BajaNomad - West Coast Kelp free from ***ushima radiation

West Coast Kelp free from ***ushima radiation

Pages: 1 2

Kgryfon - 5-9-2014 at 01:15 PM

http://www.science20.com/news_articles/kelp_watch_2014_no_ra...

They've tested samples off the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Baja and have found no indication of radiation from ***ushima in any samples. Good news!

Skipjack Joe - 5-9-2014 at 01:32 PM

Oh good. I can get off my kelp-free diet.

woody with a view - 5-9-2014 at 01:37 PM

I was planning on glow in the dark urchins.....

sancho - 5-9-2014 at 02:22 PM

I believe kelp extract, for lack of the proper term, is found in several
foods, among other things. I think ice cream being one.
Off San Onofre, there was at times a kelp cutting ship
which, like a lawn mower, would cut the top few feet
off kelp beds

David K - 5-9-2014 at 05:50 PM

You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Sweetwater - 5-10-2014 at 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Dude,
That is the absolute most stupid and irresponsible post you have ever made. You need to move to a high radiation zone and join the folks in their outcome.

Your head is so far up your ass that I won't ever try to communicate with it again.....the science of radiation exposure is crystal clear how uninformed and stupid your statement is:

Quote:

Every survivor of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has a similar story. But while their individual testimonies are moving, perhaps the most important tale told by these men and women -- more than 40 percent of the survivors remain alive -- has been collective. It is how they have lived, and how they die. For more than six decades, their medical histories have provided the authoritative source for how scientists understand the effects of radiation on the human body. "These radiation standards are accepted worldwide," said George Kerr, a consultant and health physicist, formerly of the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory. "They're kind of the Rosetta Stone." The lessons from this cohort have never been more visible, as another radiation crisis has gripped Japan. With few exceptions, each invocation of the possible cancer risk -- or lack of risk -- poised by the failed reactors at the ***ushima Daiichi nuclear plant has its origins in the lives of atomic bomb survivors. A disaster caused by man has resulted in one of the longest and largest health studies ever conducted, led by Japan's Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF). Similar efforts could follow for ***ushima. The science, it seems, has come home to roost.

Barry A. - 5-10-2014 at 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Dude,
That is the absolute most stupid and irresponsible post you have ever made. You need to move to a high radiation zone and join the folks in their outcome.

Your head is so far up your burro that I won't ever try to communicate with it again.....the science of radiation exposure is crystal clear how uninformed and stupid your statement is:

Quote:

Sweetwater--------I see nothing in that "quote" you provide that conflicts with what David K said. WHAT are you talking about?

Barry

Sweetwater - 5-10-2014 at 12:36 PM

Deadly radiation is exactly that....forever.....and the folks that survived and live in nuclear ruins continue to prove it. Go read the RERF studies and make a joke about it.

Stupid is as stupid does, popular belief is not science and reading is fundamental. Are your eyes open yet?

Sweetwater - 5-10-2014 at 12:46 PM

Anyone who truly has an interest in radiation facts, particularly facts generated by real humans due to the nuclear exposures in Japan should perhaps start here: http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/index_e.html

I suggest FAQS to begin to become informed. Otherwise, stupid statements will be labelled as stupid statements, particularly if they are nothing but uninformed opinions with absolutely no basis in reality or fact.

If that's too much to handle, then eso si que es.....

Barry A. - 5-10-2014 at 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater
Deadly radiation is exactly that....forever.....and the folks that survived and live in nuclear ruins continue to prove it. Go read the RERF studies and make a joke about it.

Stupid is as stupid does, popular belief is not science and reading is fundamental. Are your eyes open yet?

A "joke"???? Again, what in the world are you talking about?

Now that you have said it, I WILL "go and read the RERF studies", if I can find them-------I am not familiar with "RERF", or what that stands for.

Your annoying reference to "stupid", and your sarcasm and lack of respect for others makes you somebody that I have no interest in, and reveals you as inconsequential and irrelevant in my book.

Barry

wessongroup - 5-10-2014 at 12:58 PM

On the upside of "radioactive" contamination:

"But their most recent findings, published last month, showed something new. Some bird species, they reported in the journal Functional Ecology, appear to have adapted to the radioactive environment by producing higher levels of protective antioxidants, with correspondingly less genetic damage. For these birds, Dr. Mousseau said, chronic exposure to radiation appears to be a kind of “unnatural selection” driving evolutionary change."

Not sure of the exact direction the evolutionary change will take one ... but, appears it will go some place

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/science/nature-adapts-to-c...

Barry A. - 5-10-2014 at 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater
Anyone who truly has an interest in radiation facts, particularly facts generated by real humans due to the nuclear exposures in Japan should perhaps start here: http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/index_e.html

I suggest FAQS to begin to become informed. Otherwise, stupid statements will be labelled as stupid statements, particularly if they are nothing but uninformed opinions with absolutely no basis in reality or fact.

If that's too much to handle, then eso si que es.....

"Thanks for the link to RERF. I did some quick reading. I suggest you review the RERF info contained in this LINK:

http://www.rerf.jp/news/pdf/residualrad_ps_e.pdf

Barry

David K - 5-10-2014 at 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Sweetwater, I am stating obvious facts otherwise those blasted cities wouldn't be there after 1945.... right?

Skipjack Joe - 5-10-2014 at 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Dude,
That is the absolute most stupid and irresponsible post you have ever made.

Gee, I'm not sure about that. There were many statements in the past that would provide strong competition.

But yes, it ranks way up there. Perhaps in the top 10.

I had the same reaction to that statement, but knowing the source, I just let it go. It's not the first absurdity, nor will it be the last.

Barry A. - 5-10-2014 at 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Dude,
That is the absolute most stupid and irresponsible post you have ever made.

I see I need to make another referral--------you might want to read this (thanks to Sweetwater), SkipJack------it is truly enlightening. Seems the "science" is just not set in stone yet, is what I get from it. Lots of if's, and's, and but's!

http://www.rerf.jp/news/pdf/residualrad_ps_e.pdf

I understand, just as David K says, that the two Japanese cities the studies are mostly done on are very much alive, which is what David K said as I interpret it. NoBody, that I am aware of, doubts that initial exposure to high radiation at the time of the bombings, and that which followed for a while, was very life-threatening and deadly, but it was not nearly as bad as was anticipated. The same applies to Bikini Atoll, tho it is still declared off-limits to the Natives, as I understand it.

Barry

wessongroup - 5-10-2014 at 03:16 PM

Would appear to depend to a large degree, on the length of exposure and "dose", and would be site specific, as no one site is exactly the same

"Chernobyl today

The region today is widely known as one of the world's most unique wildlife sanctuaries. Thriving populations of wolves, deer, lynx, beaver, eagles, boar, elk, bears and other animals have been documented in the dense woodlands that now surround the silent plant. Only a handful of radiation effects, such as stunted trees growing in the zone of highest radiation and animals with high levels of cesium-137 in their bodies, are known to occur. [Infographic: Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster 25 Years Later]

But that's not to suggest that the area has returned to normal, or will at any point in the near future. Because of the long-lived radiation in the region surrounding the former Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, the area won't be safe for human habitation for at least 20,000 years.

Which is the bottom line ... so to speak

http://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html

Will say, more knowledge can only help in the evaluation of risk to life as we know it

Sweetwater - 5-10-2014 at 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Dude,
That is the absolute most stupid and irresponsible post you have ever made.

I have mostly refrained from the blatant ignorance exhibited, particularly regarding radiation and ***ashima so I'm on that page with you. And selective reading skills will allow any position to be supported so I see that attempt already. Personally, I'll vote with my feet and not respond to any more inane posts.......thanks, good advice.

And for the ongoing blind, it only takes biologic uptake of minimal Cesium or Strontium in particular to wreck a personal biosphere.....it doesn't take much solar radiation either.....please take off all clothing and go sit in the sun........for a long time......and tell me if there are any effects.....

Barry A. - 5-10-2014 at 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Dude,
That is the absolute most stupid and irresponsible post you have ever made.

Aside for the random nasty referrals to "blatant ignorance" and "ongoing blind", I agree with what you say here, which has little to do with what David K was referring too.

I, when young, worked in the desert sun for 8 hours a day, day in and day out, wearing no shirt. I turned brown. I am paying for it now, however. I realize that is only partially satisfying your request to strip-nude as the Foreman would not tolerate no-clothes, but everybody knows what you, and I, mean, I think. Radiation, of all types, can be dangerous when taken to the extreme.

We appear to be talking past each other, which is painfully normal these days.

Lets go back to the original proposition which is science in action--------there is little to no radiation showing up in North American off-shore kelp beds, apparently. Who knows if that will last. That "scientific fact" (so far) is a good thing, but it does not surprise me, or probably David K, tho I should not speak for him. There is still a lot of work to do, as is almost always the case with most things involving "science". I think that was the ONLY point being made, until you (and others) expanded it, and decided to insult some folks, giving knee-jerk reactions in an elitist fashion IMO. I could be wrong (about your intentions) of course.

Personally, I will be very surprised if the Fuji problem will effect us significantly here in North America, but it surely could. I prefer to wait and see what develops rather than holler "the sky is falling", so to speak. Know what I mean? (tho I know you "will not respond" because you said so.)

I also believe that the projection that "Chernobyl" will take "20K years" to be safe for human habitation is a huge exaggeration based on the authorities and science being overly cautious for obvious reasons. But what do I know?

In the mean time I will worry more about an Asteroid hitting earth, which we KNOW scientifically beyond a shadow of a doubt will happen------not quite sure when, though. :?:

Life on Earth is sure an adventure, eh?

Barry

David K - 5-10-2014 at 04:44 PM

Stupidity is not seeing what is there now, and those two atom-bombed cities in Japan are alive and well today. That is ALL I was saying...

The need for drama and insulting different viewpoints by one side of political ideology is very disappointing when we could exchange ideas like adults.

Nobody says nuclear radiation is healthy. The thread was posted saying seaweed that may have been highly radioactive is not. I know some of you want doom and gloom, but the truth is Nature takes care of the earth and the radiation is dealt with.

rts551 - 5-10-2014 at 05:32 PM

Seems to me there is a lot of science discussed with the exception of one person who admits to discussing political ideology.

"The need for drama and insulting different viewpoints by one side of political ideology is very disappointing when we could exchange ideas like adults."

You said it right Sweetwater "Stupid is as stupid does." and that is not likely to change in the near future....maybe a little radiation would help.

David K - 5-10-2014 at 05:35 PM

Geeze, it is really something... So Ralph, you also think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are deserted, radioactive bomb craters still?

Man, that Kool Aid is sure sweet!

rts551 - 5-10-2014 at 06:06 PM

Stupid is as stupid does...Of course not, but I think most studies reveal there are lingering effects and it is well known to MOST people that radioactive material decay is measured in half lifes and some of the residual from the bomb can be measured in millions of years half life.

here is something to ponder

Currently there is a team of American and Japanese scientists studying the effects of the atomic bombs. There is still radiation from those two bombs in Japan and surrounding areas but the levels are significantly lower after sixty years than when the bombs were first dropped. The cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were rebuilt fairly soon after they were damaged by the bombs and a horrendous typhoon that did worse damage weeks later. The officials of Japan did not have full understanding about the duration of radiation's effects when they rebuilt the cities. The team of scientists have kept careful records of post sicknesses and the levels of radiation. They will continue until the radiation levels are safe again. If you want to learn more there is an excellent show on the history channel about this team of scientists. I

Ateo - 5-10-2014 at 06:54 PM

I'm gonna buy land in the Chernobyl area. I hear it's totally safe.

vgabndo - 5-10-2014 at 07:14 PM

The initial explosions at ***ushima released the equivalent radiation of 168 Hiroshimas INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. The tons of radiation laden water that are lost into the ocean every hour now is a whole other disaster. I'd be encouraged to hear that the international community has found some possible remedy for the on-going poisoning of the Pacific.

rts551 - 5-10-2014 at 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by vgabndo
The initial explosions at ***ushima released the equivalent radiation of 168 Hiroshimas INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. The tons of radiation laden water that are lost into the ocean every hour now is a whole other disaster. I'd be encouraged to hear that the international community has found some possible remedy for the on-going poisoning of the Pacific.

Hey, the fish are still swimming... There must be no problem.

Sweetwater - 5-10-2014 at 09:17 PM

Sorry folks,
It is somewhat in my nature to confront flippant responses to very concrete situations head on.
It's important to separate stupid statements from the ignorance that spawns them.
Radioactivity is not the issue and I'm appreciative that there is not high level contamination of the kelp beds that are a source of nutrition at that level.

It is very important to realize that we're talking about a very specific type of radiation...the rads are not the problem. The specific bio-active radionucleotides have a much greater impact. They are the reason that Chernobyl is not fit for humans for thousands of years. The effects on free roaming mammals will only be ascertained after hundred of those years have past and we won't be here to see those results.

The disrespect shown for the humans living in the first military experiments on human populations, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, is simply beyond my ability to tolerate. Go live there and tell me how you and your future generations respond. These are not examples of thriving communities without health and welfare results from the nuclear explosions.

Radioactive Strontium will be taken up by your bone and NEVER excreted. It will stay there until you die and be recycled into the next generation of living bone, just as Calcium is recycled. Radioactive Cesium did not EXIST until humans created it in our food chain with nuclear experiments and explosions.

No, I'm not claiming the sky is falling but if you want to live in the chite you create, please move into the real territory. Like I said, tell us in 3-4 generations how that works out for you.

Nobody is stupid unless they actively make that choice.

Kgryfon - 5-11-2014 at 03:00 PM

"...the first military experiments on human populations, Nagasaki and Hiroshima..."

Well, I'd hesitate to say these were the FIRST military experiments on human populations (not by a long shot), and I would also hesitate to say these even qualified as human experiments. These cities were bombed as an act of war, not so the population could become human guinea pigs.

In any case, this has really gotten off topic. :lol:

SFandH - 5-11-2014 at 03:55 PM

Quote:

Exactly!

Minimizing the radiological effects of ***ushima because the two cities that were obliterated by the blast effects of nuclear bombs have been rebuilt doesn't make any sense. Those two bombs were each composed of around 150 pounds of radioactive material, Hiroshima uranium, Nagasaki plutonium. According to this report, the ***ushima reactor cores that completely melted have released 800 tons of radioactive material.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/***ushima-the-ticking-nuclear-b...

It's a good thing there is the Pacific ocean between us and them.

[Edited on 5-11-2014 by SFandH]

Kgryfon's post was GOOD NEWS people!

David K - 5-11-2014 at 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kgryfon
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/kelp_watch_2014_no_ra...

They've tested samples off the Pacific Coast from Alaska to Baja and have found no indication of radiation from ***ushima in any samples. Good news!

I agree, good news... which is the opposite of what many want to hear as it downplays the drama they need to push their agenda.

Just look at the hysteria here by some when I simply pointed out the obvious!?? :light:

Thank you for the good news Kgryfon!

OF COURSE, the new movie Godzilla is opening in theaters this week... and you know what made that lizard big!

Barry A. - 5-11-2014 at 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH

Quote:

Assuming this article is accurate (a big assumption), NOW WHAT do we do??? What can be realistically done? This article sounds like a "ON THE BEACH" (movie) situation. Time to move to Utah, or even Kansas?!?!?!?!?

Any ideas?

Barry

Skipjack Joe - 5-11-2014 at 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

The trouble with this statement is that it states that dropping those bombs was acceptable because thriving cities arose from the ashes. Not only acceptable but even favorable for the Japanese people.

It's an attempt to historically reinterpret a criminal act on the civilians of Japan into a benevolent one. An attempt of justification. It is often implied by such 'patriots' that Japan somehow actually benefited from losing the war and are better off from it.

Kgryfon - 5-11-2014 at 10:45 PM

Well, not that I think this was a good thing, but historians and military analysts generally agree that dropping the bombs ended the war sooner and that as a result fewer people died in the end. I am no historian or military analyst so you'll have to read and make your own conclusion.

Still not sure what any of this has to do with the original topic. Do you have anything to add that is related to the original topic?

Skipjack Joe - 5-11-2014 at 11:09 PM

I am responding to this statement -

"You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place..."

Perhaps you should object to it because it had nothing to do with the original topic.

------------------------

My feeling on the original topic is that I'm not surprised that no/little radioactivity was detected in the kelp across the pacific. It would surprising if there had been any. We are talking about diluting the original effluent with trillions of acre feet of water. The amount is almost unimaginable, like outer space.

Comparing that to Chernobyl or Three Mile Island makes little sense because it remains local. Whatever is 'infected' has no way of dispersing. Whatever radioactivity is absorbed by living matter eventually rots into the soil and is only removed by rain water.

My only exposure (grin) to the subject was Christmas Island, a place that I often fished. All humans were removed from the island prior to dropping the test bombs and were not allowed to return for 30 years until the Brits felt the measurements were low enough. As I recall the earth down to several feet was scraped of the entire island because it had the greatest level of contamination, a procedure which allowed the native population to return sooner and grow crops as was done previously.

As I recall most of the people of Hiroshima died not from the blast, 100,000, but from ignorance of the danger that the radioactive material posed. Another 200,000 died weeks later by drinking radioactive water and utilizing radioactive materials. Thirst was a major problem because all was decimated.

[Edited on 5-12-2014 by Skipjack Joe]

Barry A. - 5-12-2014 at 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

What???????????? Skipjack------your statements are huge sweeping assumptions that simply are not in evidence, and are an expanded and I think incorrect speculation & condemnation of what you feel David meant, IMO.

Why do so many dramatically read so much into what other's say?

To me all David K is saying is that some of the original scientific projections of the long term consequences of the bombings has just not proven to be true. That's it!!

I certainly think that everything written within this Thread is VERY pertinent to the original post, at least to me it is.

Barry

DianaT - 5-12-2014 at 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kgryfon
Well, not that I think this was a good thing, but historians and military analysts generally agree that dropping the bombs ended the war sooner and that as a result fewer people died in the end. I am no historian or military analyst so you'll have to read and make your own conclusion.

Still not sure what any of this has to do with the original topic. Do you have anything to add that is related to the original topic?

That is a very controversial subject among U.S. historians and there is no overall agreement. So some argue that because there were peace overtures being made, that neither bomb was needed and that it really was done more as a warning to Stalin --- a let me show you what I have type of thing because of what was happening in Europe. They believe the war was ending and a land invasion would not have been necessary.

Others argue that dropping the first bomb shortened the war and saved lives. There may be some, but I have never read a defense of the dropping of the second bomb. The first one made any statement someone wanted to make.

They all argue with the same "facts". That is history --- facts are that we dropped two A-bombs on Japan, the rest is interpretation .

But that is off the topic. I am glad that at this point the kelp is radiation free, and will rely on information from the scientists trained to follow this and determine what may and is happening. They are still learning more about the long term effects which were unknown back in the 40s.

Lots of qualified people out there, but we should be aware of the "scientists" who are well paid by possible corporate interests.

Or as Ralph stated, hey the fish are still swimming so there is no problem. :lol:

[Edited on 5-12-2014 by DianaT]

David K - 5-12-2014 at 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

... Lots of qualified people out there, but we should be aware of the "scientists" who are well paid by possible corporate interests.
...

Sounds like you are on to something and we should be made aware of what the government paid "scientists" are doing in respect to "global warming... 'er cooling... 'er climate change" :light:

Side note: Why do you trust a government paid person over one who works for someone else? Government paid people don't have to be correct to keep their jobs... heck, they don't even have to be good! Trust the people, not the state!

SFandH - 5-12-2014 at 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.
NOW WHAT do we do??? What can be realistically done?

Any ideas?

Barry

Don't eat tuna caught in the vicinity of ***ushima, that would be risky.

As far as radioactivity being a concern for the west coast of the US, I think that the old saying "the solution to pollution is dilution" is at work. As pointed out above the Pacific ocean is huge

Keep informed. This EPA web page has pertinent links in its ***ushima section.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/

rts551 - 5-12-2014 at 09:11 AM

You have already been informed that you can not believe anything the >gov says.

Barry A. - 5-12-2014 at 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

[Edited on 5-12-2014 by DianaT]

I respectfully refer you to the Wiki link below for a clearer understanding of the reasoning behind the dropping of both bombs on Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_an...

Barry

DianaT - 5-12-2014 at 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT

Quote:

[Edited on 5-12-2014 by DianaT]

Wikipedia?? Surely you kidding?

rts551 - 5-12-2014 at 11:42 AM

Barry I believe Wiki states that

The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.

Cypress - 5-12-2014 at 11:49 AM

My father was a Marine in the 4th. Division. You can google 'em. He might not have been around to father me if those bombs weren't dropped.

SFandH - 5-12-2014 at 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
You have already been informed that you can not believe anything the >gov says.

I guess I'll have to see what the scientists working for the nuclear industry have to say. I'm sure they're impartial. :lol:

rts551 - 5-12-2014 at 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
You have already been informed that you can not believe anything the >gov says.

I guess I'll have to see what the scientists working for the nuclear industry have to say. I'm sure they're impartial. :lol:

Nahhh Just tune into the "right" radio station. You can get it first hand there!

Barry A. - 5-12-2014 at 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Barry I believe Wiki states that

The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.

Yes it does say that in the intro, but it then goes on to discuss the "official" reasons for the bombings, leaving it up to you to decide what you think is right. There are strong points given in support of the bombings, and what I think are highly speculative and somewhat spurious points given against it. Taking into consideration that Wiki is a mildly left-leaning organization, I think it is all worth considering and reading about.

Disclaimer: As previously mentioned on NOMADS, I am very biased as my Uncle was the Weaponeer (in charge of the bomb) on the Nagasaki run, and in charge of the bomb-dropping on that flight along with Sweeney.

On Edit: My uncle (my Dad's brother) has written a 523 page book on that subject, and many other endeavors he was involved in while with the US Navy, but it was never generally published for public consumption as it was solely written so his kids, grandkids and relatives would know his history. Along with others, he represented the US Navy in the "Manhattan Project" for the duration of the Project.

I have a copy of the book and it is incredibly well written, and should have been published for public consumption, IMO.

Barry

[Edited on 5-12-2014 by Barry A.]

rts551 - 5-12-2014 at 12:40 PM

And at the end of the article states

"Many U.S. military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argued that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign, and therefore militarily unnecessary.[260] This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. As the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", noted Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"."

So maybe there is something to the statement that we were sending a message to the Soviets. and Barry, has your bias ever influenced your reading, ability for critical thinking, and statements on BN?

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Barry I believe Wiki states that

The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.

Barry A. - 5-12-2014 at 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
And at the end of the article states

"Many U.S. military leaders as well as ex-president Herbert Hoover, argued that it was simply an extension of the already fierce conventional bombing campaign, and therefore militarily unnecessary.[260] This, together with the sea blockade and the collapse of Germany (with its implications regarding redeployment), could also have led to a Japanese surrender. As the United States dropped its atomic bomb on Nagasaki on August 9, 1945, the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack with 1.6 million troops against the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. "The Soviet entry into the war", noted Japanese historian Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, "played a much greater role than the atomic bombs in inducing Japan to surrender because it dashed any hope that Japan could terminate the war through Moscow's mediation"."

So maybe there is something to the statement that we were sending a message to the Soviets. and Barry, has your bias ever influenced your reading, ability for critical thinking, and statements on BN?

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551
Barry I believe Wiki states that

The bombings' role in Japan's surrender and their ethical justification are still debated.

In response to your question-------Yes, I am pretty sure it has biased me, as I said in my Edit. Who really knows how that plays out in my OTHER statements on NOMADS, but it sure is part of my past so it is reasonable to think it does. My Family is full of Naval Officer's, and I attended the Naval Academy-------it is part of who I am. I did not graduate from the USNA as I am "math-challenged" (so I resigned) which is not conducive to being an Engineer, as was the requirement back then. (1958 and '59)

Barry

Barry A. - 5-12-2014 at 01:09 PM

CRITICAL THINKING

Since "critical thinking" is often brought up by some on this board, and in the previous posts again, I looked it up.

Very complicated subject, and not that easy to define. But after reading several different definitions, I settled in on this one as my favorite:

"Critical thinking is, in short, self-directed, self-disciplined, self-monitored, and self-corrective thinking. It presupposes assent to rigorous standards of excellence and mindful command of their use. It entails effective communication and problem solving abilities and a commitment to overcome our native egocentrism and socio-centrism."

(Taken from Richard Paul and Linda Elder, The Miniature Guide to Critical Thinking Concepts and Tools, Foundation for Critical Thinking Press, 2008)

Based on that, I think of myself as approaching "Critical Thinking", but often fall short, I am sure.

Perhaps this explains to JoeJustJoe why I appear to be talking about "self" so often.

:light:

Barry

DianaT - 5-12-2014 at 02:01 PM

The arguments re:dropping the bomb will continue. There is no absolute. But, Wikipedia is the last place I would look for any credible information, other than dates, trivia, etc. It is not a research organization nor an academic organization.

Skipjack Joe - 5-12-2014 at 02:35 PM

They can argue and reargue about it as much as they want. The fact that no nation has ever dropped nuclear bombs on civilians again, the fact that nations have signed non profileration treaties, the fact that we are continuously signing nuclear disarmament treatiies with others around the globe, all speak loud and clear about the world using nuclear weapons in any capacity.

The horror is beyond imagination. The two bombs managed to incinerate as many civilians in 10 seconds as it took Auchwitz 5 years to complete. General Mac Arthur, the allied commander in the pacific was not even aware of it (his relationship with Truman was not the best). Other military leaders stated that it served no military purpose. Still others have expressed their disgust and stated that they didn't join the military to participate in this form of barbarism.

The point of this post is to state that if saving lives of military personnel was an acceptable reason to drop nuclear weapons on civilians then why has it never been repeated and will never be repeated. That should tell you clearly which side was right.

DianaT - 5-12-2014 at 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
They can argue and reargue about it as much as they want. The fact that no nation has ever dropped nuclear bombs on civilians again, the fact that nations have signed non profileration treaties, the fact that we are continuously signing nuclear disarmament treatiies with others around the globe, all speak loud and clear about the world using nuclear weapons in any capacity.

The horror is beyond imagination. The two bombs managed to incinerate as many civilians in 10 seconds as it took Auchwitz 5 years to complete. General Mac Arthur, the allied commander in the pacific was not even aware of it (his relationship with Truman was not the best). Other military leaders stated that it served no military purpose. Still others have expressed their disgust and stated that they didn't join the military to participate in this form of barbarism.

The point of this post is to state that if saving lives of military personnel was an acceptable reason to drop nuclear weapons on civilians then why has it never been repeated and will never be repeated. That should tell you clearly which side was right.

I couldn't agree with you more --- that we are the only country that has used such a weapon of mass destruction is a real blot on our history even as the historians argue why we did it.

Skipjack Joe - 5-12-2014 at 05:41 PM

I probably shouldn't have compared it to Auschwits. The truth is that if the Soviets had it they would have dropped it on Berlin and the Germans would have dropped it on Moscow. And there is no question that the Japanese would have used it on us. If a winning nation used it then certainly one that is desperate would have used it. I don't really buy the idea that there are 'good' and 'bad' people on this planet.

Despite all of the testing I don't think it was clearly understood the carnage it would cause, at least not by the general public. I think many were surprised and horrified by it all.

Some even argue that it's actually responsible for years of peace, for a cold war that was pretty nothing more than posturing.

Barry A. - 5-12-2014 at 10:27 PM

Every sane person was horrified by the bomb, and continues to be, those involved with it the most.

Barry

MMc - 5-13-2014 at 02:20 PM

My grandfather always said, "history is written by the winners and those that want to stay in control. Truth has little to do with anything regarding history".

[Edited on 5-13-2014 by MMc]

Dollars and Sense

MrBillM - 5-13-2014 at 06:14 PM

Dictated Nipping a continuation of the war with the A-Bomb.

Saving countless Allied lives and (incidentally) others was the primary reason, of course, but it was also the quickest and most economical.

The Other alternative to Invasion was Curtis LeMay's preference to continue the Fire-Bombing until there was nothing left to support resistance.

Also enormously costly in Dollars and Lives. On both sides.

There was NO chance that ANY negotiations would have resulted in surrender. ANYBODY who thinks otherwise is Ignorant of the history. Even after the Second Bomb, there was ALMOST a rebellion which would have prevented the surrender.

BTW, the purpose of #2 was to convince the Empire that we could drop them Endlessly.

Which wasn't true, but it worked.

Skipjack Joe - 5-14-2014 at 12:43 AM

If I remember my readings correctly the Allies demanded unconditional surrender. The Japanese had prior to the bomb sued for peace with total agreement to all points except that the emperor retain his position as a 'deity?'. After the bomb was dropped the people of Japan wanted to continue but the emperor himself called a halt to all of it.

Assuming this is true, was it worth incinerating all these people for this one point? What was the fear? that they would band around him and rise again?

It was never clear to me why this was so important to Japan. I guess it was part of their culture that Hirohito had descended from God and be worshipped. Anyways, the Allies were bent on destroying all this and demoting him to a mere mortal. This 'democratization' process is still occuring around the world today.

wessongroup - 5-14-2014 at 01:18 AM

If there had not been radiation problems ... Things would have really started "popping" ..

As for the dead ..... Japan's civilian loss were far less than two other nations, Russia and China

They had 24 million and 20 million, civilian deaths, respectively ... Japan 3.1 million

World wars would appear to be some pretty ugly stuff .... regardless of time period

Really liked those "frontal charges" in WWI

http://www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for-student...

Frigatebird - 5-14-2014 at 06:12 AM

Continuing the highjack,

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place...

Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

My understanding is they are "habitable" now because the aerial detonation of the bombs allowed much of the fallout to be carried far and wide, but those particles are still hot. Chernobyl not so "fortunate".

Mexitron - 5-14-2014 at 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
Dictated Nipping a continuation of the war with the A-Bomb.

Saving countless Allied lives and (incidentally) others was the primary reason, of course, but it was also the quickest and most economical.

The Other alternative to Invasion was Curtis LeMay's preference to continue the Fire-Bombing until there was nothing left to support resistance.

Also enormously costly in Dollars and Lives. On both sides.

There was NO chance that ANY negotiations would have resulted in surrender. ANYBODY who thinks otherwise is Ignorant of the history. Even after the Second Bomb, there was ALMOST a rebellion which would have prevented the surrender.

BTW, the purpose of #2 was to convince the Empire that we could drop them Endlessly.

Which wasn't true, but it worked.

Its easier to look back and be horrified but as you say, the alternative, a land invasion, would have cost Japan far more civilian lives. I have heard though that the reason the Japanese surrendered to us was that they didn't want to suffer the possible horrors of surrendering to the Russians who were amassing nearby. The Japanese were pretty stubborn about surrendering at all so the bomb's devastation was encouraging but might not have been enough.

SFandH - 5-14-2014 at 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Who here is a nuclear weapons expert and has an unbiased take on the effects of weapons based radiation vs. power plant radiation?

I know a lot about nuclear weapon effects. I have a Masters degree in physics and wrote classified software for the then Defense Nuclear Agency concerning nuclear weapons effects for six years and the Strategic Air Command concerning nuclear weapons targeting for about 4 years. I also know how power reactors are built and understand the nuclear reactions that take place. I thoroughly understand radioactivity and how ionizing radiation interacts with living tissue.

The main difference between bombs and reactors in the area of radioactive nuclides is the amounts involved. Weapons are composed of 10s -100s of pounds of radioactive materials. Reactors contain tons of the stuff. Weapons do produce neutron activation of non-radioactive materials, making them radioactive (the neutron bomb) but such materials are highly radioactive and therefore decay away quickly.

Minimizing the radiological effects of 3 power reactor core melt downs because the ground beneath weapon detonations can be inhabited doesn't make any sense. You're comparing apples and oranges.

The area around Chernobyl will be uninhabitable for generations. Cs-137, a prevalent fission product has a half-life of around 30 years. Essentially, it takes 7 half-lives to decay to negligible amounts. I'm not sure about the ground contamination around ***ushima. I think most of the crap went out to sea.

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]

David K - 5-14-2014 at 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SFandH

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

Who here is a nuclear weapons expert and has an unbiased take on the effects of weapons based radiation vs. power plant radiation?

Thank you.... Just observing and trying to understand the hysteria about radiation. The thread started with the "good" news that seaweed is not radioactive from the power plant. That was point one. Radiation from two atom bombs hitting Japan also is not deadly-lasting... since the two cities are rebuilt in the same places. Point two. So not all radiation is deadly for an eternity.

Your point that weapons only use a few pounds of radioactive material vs. a power plant using tons is a good one! So, I guess it is lucky the sea weed is not radioactive?

Thank you! :light:

SFandH - 5-14-2014 at 09:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Just observing and trying to understand the hysteria about radiation.

It's not hysteria, it's legitimate concern.

You can't see it, taste it, feel it, or hear it. You don't know it's there. If you breath in or otherwise ingest just a tiny (weight wise) radioactive particle and it gets stuck or chemically assimilated in your body your chances of getting cancer is greatly increased. It emits ionizing radiation which means it changes the atoms and molecules in your tissues, often causing genetic mutations which can and do lead to cancer.

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]

SFandH - 5-14-2014 at 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Radiation from two atom bombs hitting Japan also is not deadly-lasting

Yes it is. The half-life of plutonium 239, the fissile isotope in the Nagasaki bomb is 24,100 years. It's not only radioactive, it's toxic too. You don't want to get a speck of that stuff in your lungs. It's lying around Nagasaki, just not much of it. Residents probably don't need to worry about it. Probably. I would never raise a family there.

BTW, power reactors create some plutonium 239 from uranium 238, some are even fueled with.

Also, although it could never be proven, it's only logical to attribute high cancer rates, in part, to the Japan bombs and the atmospheric testing that took place in the 50s and 60s. Why do you think they went to underground testing?

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]

David K - 5-14-2014 at 09:58 AM

Well, if millions of people are living there since 1945, I would say it is not a deadly place.. anymore so than anywhere else. Chernobyl seems to be more dangerous... and I thought you made it clear the reason why (tons vs pounds)?

SFandH - 5-14-2014 at 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Well, if millions of people are living there since 1945, I would say it is not a deadly place.. anymore so than anywhere else.

I disagree. It is riskier there. Not much, but riskier.

I just added this to my above post:

Also, although it could never be proven, it's only logical to attribute high cancer rates, in part, to the Japan bombs and the atmospheric testing that took place in the 50s and 60s. Why do you think they went to underground testing?

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]

David K - 5-14-2014 at 10:09 AM

Perhaps from fear and not real science? The French didn't go underground, and people still enjoy Tahiti for vacation...

I am not saying any of this is good. I am saying it isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

Have a nice day!

wessongroup - 5-14-2014 at 11:02 AM

You don't take a poll on a fact

Watch: John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous

SFandH - 5-14-2014 at 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
Perhaps from fear and not real science?

Nope, wrong again.

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
The French didn't go underground, and people still enjoy Tahiti for vacation...

Look up "non-sequitur".

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
I am not saying any of this is good. I am saying it isn't as bad as some make it out to be.

Perhaps the worst industrial pollution event that has ever occurred. I suppose Chernobyl could be considered worse. Depending upon what you're considering.

Read about the migratory blue fin tuna caught off of San Diego that contain Cs-137. Not much, but it's there. How much will they contain in the future? Less probably, maybe. Will it accumulate in the fish?????

Do the fish contain plutonium? I don't know. Do you?

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2012/may/29/tuna-ca...

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]

willardguy - 5-14-2014 at 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wessongroup
You don't take a poll on a fact

Watch: John Oliver and Bill Nye Show Why Cable News Climate "Debates" Are So Ridiculous

john oliver is the best! hey, ever notice every time the nutty mapman says something incredibly stupid he ends with "have a nice day"?
just a casual observation! :lol:

sancho - 5-14-2014 at 11:24 AM

Looks like someone here is having a no-hitter thrown
against him, against all logic and factual presentation,
he clings begrudgingly, grasping at straws, trying to save face, do all of us
a favor, and take a seat on the bench, it's over

rts551 - 5-14-2014 at 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sancho
Looks like someone here is having a no-hitter thrown
against him, against all logic and factual presentation,
he clings begrudgingly, grasping at straws, trying to save face, do all of us
a favor, and take a seat on the bench, it's over

That's what happens when you use political ideology to form your conclusions instead of following (or following people who use) the scientific method.

Political ideology, which David K uses as a foundation for his opinions, is rooted in the desire for power and not the acquisition of knowledge. As such it may have little to do with reality or logic and leads one to be negative against all other conclusions.

vgabndo - 5-14-2014 at 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K

I just think the liberal "sky is falling" and "in crisis" distress claims about selective disasters is disingenuous and used to create drama to assist in their political power grab.

David, please cite a "selective disaster" wherein the world's best scientists have falsified evidence to create drama in order to further progressive causes.

I recommend this scientific study of four newspapers which may help to explain why you and many others are so often ill-informed.
http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec...

Three of the newspapers from this study are owned by huge multi-national corporations. Almost all the "news" we Americans get comes from one of 5 big corporations. Can you tell me which ones of them lobbied against the SCOTUS making their corporations "people" with free speech rights to secretly buy politicians with their shareholder's money?

Heather - 5-14-2014 at 12:39 PM

Love the video clip! Would show it to my high school Chemistry classes as an introduction to the scientific method....except for the bad words!!!

Skipjack Joe - 5-14-2014 at 01:39 PM

Oh that's funny Heather. They know more bad words than we'll ever know. Well, except for BillM.

The Primary Unassailable FACT is ................

MrBillM - 5-14-2014 at 01:58 PM

That the implementation of Scientific Theory has always been and will always be governed by political reality.

WE are always aware that it is our political support of candidates who support OUR view of those Theories which will be ultimately responsible for the direction government takes.

Politics to support Ideals are the means to achieve the ends.

And, in that respect, 2014 is looking good.

wessongroup - 5-14-2014 at 02:12 PM

"That the implementation of Scientific Theory has always been and will always be governed by political reality."

No disagreement on this point, at this time ..... however, things maybe changing ... as "politics and/or industry" have been faced with an issue which is very LARGE IN SCOPE and have not been able to effectively address, to date :biggrin:

Perhaps there is a paradigm shift coming our way .... what has worked in the past, is NOT working at this time based on Science which we® are "seeing" up close and personal on a Global Scale

Major step by the President ... to put NOW into the mix on this topic ... as it does have linkage to Japan's meltdown IMHO

Dittos on the High School kids ... Skipjack :lol:

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by wessongroup]

It's a Slow Process

SFandH - 5-14-2014 at 03:12 PM

but at least you have shifted from denying global warming to accepting it but denying that this time it's man-made.

You seem to be stuck on the idea that because global warming happened naturally in the past it can't be man-made now. Is that your position?

[Edited on 5-14-2014 by SFandH]

wessongroup - 5-15-2014 at 11:35 AM

Yep, lets vote on Global Warming ... how's that been working :biggrin:

Ask China ...

This may help as it relates to "perspective"

"Some Strange Things Are Happening To Astronauts Returning To Earth"

http://www.upworthy.com/some-strange-things-are-happening-to...

We are a spaceship in space ...

[Edited on 5-15-2014 by wessongroup]

[Edited on 5-15-2014 by wessongroup]

Is It a Coincidence that

MrBillM - 5-18-2014 at 09:49 PM

All of that ***u radiation was released and NOW GODZILLA's Back ?

I Think NOT.

wessongroup - 5-19-2014 at 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBillM
All of that ***u radiation was released and NOW GODZILLA's Back ?

I Think NOT.

In the theaters now ... :biggrin:

Saw where the Space Station and shuttle will be allowing BBQ's :lol:

[Edited on 5-19-2014 by wessongroup]

mtgoat666 - 5-19-2014 at 02:55 PM

The seas are now rising much faster than they did in the past, largely due to climate change, which accelerates thermal expansion and melts glaciers and ice caps.
Sea levels rose an average of 8 inches between 1880 and 2009, or about 0.06 inches per year.
But in the last 20 years, sea levels have risen an average of 0.13 inches per year -- about twice as fast.

And it's only getting worse. NOAA has laid out four different projections for estimated sea level rise by 2100.
The agency's best-case scenario assumes that sea levels will rise at least 8.4 inches by the end of this century.
NOAA's worst-case scenario predicts that the oceans will rise nearly 7 feet in the next 86 years.

will it be 8.4 inches or 7 ft? will it be 0.1 inches/year or 0.9 inches/year?

stick your head in the sand, don't worry, be happy!

In a HUNDRED years ?

MrBillM - 5-19-2014 at 03:06 PM

OK, we'll agree to start worrying in 75.

Promise.

Good enough ?

SFandH - 5-19-2014 at 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mexitron
when the climate scientists can explain why sea levels were 8 feet higher and CO2 was 25 percent higher than present in the last interglacial optimum ( the Late Pleistocene Eemian, similar to the phase we're currently in) while humans had essentially no footprint yet, I'll be interested.

These reasons are proposed in the 2 references provided:

Volcanic emissions of co2.

Destabilized methane hydrates on continental shelves.

Release of carbon from Antarctic permafrost and peat.

Different earth orbital parameters.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1211/1211.4846.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/97PA02550/pdf

---------------------------------------------

I often read/hear the argument or at least the implication that if global warming happened before without man's influence, then the hypothesis that it is man-made today is incorrect. But that conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. To put it it another way, it's gobbledegook.

Also, the earth's atmosphere is a paper thin shell around the earth as the excellent video wessongroup provided a link to above and repeated below demonstrates. It's quite possible that since the beginning of the industrial revolution man has pumped enough carbon into it to cause a warming greenhouse effect.

Take a look, notice the atmosphere from space as the astronauts see it.

http://www.upworthy.com/some-strange-things-are-happening-to...

[Edited on 5-19-2014 by SFandH]

Mexitron - 5-19-2014 at 05:43 PM

Thanks for the links SFand H...what I've read so far is interesting...

SFandH - 5-19-2014 at 06:00 PM

Glad you mentioned "Late Pleistocene Eemian" I've never heard of it. Now I know how to find out about previous warming periods. Those papers are complicated. According to Google search, they've been cited by other researchers as sources.

One paper mentioned the release of carbon from permafrost as it thawed. I've read about fears of that accelerating this warming.

[Edited on 5-20-2014 by SFandH]

Skipjack Joe - 5-19-2014 at 06:39 PM

Up until the 60's it was acceptable to dump waste into rivers because fresh water would clean all the waste away.

Up until the 80's we were told that having smoke in your lungs had no effect at all, just as good for you as if it wasn't there.

And now were are told that 100s of years of burning of fossil fuels has no impact on the planet. The same as if it didn't occur at all.

We can't seem to understand the concept of cause and effect.

[Edited on 5-20-2014 by Skipjack Joe]

wessongroup - 5-19-2014 at 09:56 PM

Good stuff ... and speaking of good stuff

They have the 1.2 mile "ice wall" up at the site ... we shall see

Interesting numbers though ...

Tons 400 per day or:

Tons to pounds = 400 x 2,200 = 880,000 pounds

Gallons = 880,000/8= 110,000 gallons per day

Days since event … 3/11/11 ... little over three years

Stored on site 436,000 tons

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Japanese+nuclear+power+plant...

365 x 400x 3= 438,000 tons, of total water flow through and/or under the site

Based on disclosed information, it would appear only 2,000 Tons have been released into the ocean and/or the environment

If one wishes to believe the reported numbers …

"The plant’s operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., acknowledged in July that contaminated underground water has been flowing into the ocean for some time, soon after the crisis began."

They have the “Ice wall” up …. and expect to get a handle on it …. in the next 40 plus years

If it didn't hit us ... I'm happy, at this time ... however, will wait for the final on this one .... as long as I'm around :biggrin:

[Edited on 5-20-2014 by wessongroup]

A Missed Education Opportunity

MrBillM - 5-20-2014 at 10:01 AM

Well, delayed.

I offered to take mi esposa to see Godzilla so that we could update our information on the situation, BUT ..................

All except one showing (at a bad time) in 3D.

After seeing one such months ago (against my better judgement), I vowed NEVER AGAIN.

She'll have to wait for PPV.

[Edited on 5-20-2014 by MrBillM]

David K - 5-20-2014 at 10:22 AM

We gave 3-D a shot for the movie Green Hornet a couple years ago... never again... I can't believe one would go through a couple of hours long movie wearing those glasses for a few moments of 'affect'... :lol:

The content of the movie and special effects is more important to us than some brief thrills. Maybe when they figure out how to make it 3-D without the glasses and false colors we will try it again?

wessongroup - 5-20-2014 at 10:54 AM

Heard it was really pretty good .... as Godzilla movies go

Can't wait for Megalon along with all those other characters used by the Japanese in their early Godzilla franchise ... endless entertainment IMHO

Will also be waiting for the online version, or, maybe the Blue-ray/3D

Not to enthralled about 3D ... various quite a bit on movies and games

rts551 - 5-27-2014 at 05:53 PM

And lets hope the there is no contamination in the pole dancers pole! since we are talking about gene pools. Oh thats pools. got things mixed up again

wessongroup - 5-28-2014 at 10:53 AM

"I believe, must temper what we see and hear from Scientists with skepticism less we gallop down divergent roads in utter chaos and confusion when reviewed in the final reality of time."

Think that response, is much of what other scientists have faced through out history ... Ya know like .... Galileo ... et al

Agree with keeping it on the high road

We may disagree, but, no need to get in the "dirt"

Just think the "goal" setting by "management" is off the mark on these issue big time and their input isn't really needed ...

What are all scientist unable to make an informed decision ... only Business Management (MBA's and CEO's) can make a call which is to the benefit of the "people" ... NOT scientists ... In a Pig's Eye :biggrin:

Think the confusion on Management's part over health and environmental issues ... is to a large degree a lack of fundamental knowledge in science and the motivation of 18% triple net

[Edited on 5-28-2014 by wessongroup]

David K - 5-28-2014 at 05:52 PM

It gives me a 'glowing personality', you should try it!

Seriously, why can't anyone on you way of seeing the world respond to the OP (original post) without dragging my observation into it?

Seaweed from ***ushima is free of deadly radiation: Comment???

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are too: Do you deny this simple statement of truth or must you constantly sidebar into the never never to distract and confuse???

Skipjack Joe - 5-28-2014 at 06:43 PM

A. Socrates is a man.
B. All men are mortal.
C. All men are Socrates.

mtgoat666 - 5-28-2014 at 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
First radiation is tolerable because Hiroshima and Nagasaki are flourishing. What about the first 5,10,20 years. Do they count for anything?

Many tens of thousands dead, many more maimed or afflicted with cancer later,...
But in DK world, all is good, ya sure, you betcha! Nuclear war is good economic stimulus!

:lol:

[Edited on 5-29-2014 by mtgoat666]

Barry A. - 5-28-2014 at 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
A. Socrates is a man.
B. All men are mortal.
C. All men are Socrates.

That does not track---------A & B do, but C is not connected.

What does that have to do with what David says----------you lost me there. David's comments track with me------how come they don't track with you? :?:

Barry

rts551 - 5-28-2014 at 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
A. Socrates is a man.
B. All men are mortal.
C. All men are Socrates.

Barry

DianaT - 5-28-2014 at 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rts551

Quote:

Originally posted by Barry A.

Quote:

Originally posted by Skipjack Joe
A. Socrates is a man.
B. All men are mortal.
C. All men are Socrates.

Barry

It is a classic and it was so spot on. :biggrin:

elgatoloco - 5-29-2014 at 06:13 AM

Ten things I have learned on BN:

1. Al Gore invented global warming

Must say finding much entertainment and some hearty laughs on this thread :saint:

SOS

Sweetwater - 5-29-2014 at 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by David K
It gives me a 'glowing personality', you should try it!

Seriously, why can't anyone on you way of seeing the world respond to the OP (original post) without dragging my observation into it?

Seaweed from ***ushima is free of deadly radiation: Comment???

Hiroshima and Nagasaki are too: Do you deny this simple statement of truth or must you constantly sidebar into the never never to distract and confuse???

Your ongoing ignorance is displayed once again. The comments made by you continue to be the example used to call you out on your ignorance. You stated:

Quote:

You do realize that the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki rebuilt in the same place... Deadly Radiation isn't forever... as popular belief thinks.

Stand up and deal with real facts yourself. Yes, everyone knows that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt. Yes, we know that the Kelp beds are not currently contaminated by ***ushima. We also know that:

Quote:

Fat Man and Little Boy Dropped by the Enola Gay on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, Little Boy was a uranium- fueled bomb about 10 feet long and just over two feet across, that held 140 pounds of uranium and weighed nearly 10,000 pounds. When he exploded as planned nearly 2000 feet above Hiroshima, about two pounds of uranium underwent nuclear fission as it released nearly 16 kilotons of explosive force. Since Hiroshima was on a plain, Little Boy caused immense damage. Estimates vary but it is believed that approximately 70,000 people were killed and an equal number were injured on that day, and nearly 70% of the city’s buildings were destroyed. Since then, approximately 1,900 people, or about 0.5% of the post-bombing population, are believed to have died from cancers attributable to Little Boy’s radiation release. Squat and round, Fat Man, so named for its resemblance to Kasper Gutman from The Maltese Falcon, was dropped three days later on the city of Nagasaki on August 9, 1945. About two pounds of Fat Man’s 14 pounds of plutonium fissioned when it detonated about 1,650 feet above Nagasaki, releasing 21 kilotons of explosive force. Because the bomb exploded in a valley, much of the city was protected from the blast. Nonetheless, it is estimated that between 45,000 and 70,000 died immediately, and another 75,000 were injured. No data on subsequent cancer deaths attributable to radiation exposure from the bomb is readily available.

Your statement belittles those effects and deaths, IMHO and you need to own up.

Additionally, your follow up statement that Deadly Radiation isn't forever is remarkably stupid since we do know that Chernobyl and ***ushima are contaminated with very long half life radiation in relatively huge quantities. We also know that the ***ushima contamination is continuing to poison our biosphere. When you admit how wrong you are, I'll stop picking on you.....But you really make such a large easy target that it will be difficult.. :cool:

Pages: 1 2