4 ms·

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 nuc

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'.
- rapind 10y ago
  "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?" Wait, isn't this still happening or are you referring to the Soviet Union?
  - zaroth 10y ago
    But his point, modern warfare saving us from the unfathomable horrors of the World Wars, is well worth even the true cost of the fallout from the nuclear testing.
    - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
      If we're considering the potential cost of wars that didn't happen, we also need to consider the possibility for the Cold War to have escalated into nuclear Armageddon.
      - zaroth 10y ago
        Quite certainly true. The ultimate and most insane gamble... which appears to have paid off, for now?
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
> If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject. Well, yes, obviously. That's why I asked. > 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. That is such a misrepresentation that you are basically lying. The article says the effective exposure was equivalent to sixty X-ray mammograms, or two whole-body CT scans. A single CT scan has an estimated 1/2000 chance of causing a fatal cancer[1], a reasonable risk if it's used to diagnose a much more dangerous existing condition. The population of Norway in 1956 was 3,460,000--that means ~3,500 deaths from the equivalent of two unnecessary CT scans, in Norway alone. Additionally, from your article, "Exposure to nuclear radiation during months three and four of pregnancy [due to fallout over Norway, 1956-1966] was associated with reduced educational attainment, high school completion, and adult earnings. Such exposures were also associated with reduced IQ scores among boys at 18 years of age. A one standard deviation increase in ground exposure reduced high school completion by about 1 percentage-point among men, and by about 2 percentage points among women." > 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 This is also a complete lie. Read any account of Castle Bravo alone, and the radiation poisoning and birth defects inflicted on the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, which the US government covered up for decades. [1] http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/ct-scans-fact-sheet#r2 http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/ct-scan...
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  You're accusing me of lying, then you lie? The exposure of the Norwegians was 2 medical xrays. Thanks for pointing out that mammograms require less exposure, it's irrelevant. Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact. This means there was no health crises. " "Exposure to nuclear radiation during months three and four of pregnancy [due to fallout over Norway, 1956-1966] was associated with reduced educational attainment, high school completion, and adult earnings. " Causation is not correlation. Do grasp how many factors over an entire nation and culture affect 'learning of young children'? There are innumerable. To posit that this one minor thing was the driving factor is completely unfounded. Laughably, you would have saved far more lives by requiring seat belts be worn in the USA during that time. Where is the scandal? There isn't one because we had different views of health and safety, moreover, we had no understanding of the ill health effects of radiation, though we should have for seat belts. The nuclear program was essential to balancing power during the cold war. The US government did absolutely the right thing. And I'm saying this as a non-American.
Gibbon1 10y ago
> If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject. If think of exposure to radio isotopes in terms of 'chest x-rays' you need to study more.

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'.

rapind 10y ago
"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?" Wait, isn't this still happening or are you referring to the Soviet Union?
- zaroth 10y ago
  But his point, modern warfare saving us from the unfathomable horrors of the World Wars, is well worth even the true cost of the fallout from the nuclear testing.
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    If we're considering the potential cost of wars that didn't happen, we also need to consider the possibility for the Cold War to have escalated into nuclear Armageddon.
    - zaroth 10y ago
      Quite certainly true. The ultimate and most insane gamble... which appears to have paid off, for now?

PhasmaFelis 10y ago

> If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject. Well, yes, obviously. That's why I asked. > 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. That is such a misrepresentation that you are basically lying. The article says the effective exposure was equivalent to sixty X-ray mammograms, or two whole-body CT scans. A single CT scan has an estimated 1/2000 chance of causing a fatal cancer[1], a reasonable risk if it's used to diagnose a much more dangerous existing condition. The population of Norway in 1956 was 3,460,000--that means ~3,500 deaths from the equivalent of two unnecessary CT scans, in Norway alone. Additionally, from your article, "Exposure to nuclear radiation during months three and four of pregnancy [due to fallout over Norway, 1956-1966] was associated with reduced educational attainment, high school completion, and adult earnings. Such exposures were also associated with reduced IQ scores among boys at 18 years of age. A one standard deviation increase in ground exposure reduced high school completion by about 1 percentage-point among men, and by about 2 percentage points among women." > 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 This is also a complete lie. Read any account of Castle Bravo alone, and the radiation poisoning and birth defects inflicted on the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, which the US government covered up for decades. [1] http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/ct-scans-fact-sheet#r2 http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/ct-scan...

jomamaxx 10y ago
You're accusing me of lying, then you lie? The exposure of the Norwegians was 2 medical xrays. Thanks for pointing out that mammograms require less exposure, it's irrelevant. Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact. This means there was no health crises. " "Exposure to nuclear radiation during months three and four of pregnancy [due to fallout over Norway, 1956-1966] was associated with reduced educational attainment, high school completion, and adult earnings. " Causation is not correlation. Do grasp how many factors over an entire nation and culture affect 'learning of young children'? There are innumerable. To posit that this one minor thing was the driving factor is completely unfounded. Laughably, you would have saved far more lives by requiring seat belts be worn in the USA during that time. Where is the scandal? There isn't one because we had different views of health and safety, moreover, we had no understanding of the ill health effects of radiation, though we should have for seat belts. The nuclear program was essential to balancing power during the cold war. The US government did absolutely the right thing. And I'm saying this as a non-American.

Gibbon1 10y ago

> If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject. If think of exposure to radio isotopes in terms of 'chest x-rays' you need to study more.