3 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- dpark 10y ago
  You are clearly and intentionally being misleading. I'm kind of embarrassed for you. > The exposure of the Norwegians was 2 medical xrays A whole body CT scan delivers way significantly more radiation than a typical "medical xrays". "The authors cite estimates that Norwegians in the hardest-hit areas were exposed to an annual radiation dose equivalent to about twice the dose one would receive from a whole-body computed tomography (CT) scan, and about 60 times the external dose from an X-ray mammogram." Come on. That's not the same as getting an X Ray for a broken bone. This is a 1/1000 chance of fatal cancer directly from the radiation exposure.
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  Spare me your outrage. You used deliberately vague language to make a dangerous procedure used only in cases of pressing need sound like something safe and routine. This is playground lawyer stuff. You're not fooling anyone. > Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact. No, now you're straight-up lying again. Norwegian exposure was double that of a dangerous and uncommon medical procedure. And then you're completely ignoring my point about the Castle Bravo disaster and cover-up, and deploying argument-by-distraction. (Car crash deaths are bad! Therefore, cancer deaths don't matter!) Let's get back to the original point. You said: "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." I clearly can't trust your unsourced statements on this subject, so I really would like to see a credible source, please.

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.

dpark 10y ago
You are clearly and intentionally being misleading. I'm kind of embarrassed for you. > The exposure of the Norwegians was 2 medical xrays A whole body CT scan delivers way significantly more radiation than a typical "medical xrays". "The authors cite estimates that Norwegians in the hardest-hit areas were exposed to an annual radiation dose equivalent to about twice the dose one would receive from a whole-body computed tomography (CT) scan, and about 60 times the external dose from an X-ray mammogram." Come on. That's not the same as getting an X Ray for a broken bone. This is a 1/1000 chance of fatal cancer directly from the radiation exposure.
PhasmaFelis 10y ago
Spare me your outrage. You used deliberately vague language to make a dangerous procedure used only in cases of pressing need sound like something safe and routine. This is playground lawyer stuff. You're not fooling anyone. > Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact. No, now you're straight-up lying again. Norwegian exposure was double that of a dangerous and uncommon medical procedure. And then you're completely ignoring my point about the Castle Bravo disaster and cover-up, and deploying argument-by-distraction. (Car crash deaths are bad! Therefore, cancer deaths don't matter!) Let's get back to the original point. You said: "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." I clearly can't trust your unsourced statements on this subject, so I really would like to see a credible source, please.