Quote:
Originally Posted by Diopos
Actually the effect on the health on the global population was never fully addressed. Are we sure that all the cancer, leucemia etc is only due to smoking, or cell phone radiation or whatever? We shooted out and put in "planetary circulation" radionuclides with large "half lifes" some of which will gladly "set" in living organisms (strontium anyone?). We have created an additional "radioactive backround" in which we all live in. Is it dangerous? I don't no. Should it be investigated? Yes. Why isn't it? Because if there had been and/or continue to be negative/adverse effects the global community would eventually seek compensation fron those who did the testing.
.
|
This was what I thought on first watch.
I cannot speak for other countries, but a few of them shots for the US were underwater, and caused so much contamination (even in our limited sense of contamination then), we actually ceased underwater tests because of how it vaporized the water, and spewed radioactive water vapor for miles. A few ships actually survived the shot I am referring to, though I cannot recall the name of the shot without looking it up.
We set off more than 1k of them, does it matter the name at this point?
I understand Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, but why did we need to test 1k plus nukes? Were they 1k plus different designs? You too Russia. WTF is wrong with us?
Britain Kudos for your (relative) restraint.
Edit: Sorry, I am usually a harsh kinda fella, but this hit something in me. Pardon my sensitivity.
Enrico Fermi estimated the megatonnage of the first test by ripping up paper, and estimating based on how the shockwave moved it as he dropped it.
See my point?