Navada

The Nevada Test Site (NTS) is a U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) installation occupying approximately 1,350 square miles (882,332 acres) in southeastern Nye County, Nevada. NTS is larger than the State of Rhode Island. Site features includes deserts, playas, and mountainous terrain (see Figure 1). NTS was established in 1951 as the nation's proving ground for testing and development of nuclear weapons. Between 1951 and 1992, the federal government conducted just over 900 nuclear tests at the site; 100 of these tests were conducted above ground.

http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste/nts/steward.htm
 
Ahaaa... how nice. And I've heard that nuclear waste is really good for your health. I believe they say that it makes your hair and skin glow.
 
I found out about this while I was reading a back issue of "New Age" magazine. It was a first person story about a woman who's entire family had suffered from breast cancer. She was a morman and was taught not to question authority. In her family it was just something they accepted and dealt with.

She said that she can't prove that the breast cancer was caused by the nuclear testing, but she can't prove that it wasn't either. They lived a lifestyle that did not place them at high risk, however, yet they all got it. Her family told her it was genes.


It just reminds me of some of the things that I keep hearing about weapons of mass distruction. We don't use them on our people, the way that Sadam uses them on his. We just 'test' them and let the chips fall where they may.

I came mighty close to flinging my magazine accross the room.

I would be happy to hear rebutals or how anyone can defend this. (Mosly I suspect it's denial, ie. 'no proof' that the testing caused any actual harm, or somekind of 'necessary evil' or acceptable loss' or whatever.) But hey, I'm willing to listen to both sides, if anyone here is informed about this.

Love,
Sweet.
 
*sigh* When will poor people learn that no-one is interested in their whining? If you make less than $25.000 A MONTH, you're just talking about a few strained muscles.

Serious problems only happen to rich people.
 
For anyone who tries to defend Nuclear weapons or Nuclear Power there are two answers...
Hiroshima and Tschernobyl

Snoopy
 
SnoopDog said:
For anyone who tries to defend Nuclear weapons or Nuclear Power there are two answers...
Hiroshima and Tschernobyl

Snoopy

Hiroshima & Nagasaki brought a war to a close, where an invasion was invisioned to cost at least a million casualties for the u.S. and the japanese generals were prepared to have the nation commit national sucicide. Training civilians to use bill hooks, bows & other archaic weapons along with glass & wood grandes.

Revisionist historians have argued recently that the dropping of the bombs was unnessessary and that Japan was looking for a way to surrender. Tell it to the casualties at Okinowa & Iwo Jima. Until the dropping of the atomic bomb there was no reason to believe the civilian part of the government that did want peace was in any position to over rule the military clique who had been in control since the mancuria incident started Japan on the road to war.

Radioactivity can and does kill. If treated carelessly it can be outrageously dangerous. And when built into weapons it threatens the world with destruction. But it has the power to do good, to produce electricity and power, to move vehicles without burning fossil fuels. Like all technology, it myst be treated with respect.

-Colly
 
Colleen Thomas said:
... the japanese generals were prepared to have the nation commit national sucicide. Training civilians to use bill hooks, bows & other archaic weapons along with glass & wood grandes.
Well, given the Japanese nature I think that would have been a lot better than what actually happened. Honestly, Colly, sometimes your too objective statement of facts just upsets me.

Perdita
 
Colleen Thomas said:
Hiroshima & Nagasaki brought a war to a close, where an invasion was invisioned to cost at least a million casualties for the u.S. and the japanese generals were prepared to have the nation commit national sucicide. Training civilians to use bill hooks, bows & other archaic weapons along with glass & wood grandes.

Revisionist historians have argued recently that the dropping of the bombs was unnessessary and that Japan was looking for a way to surrender. Tell it to the casualties at Okinowa & Iwo Jima. Until the dropping of the atomic bomb there was no reason to believe the civilian part of the government that did want peace was in any position to over rule the military clique who had been in control since the mancuria incident started Japan on the road to war.

Radioactivity can and does kill. If treated carelessly it can be outrageously dangerous. And when built into weapons it threatens the world with destruction. But it has the power to do good, to produce electricity and power, to move vehicles without burning fossil fuels. Like all technology, it myst be treated with respect.

-Colly

But there are other ways that don't produce atomical waste which we have to bury somewhere deep in the earth and hope that our grandchildren won't dig it up again.
I'm very glad that nowadays a lot of research goes into renewable energie sources :)

Snoopy
 
SnoopDog said:
For anyone who tries to defend Nuclear weapons or Nuclear Power there are two answers...
Hiroshima and Tschernobyl

Snoopy

I am not asking anyone to defend Nuclear weapons or Nuclear Power, but Nuclear Testing- on our own land and with harn caused to innocent civilians- when I have heard over and over again how evil sadam must be stopped because he uses weapons of mass destruction on his own people and we don't.
 
PS. I am not defending Sadam. Just wondering how the hell we defend our own governments actioins. (beyond the utterly rediculous- 'hey that didn't happen under the current administration)
 
perdita said:
Well, given the Japanese nature I think that would have been a lot better than what actually happened. Honestly, Colly, sometimes your too objective statement of facts just upsets me.

Perdita

I'm sorry Dita. You know I wouldn't do anything to upset you intentionally. I am however a historian and am trained to observe historical fact objectively or as objectively as my frame of reference allows.

:rose:

-Colly
 
LIKELIHOOD

This is one of the greatest monologues ever written. It's by the Swedish comedian/author/moviemaker/musician Tage Danielsson, and it deals with the accident at Harrisburg, 1979:

(TRANSLATED FROM SWEDISH)

So, like, likelihood, it means something that is pretty much like the truth. And because of this, I think it's a pity that from this year, because of the current inflation, we can't afford The Truth anymore. Instead, we have to settle for probability calculations. Because they're not quite as reliable. Like, they change very much before and after.
For example, before the accident in Harrisburg... then everyone said that it was very unlikely that what happened in Harrisburg would happen, but then after it happened, then the likelihood for it happening went up to 100%, so that it became almost true that it really had happened.
Well, yes, but only ALMOST true. That's the strange thing. Because it's like they still think that what happened in Harrisburg was so INCREDIBLY unlikely, so it probably hasn't happened, actually. The entire Socialdemocratic party has been waiting for over 6 months now to find out if what happened in Harrisburg really happened or not - before they can decide if nuclear power really is as dangerous as it would be if what happened in Harrisburg actually has happened.

And it's understandable, really, if they're a bit unsure, because I read that according to all the probability calculations, this type of an accident only happens about one measly time in several thousand years, and in that case, it's not very likely that it would have happened already, right? It would be much more likely that it has happened in the future. And that makes it a totally different matter.

And then we also have this, that IF what happened in Harrisburg really happenedm against all odds, then the risk that it will happen again is so ridiculously small, that... well, in a way, you could say that it's a good thing that what happened in Harrisburg, if it really did, really happened, because now we know almost for sure that it won't happen again. Atleast not in Harrisburg. And certainly not at the same time as last time!
The risk for that happening, is so small that it's negligable. That means that it doesn't exist. But only a little.

Unfortunately, this is pretty complicated stuff for the average man to understand, so it really isn't much point in letting people vote about things like this. I mean, people in average are reasoning very primitively, they think that what happened in Harrisburg really happened. They think it's true. They don't understand, that something that isn't even likely, can't possibly be true. They haven't kept up to speed with the development of society. Probably, their parents told them to always tell the truth. "Always tell The Truth, kids!", that's probably what their parents told them. We mustn't say that to our kids today. We have to teach our kids to always say what's likely, so that they will understand that what happened in Harrisburg can't happen here, since it couldn't even happen there, which would have been much more likely, considering that that's where it happened!
 
SnP,

The Nevada tests were and are well known and were never kept secret. In fact, back in the 50’s the Vegas casinos used to give special “Bomb Rates” to visitors who wanted to come out and watch the tests, from a safe distance, of course. They were a tourist attraction. Everyone knew what was going on.

Whether the radiation from the bomb caused any rise in cancers is very debatable. There’s no statistical evidence to back this up. It turns out that there’s a lot of natural radioactivity in the rocks out there anyhow. In fact, Nevada had a little gold-rush back in the mid-fifties with prospectors finding uranium deposits all over the state. Utah too. The radiation you'd get from background is many times what you'd get from fallout, unless you were awfully close to a nuclear blast.

John Wayne filmed a movie called “The Conquerer” out in Utah during the fifties. He later died of lung cancer, and some blame fallout from the tests, but JW also was a heavy smoker.

The US did test the bomb on soldiers, but not directly. They wanted to know if nuclear weapons could be used as tactical weapons on the battlefield, like artillery, so they marched a bunch of GI’s out there and put them in trenches about 5 miles from ground zero and let one rip. The soldiers were not told ahead of time what they were in for, and som eyears ago their families started suing the government, claiming the tests caused premature deaths. That’s very hard to prove, though.

There are also cases of the army injecting soldiers with radioactive materials to see what would happen. I forget the name of that project, but it went on in the 40's and 50's.

We’ve also tested chemical weapons out at Dugway proving grounds in Utah, and some of the tests got away from them and killed a bunch of sheep on someone’s ranch. The army denied it, but it’s pretty suspicious when you have like 100 hundred sheep keeling over for no apparent reason just upwind on a chemical weapons test site.

The USA still has the world’s largest stockpiles of nuclear and biological/chemical weapons, in other words, WMD. And the chemical weapons are starting to leak.

The USA is also the only nation to refuse to sign the ban on land mines. Most of the mines in the world were made in the good ol' USA.

Nuclear testing was banned by treaty way back when. In the 70’s I think. The last atmospheric test was done by France in something like the late 80’s in the south pacific. The Bush administration announced during its first year in office that we were pulling out of the treaty, however, in order to develop Star Wars. They basically told the world to go fuck itself. We want our nukes.

---dr.M.
 
Last edited:
Colleen Thomas said:
Hiroshima & Nagasaki brought a war to a close, where an invasion was invisioned to cost at least a million casualties for the u.S. and the japanese generals were prepared to have the nation commit national sucicide. Training civilians to use bill hooks, bows & other archaic weapons along with glass & wood grandes.

-Colly

Hmm. Those two sentences don't seem to jibe.

The Japanese say they'll fight to the death and then when they start dying they say ok, we'll stop now.

As for revisionist historians, they seem to me to be no worse than those who write the history in the first place.

The thing that I find most galling about the use of atomic weapons on Japan was the fact that at least one of the targets was a late 'plan B' target because of the weather.

As well as getting to write the history the winners also get to be the judges at war crimes trials rather than the accused.

Whenever I hear about Hiroshima and Nagasaki the words 'Geneva' and 'Convention' always spring to mind.

Gauche
 
SnoopDog said:
For anyone who tries to defend Nuclear weapons or Nuclear Power there are two answers...
Hiroshima and Tschernobyl

Snoopy
I think I said this in a different thread, but what the heck:

Tjernobyl was a pretty small reactor, and still that disaster in the south of Ukraine (or was it in Belarus?) became a health issue up here in Scandinavia. Compared to that, I now live about 500 kilometers from a much bigger, and according to reports by the Swedish institute for radiation protection it is more run down and likely to go boom than the old Soviet plant ever was. The Ignalina nuclear power plant in Latvia would pretty much obliterate an entire nation or two if it did the same thing as Tjernobyl.

Cheerful thought, eh? Nuclear power is reasonably safe. If modern, well run and well guarded. Which it seldom is.

Ignalina, and other baltic and eastern european nuclear plantsare slowly getting better though. With the help of the EU and IAEA the disaster risk is getting smaller. But it will take a while 'til I'm feeling safe.

#L
 
Last edited:
gauchecritic said:
Hmm. Those two sentences don't seem to jibe.

The Japanese say they'll fight to the death and then when they start dying they say ok, we'll stop now.

As for revisionist historians, they seem to me to be no worse than those who write the history in the first place.

The thing that I find most galling about the use of atomic weapons on Japan was the fact that at least one of the targets was a late 'plan B' target because of the weather.

As well as getting to write the history the winners also get to be the judges at war crimes trials rather than the accused.

Whenever I hear about Hiroshima and Nagasaki the words 'Geneva' and 'Convention' always spring to mind.

Gauche

The war ended because the emperor took a personal hand and ordered the generals to end it. Even then there was an attempted military coup to keep Japan from surrendering. The utter devestation at the two sites were, according to Marquis Kido, head of the Privy Council, the reason Herihito made the decision to defy tradition and make a demand in the emperor's name.

Revisionist historians in general have an agenda, and in this case the agenda is to say use of atomic weapons was wrong. They cite parts of the truth, throwin gout facts that don't fit thier theiories or interpreting other facts in ways that are highly debateable.

History is not static. History is also open to interpretation. History is however held to some standards of proof and revisioniosts are closely scrutinized to make sure they are adhereing to historigoraphy and historical method. In general they are not.

-Colly
 
I didn't know that, Liar!:eek:

I'm against nuclear power, no matter how well-kept the plants are.

The whole concept of using something that is so GODDAM toxic that it will still be lethal 10 generations from now... there's just no excuse for using it. Not ONE.
 
Svenskaflicka said:
I didn't know that, Liar!:eek:

I'm against nuclear power, no matter how well-kept the plants are.

The whole concept of using something that is so GODDAM toxic that it will still be lethal 10 generations from now... there's just no excuse for using it. Not ONE.

If not nuclear then would you advocate the building & operating of more coal & fuel oil plants? Adding tons of pollution and greenhouse gasses to the air? Tough choices. Both for governments, enviormentalists & the average person who would be upset with a dirtiter atmosphere, but would have a fit if they couldn't use their Ac/heater to keep the house comfy.

-Colly
 
One thing: a nuclear plant can’t blow up like a nuclear weapon. There’s just not enough fissionable material there to achieve critical mass. The real danger lies in what they might emit into the environment in a catastrophic failure.

This is what hapopened in Chernobyl. There was never any danger of Chernobyl turning into an atomic bomb, but what did happen was the release of a lot of nasty stuff into the air and water. Every place downwind was in danger, and some of it got into the upper atmosphere and was circling there for days.

Also, Three-mile Island never posed the threat of a nuclear explosion. What happened at TMI was that the core material in the reactor lost coolant, and got so hot that there was a real possibility of it melting its way through the containment builsing and right into the earth (“The China Syndrome”) where it would eventually find some ground water and cause a steam explosion, hurling all these radionuclides into the air and contaminating everything for miles around.

---dr.M.
 
dr_mabeuse said:
One thing: a nuclear plant can’t blow up like a nuclear weapon. There’s just not enough fissionable material there to achieve critical mass. The real danger lies in what they might emit into the environment in a catastrophic failure.

This is what hapopened in Chernobyl. There was never any danger of Chernobyl turning into an atomic bomb, but what did happen was the release of a lot of nasty stuff into the air and water. Every place downwind was in danger, and some of it got into the upper atmosphere and was circling there for days.
For the record: I never thought a nuclear plant might blow up. What I meant by obliterating a coutry is that the environment wouyld be so fucked for so many generations to come that to avoid having a whole generation of flourecent kids, the entire Latvia and close neighbours would have to be evacuated if something like Tjernobyl happened there.

#L
 
Back
Top