybe--possibly!--having a higher chance of getting cancer.

komali2 10y ago
The lesson we can learn from the poisoned battlefields of WWI can be applied as a counter-argument to anyone saying we should nuke something - consider not only the short term implications of the nuke, but the long term effect on local and global environments.
- mangeletti 10y ago
  And on the flip side... they didn't have nukes, so they used all that artillery.
  - semi-extrinsic 10y ago
    s/nukes/tanks
    - Millennium 10y ago
      s/tanks/mines
    - bashinator 10y ago
      I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but the tank was invented in WWI.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
The only difference is how easy it is to aim the blame. Thousands of people are dying either way.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
7952 10y ago
But both issues relate to death or injury within a larger population. The chance of getting killed by most risks is very small, but the magnitude of the impact is obviously massive. The end result (death) is the same. It is reasonable to feel aggrieved about risk you have not consented to simply because it is an injustice. Perhaps the injustice won't be visited upon me in particular but that is not the point.

jomamaxx 10y ago

There follow on health effects from nuclear testing on the continental USA are negligible. You're more at risk getting an x-ray at the dentists office.

PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Source? Also, why specify the continental US? Is irresponsible offshore testing somehow okay?
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  You can look up your own source. If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject. A small distance away from 'ground zero' of the nuclear test sites there is basically zero difference in background radiation from elsewhere in the US in 2016. Here's some data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/10/the-health-effects-of-a-nuclear-test-can-last-decades/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/10/the-h... This is from Norway - they were close to the very large and frankly unsafe tests the Russians did. It claims some health-hazard, but then admit that the effective exposure of the population from all that testing was the equivalent of 2 medical x-rays. Not entirely benign, but not a massive health hazard either - and this is back in the 1950's right after the testing was done. The lingering effects from nuclear testing in SE USA are really, really small and from a health perspective, completely irrelevant. An airline pilot will be exposed to significantly more radiation than anyone living near the test sites. I mentioned 'continental testing' because most testing in the US is not 'high yield'. The tests they did out in the Pacific were orders of magnitude greater, and there are almost zero health effects for anyone but the surrounding animals, granted the effects on sea life is not immaterial. In the grand scheme of things, nuclear tests are a non-starter in terms of public health. Nothing has come of it. Nuclear energy is a little bit of a different story, but even there there is a lot of hysteria and misinformation.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "Is irresponsible offshore testing somehow okay? reply" What is more irresponsible - having the world taken over by a ruthless Empire that has invaded an occupied dozens of nations, and actively overthrowing states to install vassal dictators? Or taking steps to ensure that this does not happen? The 'cold war' was not a choice. It was the result of the occupation of vast territories by the Soviets who chose to globalize their Imperial military revolution. The 'balance of power' in the world is a fact, it cannot be ignored. Power vacuums imbalances are what cause war. Stable equilibriums create peace. Peace is not created by ignoring the facts. The dangers of nuclear technology are in their use as weapons, and partially it's use as an energy source. The health hazards of nuclear testing have been effectively negligible. In contrast to the 100 000 000 who died and 100's of millions injured in world war 2, a tiny increase in the possibility of someone getting cancer is basically besides the point. My friend, in the 1950's there were no seat belts in cars! Think of how many actual and recorded fatalities an injuries ensued? That was an actual 'health hazard'.

colechristensen 10y ago

>This map shows just how many people were exposed to fallout from a single nuclear test: No it doesn't. That map shows the wind disbursement of detectable fallout over a course of days. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospheric_nuclear_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation#Atmospher... That map shows how exposure was effected. It notes that today background radiation is increased by 5µSv per year. xkcd helps us understand it https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/ So the yearly increased dose from testing... is like getting a dental x-ray, taking a short flight, eating 50 bananas, or spending 4 days in Colorado.

samatman 10y ago
While true, that doesn't account for the many millions of older people who were exposed to much higher levels of radiation closer to the tests. Many of whom will die of cancers caused by that higher level of exposure.
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Contamination from nuclear weapons is not a binary thing. Basically the worst form of contamination is your breathe air with radioactive particles or eat veggies growing in radioactively contaminated soil. Depending on your level of exposure the effects vary widely so pretending cancer is very likely is not really true.
aidenn0 10y ago
The most serious fallout damage from a US test was Castle Bravo[1], which had a yield roughly triple the predicted yield, so the damage from fallout was much worse than they had originally predicted. Most of the other tests did not cause significant increases to cancer risk for all but those very close to the tests 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Fallout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Bravo#Fallout
dyne 10y ago
True unless you are doing something to concentrate the radiation, like drinking milk from a backyard cow. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100835/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK100835/