The article says that the video is from [the National Security Archive][1]. Does anyone know where exactly the raw video can be downloaded? [1]: http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/ebb332/index.htm
Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
21–30 of 118 posts
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#22It's amazing how these men have went on to live such long lives. As someone who has only cursory knowledge of atomic explosions and radiation damage, I was always under the impression that standing under an explosion such as this would almost guarantee a death during or shortly after. I suppose it's a lot like HIV. Unprotected sex with an HIV positive person doesn't * guarantee* disease contraction, which is the impr…
"The United States conducted around 1,054 nuclear tests (by official count) between 1945 and 1992.... The Soviet Union conducted 715 nuclear tests (by official count)[3] between 1949 and 1990... France conducted 210 nuclear tests between February 13, 1960 and January 27, 1996..."
Fallout isn't as dangerous as it is commonly portrayed, the bomb's effects are often overstated on every dimension, etc.
But of course, who really wants to go out of their way to correct the record? A number of people reading this will find a strong emotional inclination to leap to the conclusion that this post is pro-nuclear-war advocacy or something. But the truth is that while nukes can't destroy the world or destroy the entire ecosystem (even "nuclear winter" is highly questionable, especially in light of subsequent experiences with high-atmosphere particles, such as in the Kuwait oil fires), they still can kill millions directly and effectively destroy civilization as we know it by wiping out potentially every major city in the world (and get a good bit of damage on the medium-sized ones, too), killing billions more. Perhaps it isn't so bad that the dangers are played up a bit. The real dangers they pose are much harder to understand than the Hollywood B-grade movie version in popular culture, but still quite bad.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#23Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#24It's amazing how these men have went on to live such long lives. As someone who has only cursory knowledge of atomic explosions and radiation damage, I was always under the impression that standing under an explosion such as this would almost guarantee a death during or shortly after. I suppose it's a lot like HIV. Unprotected sex with an HIV positive person doesn't * guarantee* disease contraction, which is the impr…
If you read up on the history of the era and combine that with a study of the real effects of nuclear bombs, it becomes evident that there was an uncoordinated, but nevertheless systematic, effort to grossly overstate the dangers of nuclear war. A game of "Telephone" [1] was played, where at each step the nukes got more dangerous. If nukes were as dangerous to the world as popular culture today imagines, there would…
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#25Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#26I remember seeing some statistics when I lived in St. George 15 years ago (like high school dropouts) from 18 years after the tests. There was a huge increase in dropouts (and other negative indicators) as the downwinder babies reached adulthood.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#27> "Quite a few have died from cancer," he told reporter Bill Broad. "No doubt it was related to the testing." Is there really no doubt? I didn't see any more details in the article pertaining to the deaths, but for the sake of not implying that correlation == causation, I would point out that most cancer patients were never involved in nuclear testing (and, conversely, the cameraman who said the above also shows cont…
As the saying goes (roughly): "correlation doesn't equal causation, but it's a good place to start looking". Are cancer incidence rates higher among those around nuclear explosions? Yes. http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/radiation/health-effects/rad-ex... Is there a plausible mechanism by which radiation exposure leads to cancer? yes. http://hss.energy.gov/healthsafety/ohre/roadmap/achre/intro_... These two facts greatly…
Sometimes I think correlation not only doesn't equal causation, but counters causation, like a son doing well not because of his overbearing mother, but in spite of it. (She would claim the credit anyhow.) - I've read about vaccines causing diseases they are proclaimed to guard against - "weaponized vaccines."
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#28If you want more details on the "Downwinders", this is a pretty good piece: http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nuclear... I remember seeing some statistics when I lived in St. George 15 years ago (like high school dropouts) from 18 years after the tests. There was a huge increase in dropouts (and other negative indicators) as the downwinder babies reached adulthood.
In my country, the children close to the oil refinery have the same behaviour, from heavy metal poisoning.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read up on the history of the era and combine that with a study of the real effects of nuclear bombs, it becomes evident that there was an uncoordinated, but nevertheless systematic, effort to grossly overstate the dangers of nuclear war. A game of "Telephone" [1] was played, where at each step the nukes got more dangerous. If nukes were as dangerous to the world as popular culture today imagines, there would…
As a former nuclear submarine officer, and current complete pacifist, I completely agree that the threat of nukes is WAY overblown. For example, much bigger threats to the modern world exist in the forms of uncontrolled small arms trading.
Re: Five Men Agree To Stand Directly Under An Exploding Nuclear Bomb
#30If you want more details on the "Downwinders", this is a pretty good piece: http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/utah_today/nuclear... I remember seeing some statistics when I lived in St. George 15 years ago (like high school dropouts) from 18 years after the tests. There was a huge increase in dropouts (and other negative indicators) as the downwinder babies reached adulthood.
http://www.amazon.com/American-Ground-Zero-Secret-Nuclear/dp...
It's abundantly clear that the people near the Nevada Test Site suffered hugely from cancer because of these aboveground tests. This national shame is documented in disturbing detail in the book. (It has 11 reviews on Amazon, all 5-star reviews.)
Some shots were particularly dirty, with unexpectedly much fallout. They couldn't/didn't predict this in advance, it was just bad luck if you happened to be nearby when one of these dirty tests went off.