Atomic bomb legacy haunts Hiroshima families

Atomic bomb legacy haunts families

 

Thats why I hate nukes I wil make the people who invented them freeze to death in sibera...

 

Please explain yourself here Mark, the atomics ended a bloody war and didn't "kill or wound a half million" Japanese. There might have been about a quarter million fatalities/casualties which were suspected to be linked to them, but few mutations or abnormal cancer levels have been linked to them. I agree they were a "nasty" thing, but when they were used they weren't known to be. In fact we (America) probably exposed more of our own population to radiation effects than we did Japanese.

Our ignorance of the effects are not an excuse of course, but it is a reason more care wasn't taken. You live in an era where they (radiation effects) are known, not in the one in which they were being discovered. Don't think I'm defending their use exactly, I am defending their use in the time-frame in which they were used.

 

While I'm sure you are warm and fuzzy with your hatred of "nukes," I seriously doubt you would find a great many who love, much less like, either nuclear weapons or atomic bombs. Kind of makes your position statement just a little odd; unless you ar merely trying to stake out some sort of superior moral position.

You may find it a bit difficult to get your hands on "the people who invented them" much less get them to the Siberian winter. When you do, don't forget to round up all the surviving German, Russian, Japanese, or any other nationality which had programs or were involved in someone else's program and include them in your movement as any of them would have developed "nukes" (btw you have a terminology problem) given the opportunity. Glad to see that summary executions are perfectly acceptable for you.

 

Yea but look long term it didnt make the world at better place it made it worst and another reason is that the Soviet and Americans stared each other down by building more more nukes hoping that the more they build they will deter the other.
My i mind you the europeans did the same thing in europe and ww1 still broken out and im sure the Japanses would have surrenderd wiht out the nukes I think.........

 

You must remember that they (atomics) were NEVER used again in anger. That has to be a "good thing", since the idea and concept of an explosive device was far from a unique idea to the Manhattan Project. Somebody would have done it, constructed an "atomic" if American, Britain, and the other western allies hadn't.

The other "weapons races" ended up in using the weapons, not so the "atomics and thermonuclears".

As an aside, I personally find it unlikely the Japanese would have surrendered without the "power of their own Sun Goddess" being turned against them. It gave them an "out" which was honorable and "face-saving".

Of course we (allies) could have fire-bombed, blockaded and starved them into non-existence, but they wouldn't surrender to those types of hardships. They never had, their culture is unlikely to have accepted such. It is more likely that the Japanese culture would have ceased to exist before they surrendered.

 

Before the outbrake of WW1 the European powers were building up thier armies and navies and using all the latest tech machine guns and battleships and the such. Also they were building up powerful alliances Triple entente (spelled that wrong) was France Russia and Britian for example in hopes that it will deter conflict and make people think twice.
We know how that turned out....................

 

Put simply - someone would have done it - you can't 'uninvent' the technology now, and you couldn't 'uninvent' the precursor atomic energy research back then.

The inconclusive results from all the medical tests on the survivors (thanks Lou) would seem to indicate that the original article has a political, rather than a humanitarian intent, although more likely they are just trying to fill the pages.

We don't need to make another right/wrong debate thread

P.S. Sam - triple entente is surprisingly actually spelled correctly

 

Comparing the conventional weapons races to the later "atomic-thermonuclear" race is false. Those weapons didn't have the ability to "negate" civilization in an hour or two. Not a comparable situation.

 

And let's not forget useful little things like Thalidomide, Dioxin and various organo-phosohate fertilisers, many brews of chemical waste - all of which were "good things" or resulted from various "good" things....but have cast a giant shadow over the gene pool FAR greater than the long-term genetic effects of the Atomic Bomb.

Hioroshima and Nagasaki have had nothing like the effect each and every one of us suffers every day from the above, along with four decades of human hormones in the drinking water supply courtesy of The Pill...resulting in everything from precocious puberty in pre-teen girls to low sperm count in adult males in the developed world!

Time to get some real perspective on the long-term legacy of 1945....

 

Don't forget lead in petrol (gasoline) ....

 

Oh no - tetra-ethyl lead is in my blood in a GOOD way! O for the smell of good old Four Star in my nostrils again....!

 

Most of the men are wearing helmets - they obviously knew the danger

 

Good one OpanaPointer,

That photo is from "Operation Buster", Test "Dog".

for the above quote with more information and photos see:

Operation Buster-Jangle

This was one of a series of tests conducted between October 22, 1951 through November 29, 1951.

 

I don't disagree that the "rush to a better life through chemistry" was mis-guided, but sometimes the chemicals exploited then, were later found to be cross-effective. Thalidomide is the first I can remember, but Dioxin was a "side-product" of other events which seemed necessary at the time and has (to my knowledge) no redeeming attributes.

The chemical fertilizers were a boon to farmers (I am one), but they could have been used with more discretion.

Here is an interesting article about Thalidomide:

In 1956, thalidomide was introduced by Chemie Grunenthal, a West German pharmaceutical company, as a sedative and was marketed under the name of Contergan. [1, 2, 3, 4] By 1958, it permeated the world market, and its use expanded from simply combating insomnia. Pregnant women frequently treated their nausea of pregnancy with thalidomide. [3]

Soon thalidomide's teratogenic effects became apparent, and it was subsequently withdrawn from the market in 1961. Fortunately, thalidomide had never been approved in the United States because of concerns about the development of peripheral neuropathies. [1, 3]

Thalidomide resurfaced in 1965 when Sheskin, a dermatologist from Israel, made a fortuitous discovery while treating his leprosy patients with thalidomide. He was prescribing thalidomide for its sedative properties, but he noticed that those with erythema nodosum leprosum had resolution or improvement of their skin lesions within 2 days of beginning treatment. This discovery has led to continued interest and research into thalidomide's immunomodulatory activities.

Goto:

A review of thalidomide's history and current dermatological applications