Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 60 posts

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#21

Post by orwin »

boudin wrote: post #15
bpodgursky wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know these territories regularly vote on independence, right? https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/375335/tahi... And the answer is usually "no", because most of these islands are poor and get net funding and support from France (or whatever other country holds sovereignty).

If you're talking about New Caledonia it's as really biased view. It was a special agreement following a stron crisis with the Kanak independance mouvement that allowed to agree on 3 independance votes. There's a big difference in votes between the people from metropolitan France and a much stronger support for independance in the Kanak population. We'll see next year what's the result is going to be, but the last on…

Kanak and new Caledonia is a very hard problem to solve, for France but especially for residents. The issue is more about identity and origin than independance at that point (but freedom is nice to have in any case).

The past referendum results mean nothing, they were not rejected because people did not want to be free, but because they don't know who they are. And an independence vote won't be like Brexit, France actually agreed to let new Caledonia resident keep their french passport and rights if they chose to go independent, the effective change will by that social services, police, healthcare will be run by New Caledonia people, but it won't change private rights until next generation. Its a hard question anyway.

I've stayed a year in French polynesia small islands (and ocean, mostly ocean...), i'm pretty sure the only islands that want to leave are the ones with the international airports (and i'm not sure about Bora Bora, never went there). Those with offshore ressources especially don't seem to trust the independence party for whatever reason (it might have changed since then).

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#22

Post by lostlogin »

Bayart wrote: post #18
lostlogin wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because it's in Algeria Wasn’t it more in the south pacific? There was a need to underestimate radiation doses so as to undercut our opposition. When we made the fuss those in power in France took the time to send a military team to bomb a Greenpeace ship in Auckland, killing someone. They followed up with economic sanctions when we caught their amateur operatives, and later gave the soldiers medals for the murder…

When were we ever « friends » with New-Zealand ? It's not even in NATO. The only relationship we ever had was being part of the so-called West I suppose, although that never prevented us from going to war with our neighbours.

I do think you could call the countries friendly toward each other. Plenty of New Zealanders have died fighting in France (though at the bidding of our colonial overlords) and the countries have largely got on outside of this dark period.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#23

Post by sjg007 »

dr_faustus wrote: post #8

1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).

Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out.

I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing several pushy dentists over the course of a few years who in retrospect focused on the money. One of the dentists I saw was busted by the FBI for insurance fraud.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#24

Post by 09bjb »

sjg007 wrote: post #23
dr_faustus wrote: post #8

1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).

Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out. I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing se…

I would love to have this conversation with my dentist but don't have much data to back it up at the moment. Do you have any good sources?

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#25

Post by sudosysgen »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #20
sudosysgen wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no real incentive to estimate accurately because it's in Algeria, which the French did not care much for.

When Algeria was French performing nuclear tests there in the Sahara was not much different from the US performing nuclear tests in Nevada/New Mexico. The British performed tests in Australia for the same reason. It was not a question of 'caring' but simply that it was sufficiently big and empty while still being accessible to be deemed an acceptable option taking into account that having nukes was a top strategic pr…

Unlike Nevada and New Mexico, there were actually people living in those deserts. Surprising, I know, and yes there aren't that many.

The biggest issue is that the Algerian people did not support the tests.

As for the agreement with the Algerian government, it was signed during wartime. Allowing the tests was a condition without which France would have killed more people.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#27

Post by sjg007 »

09bjb wrote: post #24
sjg007 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out. I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing se…

I would love to have this conversation with my dentist but don't have much data to back it up at the moment. Do you have any good sources?

Just look at the American academy or association of dentistry recommendations. I forget the name but it’s the scientific organization that accredits dental education etc..

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#28

Post by jessaustin »

sjg007 wrote: post #23
dr_faustus wrote: post #8

1 mSv is a pretty low threshold. It's actually a bit more than 10x the radiation of a thorax x-ray done with modern equipment. But its 1/10 of a thorax ct. It's also less than the yearly difference between the exposure of people living in regions with low and high natural radiation here in Germany (which, as has far as could be determined, has no impact on the cancer rate).

Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out. I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing se…

...I wait 3-5 years...

You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the issue at all!

Modern dental x-rays involve minuscule radiation levels.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#29

Post by redis_mlc »

jessaustin wrote: post #28
sjg007 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't get 10x thorax xrays done in their life. If you have a reason to get those xrays fine... But in general there's a cancer risk so just multiply it out. I don't get dental xrays every year and I wait 3-5 years to actually have one. And I never have had a problem. You should only get an xray after the dental exam indicates a problem and you trust your dentist. I learnt this the hard way after seeing se…

...I wait 3-5 years... You're saving money at both ends! Not only are you not buying X-rays, but it's also fairly likely that by the time a condition is serious enough to cause you pain, the only option left will be to pull the tooth. Extractions are definitely cheaper than fancy procedures like root canals, fillings, and crowns. At some point you might have no teeth remaining, and you won't have to worry about the i…

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but extractions can be cheaper and more effective than root canals, fillings, and crowns.

If you have a tooth with only 2 roots and one of them cracks, then it's better to just remove the tooth. Besides chronic infection that can hemorrhage, it will have to be extracted within 5 years anyway.

With 3 roots and only one cracked, sometimes dental surgeons can do something.

Also, the comment about dental x-rays being a profit center are clearly true. In SV, it's like they put you on a calendar for them, and they're usually done before an exam.

Re: France grossly underestimated radioactive fallout from atom bomb tests, study

#30

Post by marcelpro »

France is unique in the West as one of the few countries that unapologetically holds on to its colonies which it still regards as French territory. It continues to actively permit white settlers to migrate to New Caledonia and French Guiana, subtly ensuring the autonomy referendums are defeated and indigenous populations continue to be suppressed. It will come as no surprise that the French military are also actively involved in these overseas 'training' bases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_France , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_military_bases_of_Fra...
Post reply on HN