Re: The Lies Of Hiroshima Are The Lies Of Today

On Aug 17, 12:13 pm, Galen Hekhuis <ghekh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 00:16:38 -0700 (PDT), Hiroshima Facts
> <hiroshima_fa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >I am not questioning that there were increased radiation levels
> >beneath the bomb (neutron activation of the sodium practically
> >guarantees it was increased).
>
> >This radiation was not strong enough to cause injury however.
>
> According to some.

According to the scientific community.



> >Test bombs might produce more, or less, neutron-induced radiation
> >depending on a number of factors, including what sort of nuclear
> >processes are used to produce energy in the bombs, how much each
> >bomb's casing absorbs neutrons, how far away from the ground the
> >explosions are, and how much moisture is in the air when each test
> >goes off.
>
> That just seems like common sense, although the composition of the
> bomb casing material is of much less significance than you seem to
> think.

By "casing", I meant all the bomb components that surround the nuclear
materials -- tamper, reflector, implosion assembly, etc, not just the
outer wall of the bomb.



> >Most of what little debris came down, landed downwind from the city.
>
> Or so you've been told.

I trust the scientists of the world.



> >Data that is meant for scientific consumption is not edited for public
> >consumption.
>
> How sweet a notion.  It may come as a shock to you that almost all
> data regarding nuclear warfare is highly classified and edited,
> whether for "scientific" or public consumption.

That depends on the data.  Nuclear weapons blueprints are certainly
classified -- as are the Pentagon's war fighting plans.

Fallout released by past bombs however -- that's public domain.



> >Yes.  That is because the publications are peer reviewed by the
> >scientific community, and only papers that meet credible scientific
> >standards get published.
>
> That may be true in some fields.  It is much less true in atomic
> research and absolutely not true in the field of nuclear warfare.

The papers released by the Japanese scientists who study the radiation
injuries are all peer reviewed by the scientific community, and they
meet credible scientific standards.



> >The push to get a clean device came in the late 50s when we had
> >thermonuclear weapons.
>
> That's when many people first became aware of it.  It didn't just
> happen overnight.  There were people (mainly in the government and in
> the military) that began pushing for a "clean" atomic device from the
> get-go.

There wasn't much to actually push until we had fusion weapons.



> >No, I am saying that the 60,000 estimate is based on data that is
> >known to be wildly inaccurate, and the estimate is not viewed as
> >credible in any way.
>
> Whatever.  They are all ESTIMATES.

One is an estimate based on data that is known to be flawed, and which
is regarded as a totally bogus figure.  The other estimate is based on
the best available data, and is regarded as a plausible figure.



> >Enriched uranium is not nearly toxic enough to serve as a decent dirty
> >bomb material.
>
> >The radioactive material is often presumed to be the fragments of a
> >split atom.
>
> Maybe according to some definition, but any radioactive material will
> suffice in a conventional explosive "dirty" bomb such as the
> government would have us fear.

If the radioactivity is excessively mild, such as would the case with
enriched uranium, it would be regarded as a "failed" dirty bomb due to
the terrorists not knowing what they were doing.

In fact there would be a huge sigh of relief.  Not only is enriched
uranium totally useless as a dirty bomb material, but if the
enrichment was high enough, it would be highly useful in building an
atom bomb.

If a terrorist had material that they could have used to make an A-
bomb, and they wasted it in a failed dirty bomb, that would be pretty
funny.



> The government does not emphasize at
> all that the most likely damage from such a "dirty" bomb would be the
> explosion, as the radiation, derived from a "split atom" or not, would
> not be dispersed very far at all.  While there is really little or
> nothing to fear from his "dirty" bomb (and the government knows this)
> they sure made a big deal about Jose Padilla.

They didn't fear he would make a dirty bomb from enriched uranium.
They feared he would make a dirty bomb using something considerably
more toxic.



> >The uranium was not nearly radioactive enough to function as a dirty
> >bomb.
>
> You have the specs for a dirty bomb?  What are they?

A dirty bomb isn't complicated enough to require specs.  All you need
is to have explosives spread a relatively toxic material.  Enriched
uranium isn't nearly toxic enough.



> > In fact, it was not nearly radioactive enough to even warrant
> >mentioning when compared to the radiation given off by the fragments
> >of split atoms.
> >Japanese scientists were there taking measurements a few days after
> >the blast -- even before the Manhattan Project scientists arrived.
>
> You did say "days," didn't you?  It doesn't take "days" to
cross
> Japan, even if the presumed scientists were in some remote corner of
> the country.  Doesn't it cause you to wonder at all why the response
> was in "days" rather than "hours"?

I see no cause for wondering.  The scientists weren't planning to
gather up their gear, assemble, then travel to Hiroshima on short
notice.  It is perfectly plausible that it took that long.



> >America does not prevent Japanese scientists from publishing anything.
>
> >However, peer review by their fellow scientists prevents them from
> >publishing anything not scientifically credible.
>
> The fact that tobacco industry "scientists" were published certainly
> makes that statement a lie.

Did they publish something not scientifically credible in a peer-
reviewed journal?



> One would be totally out of touch with
> reality to presume that anything the government produces about nuclear
> warfare is not highly censored and/or edited.

Even if some parts really were held back, what was released was pretty
straightforward on their efforts to see if there were injuries from
residual radiation, and pretty straightforward on the results.

And the US government does not place any restrictions on what Japanese
scientists publish.



> >That isn't what the government says.  The government says is that the
> >level of residual radiation was not strong enough to cause injury, not
> >that there was no residual radiation at all.
>
> Perhaps you can tell us, what is the minimum safe level of exposure to
> radiation?

Check out section 5.6.3.4.1 "Acute Whole Body Exposure Effects" on
this page:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

Note: According to the Japanese scientists the highest residual
exposure was 16 REMs in the center of Hiroshima blast, 8 REMs in the
center of the Nagasaki blast, 3 REMs in the "black rain" downwind from
Hiroshima, and 40 REMs in the "black rain" downwind from Nagasaki.



> Chances are you need an elaborate set of conditions under
> which you can assume a level that will be pretty (but NEVER
> absolutely) safe.  For example, radioactive emissions of alpha and
> beta particles can often be pretty harmless, as the penetration of
> those particles is very limited.  However, that same "harmless"
> emitter of alpha particles can become deadly when atomized and
> inhaled, as the alpha particles don't need to penetrate very far in
> the lungs.
>
> >No, it is simply pointing out what the facts are.
>
> But you have no facts.  I don't think anyone does.  All you can point
> to is government conclusions, and only the unclassified ones.

No, I can point to what the Japanese scientists say too.

And there isn't any reason to doubt the government's results.



> >It is possible to have devices that are pretty clean when it comes to
> >residual radiation.  Typically people don't bother though because such
> >devices are heavier, and missile warheads need to be as light as
> >possible.
>
> Do you think it is possible to be "slightly" pregnant too?

Not a good analogy to nuclear weapons design criteria.  It is possible
to make a design that has a lot less fallout than the designs normally
used.



> Do you
> think that folks will abandon old "dirty" technology because folks
> have found "pretty clean" ways to kill now?

No I don't.  That's why I said "Typically people don't bother though
because such devices are heavier, and missile warheads need to be as
light as possible."



> >Measurements taken by scientists count as hard facts.
>
> Unless the measurements are taken days after the event.  Then it is
> called "extrapolation" or "estimation."

That does not make the measurements not count as a fact, or make the
extrapolation inaccurate in any way.



> >Then you are wrong too.  People who are in a zone where the blast
> >blows in the windows and leaves shards of glass embedded in the
> >opposite wall will very likely escape injury from the flying glass if
> >they hit the ground.  If they don't hit the ground they very likely
> >could receive numerous deep cuts all over their body from the flying
> >glass, and they will not be likely to get any medical treatment for
> >those cuts.  If the glass cuts a critical artery they may even bleed
> >to death quite quickly.
>
> >A little more closer to the blast, a lot of people will receive injury
> >(quite possibly leading to death) from being thrown hard against a
> >solid object.  If they were lying on the ground they would not be
> >thrown this way.  Other people in that zone of damage will receive
> >injury (quite possibly lethal) from being struck by debris being
> >carried by the blast wave.  If they were lying on the ground much of
> >this debris will pass over them.
>
> >Ducking and covering could also shade someone from getting a serious
> >burn from the heat of the fireball.
>
> >There will of course be plenty of people who would die even if they do
> >duck and cover (and plenty of people who would survive even if they
> >don't bother).  But there are many people for whom duck and cover
> >would make the difference between life and death.
>
> Let me sum it up for you:  If you are close enough to the nuclear
> blast for "duck and cover" to do you any good, then radiation and
> other things will do you in, and in a matter of hours, not days.

Your summary is wrong in a number of ways.  First, duck and cover
works at the very edge of the explosion.  Note my first example with
the flying glass.  You don't have to be close in for it to be an
advantage.

Second, duck and cover works closer in to the explosion too.  There
are zones where the blast damage is pretty overwhelming (say 5 PSI
overpressure) and lots of people still manage to survive even without
duck and cover.  Duck and cover would only increase survival rates
over that.

And finally, the radiation from the explosion doesn't travel very far
through the air, and in a large explosion the blast and heat travels a
lot farther than the radiation.  In a large explosion, if you are in a
place where duck and cover will do some good, you are already far
enough to not have to worry about radiation given off by the
explosion.




> >I wasn't questioning his credentials.  I was asking whether these
> >cases were people who were not exposed to radiation directly from the
> >explosion itself.
>
> You will probably never know.

No, I do know.  The answer is that they all got their radiation
injuries from the explosion itself, and none got their injuries from
the residual radiation.



> You have no "Hiroshima Facts," you only
> parrot the government line in your Hiroshima agenda.

No, I parrot the scientific line -- which is entirely factual.



> There are those
> who have pushed for the idea of winnable, survivable nuclear warfare.
> I know, my father was one.  He was also a big fan of safe, cheap
> nuclear power.  Unfortunately, he was battered time and time again
> with contrary evidence.  There are no "clean" nuclear weapons, there
> aren't even any "pretty clean" ones.  Like what was said in
> _Wargames_, the only way to win is not to play.

No, there are "pretty clean" ones, if they are designed for that
purpose.
[ Auf dieses Posting antworten ]
Antworten

Poster (20.08.2008 13:28)