5 ms·

My dad witnessed one of the Bikini Atoll nuclear bomb tests and was on the Atoll 24 hours later measuring background radiation. He never got cancer and lived t

My dad witnessed one of the Bikini Atoll nuclear bomb tests and was on the Atoll 24 hours later measuring background radiation. He never got cancer and lived till he was 83 and died of old age with his organs just shutting down. He was almost never sick. Many of the people that were with him died early of cancer. I hope I have some of his gene pool protection. He also worked on the Manhattan project. He really never wanted to talk about either experience other than the days when he was assigned to the Manhattan project but before then got to Oakridge Tenn. He had some funny stories to tell about being stationed in NYC before transport to Tenn. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Atoll

mabbo 9y ago
Could be a bit of selection bias there. Of the people at Bikini Atoll during the testing, just randomly some were more susceptible to radiation and sickness, others less. Those that were more susceptible died sooner, those that weren't lived long enough to be your father.
- cm2012 9y ago
  That's what OP said.
  - nv-vn 9y ago
    I think the GP means the OP's father survived long enough for OP to be born, so from OP's perspective it looks like his father had good genetics. The selection bias is that none of the children of those who died early would exist, so only the children of those lucky enough to live a long time could say their parents must've had good genes.
- DonHopkins 9y ago
  How many fathers do you think he has?
  - phreeza 9y ago
    Wouldn't the more appropriate question be 'how many people commenting on this thread know someone who was at the bikini tests'?
  - Retric 9y ago
    It's not about him. It's the odds that someone would have children from that original group. Consider, it's in no way an unusual event for lotteries to have winners. Further someone can increase their odds of winning by buying a lot of tickets. However, winners are unlikely to buy thousands of tickets for that drawing because the pool of people that buy a few tickets are vastly higher than the pool of people that buy thousands of tickets to each drawing. So, just because one guy did not get cancer does not mean he has unusual DNA. Granted, the odds of him having some anti cancer mutation is probably higher than the general population.
    - DonHopkins 9y ago
      So you mean he's luckier because he has lots of fathers, therefore more lottery tickets, thus increasing the chance that at least one of his fathers will live a long life without getting cancer?
      - Retric 9y ago
        No, "It's not about him."
  - bbctol 9y ago
    Doesn't matter from our probabilistic perspective. Odds of seeing someone with a father who survived atomic testing is different from odds that your father survived atomic testing.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- komali2 9y ago
  Responses to your downvoted post: "It can't be selection bias because OP only has one father." Come on, folks. It is selection bias, because we wouldn't hear a "my dad survived" story if his dad didn't survive. Otherwise known as "survivorship bias," which is a form of selection bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - usrusr 9y ago
    Only if the deaths (or more correctly: any effects harsh enough to impede mating) happen before the typical age of becoming a parent. If it's just "live healthy to very old age" vs "cancer at fifty", then there is no selection bias since our anecdata here is based on the next generation.
    - komali2 9y ago
      Even if he successfully birthed a child, the child wouldn't come here to tell a survivor story if he died of cancer at 50 (probably)
- drak0n1c 9y ago
  Or it's how the photons happened to hit his body. They might have hit in just the right way to not do cancer-causing DNA damage, or if that did happen, then those cells weren't influential or died or were terminated by the immune system by pure luck (he could have had the same level of "immunity" as those who happened to die because their system simply had an unlucky miss).
afterburner 9y ago
In addition to genetics, it can just be luck. Radiation damage is a probability game.
- felipemnoa 9y ago
  >>it can just be luck You beat me to it. It is probably just luck. Some people do win the lottery, after all.
  - radicaldreamer 9y ago
    Yep, there were many people who were seemingly unaffected but in very close proximity to Chernobyl (employees of the plant), mostly likely due to sheer luck.
- spathi_fwiffo 9y ago
  luck could be genetic, as posited in Niven's Ringworld.
epalmer 9y ago
In terms of the comments below I'm still of the mind that I have the chance for good genes. That gives me hope and maybe the Placebo Effect will kick in.
rootusrootus 9y ago
Heck, I wonder if my dad knew your dad ;-). My dad also witnessed a number of nuclear tests, include at Bikini Atoll, and his ship went in to take measurements shortly after the explosion (he was a meteorologist in the Navy). He's 84 now and he will die before too much longer of old age, not cancer. (he also lived near Hanford, played with mercury as a kid, smoked a pipe his entire life... he's been lucky)
- epalmer 9y ago
  My dad had become a civilian employee at that time. Union Carbide I think. William Gerald Palmer (Jerry). It would be very cool if they knew each other. Dad was on a ship 10 miles from the blast. I played with Mercury as a kid. I hope I am lucky.
  - tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
    Pure liquid mercury is not especially toxic so you're probably fine. That said it is damn stupid for kids to play around with it. Lead is probably worse. I did a lot of soldering as a kid (like, from age 7 or so) and my ventilation/hygiene practices around it were far from ideal. I would not allow my kid to have that kind of exposure. If he needs to solder, then he needs to get a bench with proper ventilation and be scrupulous about clean-up and hygiene. Leadless solder is another thing but it has its own problems. Probably better is to do any electronic stuff in a format that doesn't involve soldering at least until more mature. These days it is not so important, though I expect it to be a useful tool indefinitely. All about proper balance.
- ruste 9y ago
  Interesting tangent, as I understand it smoking a pipe isn't particularly dangerous compared to cigarettes, snuff, chewing tobacco, cigars, etc. When smoking a pipe the only contact with carcinogens is the smoke in your mouth. Chances of lung cancer aren't greatly increased as you shouldn't be inhaling and rates of mouth and throat cancers are only marginally increased. The chances of mouth and throat cancers are increased much less than if you were to chew tobacco or smoke cigars as both of those involve direct contact between the tobacco product and your lip. The biggest risk due to pipe smoking is heart disease due to nicotine. If you only smoke occasionally and choose tobaccos with lower nicotine content the risk here is negligible as well.

mabbo 9y ago

Could be a bit of selection bias there. Of the people at Bikini Atoll during the testing, just randomly some were more susceptible to radiation and sickness, others less. Those that were more susceptible died sooner, those that weren't lived long enough to be your father.

cm2012 9y ago
That's what OP said.
- nv-vn 9y ago
  I think the GP means the OP's father survived long enough for OP to be born, so from OP's perspective it looks like his father had good genetics. The selection bias is that none of the children of those who died early would exist, so only the children of those lucky enough to live a long time could say their parents must've had good genes.
DonHopkins 9y ago
How many fathers do you think he has?
- phreeza 9y ago
  Wouldn't the more appropriate question be 'how many people commenting on this thread know someone who was at the bikini tests'?
- Retric 9y ago
  It's not about him. It's the odds that someone would have children from that original group. Consider, it's in no way an unusual event for lotteries to have winners. Further someone can increase their odds of winning by buying a lot of tickets. However, winners are unlikely to buy thousands of tickets for that drawing because the pool of people that buy a few tickets are vastly higher than the pool of people that buy thousands of tickets to each drawing. So, just because one guy did not get cancer does not mean he has unusual DNA. Granted, the odds of him having some anti cancer mutation is probably higher than the general population.
  - DonHopkins 9y ago
    So you mean he's luckier because he has lots of fathers, therefore more lottery tickets, thus increasing the chance that at least one of his fathers will live a long life without getting cancer?
    - Retric 9y ago
      No, "It's not about him."
- bbctol 9y ago
  Doesn't matter from our probabilistic perspective. Odds of seeing someone with a father who survived atomic testing is different from odds that your father survived atomic testing.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
komali2 9y ago
Responses to your downvoted post: "It can't be selection bias because OP only has one father." Come on, folks. It is selection bias, because we wouldn't hear a "my dad survived" story if his dad didn't survive. Otherwise known as "survivorship bias," which is a form of selection bias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- usrusr 9y ago
  Only if the deaths (or more correctly: any effects harsh enough to impede mating) happen before the typical age of becoming a parent. If it's just "live healthy to very old age" vs "cancer at fifty", then there is no selection bias since our anecdata here is based on the next generation.
  - komali2 9y ago
    Even if he successfully birthed a child, the child wouldn't come here to tell a survivor story if he died of cancer at 50 (probably)
drak0n1c 9y ago
Or it's how the photons happened to hit his body. They might have hit in just the right way to not do cancer-causing DNA damage, or if that did happen, then those cells weren't influential or died or were terminated by the immune system by pure luck (he could have had the same level of "immunity" as those who happened to die because their system simply had an unlucky miss).

afterburner 9y ago

In addition to genetics, it can just be luck. Radiation damage is a probability game.

felipemnoa 9y ago
>>it can just be luck You beat me to it. It is probably just luck. Some people do win the lottery, after all.
- radicaldreamer 9y ago
  Yep, there were many people who were seemingly unaffected but in very close proximity to Chernobyl (employees of the plant), mostly likely due to sheer luck.
spathi_fwiffo 9y ago
luck could be genetic, as posited in Niven's Ringworld.

epalmer 9y ago

In terms of the comments below I'm still of the mind that I have the chance for good genes. That gives me hope and maybe the Placebo Effect will kick in.

rootusrootus 9y ago

Heck, I wonder if my dad knew your dad ;-). My dad also witnessed a number of nuclear tests, include at Bikini Atoll, and his ship went in to take measurements shortly after the explosion (he was a meteorologist in the Navy). He's 84 now and he will die before too much longer of old age, not cancer. (he also lived near Hanford, played with mercury as a kid, smoked a pipe his entire life... he's been lucky)

epalmer 9y ago
My dad had become a civilian employee at that time. Union Carbide I think. William Gerald Palmer (Jerry). It would be very cool if they knew each other. Dad was on a ship 10 miles from the blast. I played with Mercury as a kid. I hope I am lucky.
- tgjsrkghruksd 9y ago
  Pure liquid mercury is not especially toxic so you're probably fine. That said it is damn stupid for kids to play around with it. Lead is probably worse. I did a lot of soldering as a kid (like, from age 7 or so) and my ventilation/hygiene practices around it were far from ideal. I would not allow my kid to have that kind of exposure. If he needs to solder, then he needs to get a bench with proper ventilation and be scrupulous about clean-up and hygiene. Leadless solder is another thing but it has its own problems. Probably better is to do any electronic stuff in a format that doesn't involve soldering at least until more mature. These days it is not so important, though I expect it to be a useful tool indefinitely. All about proper balance.
ruste 9y ago
Interesting tangent, as I understand it smoking a pipe isn't particularly dangerous compared to cigarettes, snuff, chewing tobacco, cigars, etc. When smoking a pipe the only contact with carcinogens is the smoke in your mouth. Chances of lung cancer aren't greatly increased as you shouldn't be inhaling and rates of mouth and throat cancers are only marginally increased. The chances of mouth and throat cancers are increased much less than if you were to chew tobacco or smoke cigars as both of those involve direct contact between the tobacco product and your lip. The biggest risk due to pipe smoking is heart disease due to nicotine. If you only smoke occasionally and choose tobaccos with lower nicotine content the risk here is negligible as well.