Nuclear Power Exaggerated

Very well. You could replicate the mushroom cloud with a very VERY large amount of conventional explosives, but it does not account for the radioactivity left behind by the bombs.

Quote from: SlaserX

This essentially just splattered radioactivity across the whole area. As you see in some of the pictures, and from other sources, people were turned into nothing more than shadows... fire does not do this.

Major de Seversky stated that although he had heard some rumor of radioactive infected persons, he did not encountre even one such person.  He interviewed many staff and patients at the Hiroshima Hospital in addition to many medical and other workers sent to assist in the aftermath.  Although some of them had also heard this rumor, NONE OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS HAD EVER ENCOUNTERED EVEN SINGLE A PERSON INFECTED WITH RADIOACTIVITY.

As part of synthetically manufactured atomic hysteria, in 1947 twenty-six young men who worked with allegedly WMD nuclear weapons came into direct bodily contact with plutonium.  In 1980, a medical examination was conducted with twenty-four of these same men who had lived with plutonium inside them for thirty-two years.  The examination concluded that they had all lived completely normal lives and only two of the twenty-six had died - one was run over by a truck and the other died for a similarly irrelevant reason.

The last reference to the twenty-six plutonium patients is taken from a national medical journal which published the results of the examination in 1980.  I will post the name and issue of that journal as soon as I retrieve it.

According to the american propaganda, plutonium was the most deadly substance known to man.
So much for the veracity and reliability of the much vaunted american nuclear propaganda.

Gamma rays are a deadly form of radiation. Plutonium emits Gamma radiation. Prolonged exposure has serious side effects regardless of what some random article may claim.

It is also strange how the inhabitants, and later US marines who came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced hospitals full of people with radiation sickness. The streets littered with the burnt remains of people, and closer to the epicenter mere shadows. They did not even know the extent of radiation sickness back then, but the symptoms of most all patients were clear signs of radiation sickness. We see the same results after the meltdown in Tsjernobyl. Many workers died within days as a result of radiation exposure.

This is an interesting thread and all, but I don't see the point in refuting nukes. Good argument I suppose.

Quote from: Matrixfart

a nuclear bomb is not all that hard to grasp. It is a very simple concept.

Indeed.  I reckon it would be difficult for someone so locked into nuclear propaganda to imagine anything else.

What nuclear propaganda? Have you read a physics book lately? Splitting atoms is done all the time at numerous mass colliders around the world. There is no need to imagine something when the facts are staring me in the face.
Of course to you the concept may seem impossibly complicated, but your mental capacity is not the discussion.

Gamma rays are a deadly form of radiation. Plutonium emits Gamma radiation. Prolonged exposure has serious side effects

How about some evidence for this fantasy?

regardless of what some random article may claim.

So that is how you deal with inconvenient facts.  A real hunger for the truth, eh?

It is also strange how the inhabitants, and later US marines who came to Hiroshima and Nagasaki experienced hospitals full of people with radiation sickness.

That is not what the report and published article of the Seretary of War's Chief Inspector Major de Seversky said.  He claimed very much the opposite, and he was there.  You were not.

The streets littered with the burnt remains of people

That is exactly what one should expect to witness after the firebombing of a city.  The same is true for other cities in Japan as well.

closer to the epicenter mere shadows.

And your basis for that statement is beast's interpretation of a silhouette in a black and white photo he posted?
Certainly some people died from the blast of the fire bomb, but if you are trying to assert that people and buildings are incinerated by a nuclear reaction or intense heat near the epicentre, then you have no facts at all to back you.

They did not even know the extent of radiation sickness back then

And having not recorded any radiation sickness back then, you expect us to believe your false revisionist history decades after the fact?

but the symptoms of most all patients

OUTRIGHT LIES
You are lying every single word.  You were not there and Seversky was.  HE DID NOT ENCOUNTRE EVEN A SINGLE RADIATION PATIENT OR INFECTED PERSON NOR EVEN ANY WORKER OR HOSPITAL STAFF OR ANYONE THAT HAD ENCOUNTERED ANY SUCH PEOPLE AT ALL.

Again, what is your source?  All your arguments are merely typical american prejudices instilled by Cold War propaganda.  Do you read what I have written in the foregoing before you repeat the same lies already refuted?

We see the same results after the meltdown in Tsjernobyl. Many workers died within days as a result of radiation exposure.

Praise God.  You finally asked a question which has not already been answered.
Actually the scenario was very much identical.  I do have a file with some specific facts on Tchernobyl which is not presebtly with me, but I will procure it and post the relevant information.

I don't see the point in refuting nukes.

As stated earlier in this thread, nuclear weapons propaganda is being used politically in these times as the principle excuse for the strong nations to bully the weaker ones.  Iraq HONESTLY denied having any nuclear weapons just as Iran is doing now.

What nuclear propaganda? Have you read a physics book lately? Splitting atoms is done all the time at numerous mass colliders around the world.

The nuclear propaganda I was referring to is the american political and scientific propaganda about nuclear weapons.

I did not have in mind so much the comparativley esoteric atomic theory as I did the political propaganda about nuclear weapons, but since you mention the atomic theory behind nuclear weapons, I take it you have not referenced the link I posted earlier in this thread to Dewey Larson's 'Case Against the Nuclear Atom':
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

Nathan Gwynne's 'Einstein and Modern Physics' also debunks the atomic myth even more forthrightly than Larson's:
http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf

Also, labour historian and MIT alumnus David Noble's 'America By Design' reveals much about the difference between engineering theory and reality which directly relates to why what you read in a common physics textbook about nuclear theory has nothing to do with the reality of the explosions which actually take place.  The following is only a review, but as I have this book, I can retrieve it and quote some of the relevant portions about the way in which the educational segment of the engineering industry functions.
http://www.umsl.edu/~rkeel/280/class/ambydesn.html

For the longest time the US government refuted the existence of radiation poisoning. They even ridiculed the reporters who came back with pictures and stories of people comtinuing to die mysteriously for days, even weeks after the initial bombing. People would get boils on their bodies and spontaneously bleed from their ears and open sores.

An article on the Hiroshima cover up:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm

Pictures which were withheld by the government:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html

The chemistry of radiation poisoning:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Radiation_poisoning



Maybe the nuclear arms race was blown out of proportion, but it does not mean it did not exist. Nuclear bombs are very real. No conventional bomb could do what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

that's like denying the gas camps in poland.

Nonsense.

I am not denying that Japanese died, and I have not disputed the numbre of dead aside from pointing out that to continue counting victims of the 1945 bombs as they die years afterwards even TODAY is manifestly ridiculous.

I also believe that the americans were wrong to drop this as well as all the rest of the bombs they dropped on Japan.

What I am disputing is the fact that the propaganda of "nuclear" bombs is unfounded since such kinds of bombs do not exist and have never existed.  The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not the kinds of bombs which propaganda asserts they were, and neither has the United States or any other nation or anyone else ever had such manner of weapons. 

Possibly the most reknown peice of nuclear weapons propaganda of the Cold War was Stanley Kubrick's 1964 movie 'Dr. Stragelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb' starring Peter Sellers (of Pink Pather fame) in multiple roles.  In spite of this and all the propaganda (government disinformation and otherwise), nuclear weapons are apparently the biggest WWII hoax of all (even more decisive than the jewish holocaust which is at least rejected in some well informed circles in the west and the entire islamic World) as nuclear weapons NEVER existed.  Only the threat.  Nothing more.

Nuclear weapons are a mouse that roared - just like the 1950's movie (also starring Peter Sellers in multiple roles) in which a tiny European nation whom nobody cared about (the Duchy of Grand Fenwick) declared war on the United States and subsequently captured the 'Doomsday Device' which was purportedly able to evaporate whole continents and proceeded to extract political concessions under the THREAT of detonating the 'Doomsday Device' if the requests were refused.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057012/

Alas, the 'Doomsday Device' was a dud all along.

Making a nuclear bomb used to be a major feat, with modern technology it is crudely simple in comparison to some of the other weapon we have at our disposition.

For the longest time the US government refuted the existence of radiation poisoning. They even ridiculed the reporters who came back with pictures and stories of people comtinuing to die mysteriously for days, even weeks after the initial bombing. People would get boils on their bodies and spontaneously bleed from their ears and open sores.

An article on the Hiroshima cover up:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm

Pictures which were withheld by the government:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html

The chemistry of radiation poisoning:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Radiation_poisoning

Maybe the nuclear arms race was blown out of proportion, but it does not mean it did not exist. Nuclear bombs are very real. No conventional bomb could do what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thanks for the links which I will take a look at, but you refuted nothing of Seversky's article.  I am familiar with REM's, et cetera, having worked for years on "nuclear" powered submarines.  The persons who wrote the radiation poisoning article above merely asserted that radiation sickness occurred in Hiroshima.  Some of the deadbeats here could have said that without you bothering to post the link, but it hardly means it's true.  That adds nothing to the discussion, but I will take a look at your other links.  

Quote from: Matrixfart on March 15, 2007, 09:22:35 AM

For the longest time the US government refuted the existence of radiation poisoning. They even ridiculed the reporters who came back with pictures and stories of people comtinuing to die mysteriously for days, even weeks after the initial bombing. People would get boils on their bodies and spontaneously bleed from their ears and open sores.

An article on the Hiroshima cover up:
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm

Pictures which were withheld by the government:
http://fogonazos.blogspot.com/2007/02/hiroshima-pictures-they-didnt-want-us_05.html

The chemistry of radiation poisoning:
http://www.chemistrydaily.com/chemistry/Radiation_poisoning

Maybe the nuclear arms race was blown out of proportion, but it does not mean it did not exist. Nuclear bombs are very real. No conventional bomb could do what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Thanks for the links which I will take a look at, but you refuted nothing of Seversky's article.  I am familiar with REM's, et cetera, having worked for years on "nuclear" powered submarines.  The persons who wrote the radiation poisoning article above merely asserted that radiation sickness occurred in Hiroshima.  Some of the deadbeats here could have said that without you bothering to post the link, but it hardly means it's true.  That adds nothing to the discussion, but I will take a look at your other links. 

I seem to remember from one of my history books that this Seversky did in fact refute the radiation sickness, but it was later found he had been told by the government to do so. For all I know you are just another government official who is just a little bit too fanatical about refuting Nuclear bombs.

As for nuclear submarines, you do know how a nuclear reactor works right?

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0810-01.htm

The Hiroshima cover-up article is much more interesting.  I have not quoted Laurence as I have not previously aware of either he nor Burchett.  

I would like to point out that the authority which I have quoted (Seversky) did not deny a large numbre of Japanese deaths.  Gwynne (whose nuclear essay I will post if I find it on-line) is also no friend of America's role in World War II.

And a genuinely good job on the writer's Isidore Stone quote to lead off the article.  I myself have many books by I. F. Stone including his seminal refutation of america's war on North Korea.  Although I disagree with his zionism, Stone was undoubtedly the "Noam Chomsky" of the 1950's and 1960's.  He was the editor-in-chief of the 'Nation' during World War II.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.F._Stone

I seem to remember from one of my history books that this Seversky did in fact refute the radiation sickness, but it was later found he had been told by the government to do so.

Really?  I am genuinely interested for you to quote the source because as far as I know you only know of his existence because I mentioned him.  You do realize that the rebuttal to Seversky's article published by Reader's Digest in May 1946 was loaded with quotes of interviews with military and pro-government scientific "experts" attempting to debunk him. 

For all I know you are just another government official who is just a little bit too fanatical about refuting Nuclear bombs.

Yeah, right... based on 60-year old propaganda.  Your article asserts that the US government denied bad effects of the bombing of Hiroshima.  Whatever the case may be there, the US government's propaganda TODAY about so-called nuclear bombs is one of principle motivations I have for exposing the baselessness of the american propaganda.  As a military veteran, I do not work for the government anymore.  So your argument for the existence of nuclear weapons is what suits current american propaganda against Iran, North Korea, and others.
If I may make an observation, it seems we may have some common ground on politics so there is no need to argue where we agree.  Though not as interesting as Seversky's, the coverup article is still intersting, though.

As for nuclear submarines, you do know how a nuclear reactor works right?

I am sure you take the conventional line on that too.  As far as atomic theory I probably could not tell you anything about the conventional view you don't already know or have accesss to.  As far as how the energy is channelled from the reactor to (1) the rest of the ship via electricity and (2) propulsion, I probably do know details you are perhaps unaware of, but all of those things external to the reactor are irrelevant anyway since the controversy is over what exactly generates the heat inside the reactor compartment with the exposure of rods in the reactor.

interesting how fall out symptoms are veeery similar (but more extreme obviously) to that of radiotheropy.

You obviously know more about a nuclear submarines workings than me. You are correct in the assumption that I was merely pointing to the actual heating by the rods.

The US govt. uses a lot of time to flail about the dangers about nuclear weapons. But North Korea also brags about the fact that they would not hesitate to use Nuclear weapons should the US try anything. Every government in the world, as well as the scientific community believes in the existence of nuclear weapons.

Call me crazy and a sheep to the propaganda, but I have more faith in them and the countless books and videos on the subject than you and this Severesky fellow.
I have heard of him before, but I can't for the life of me remember where from. Probably some text book in one of my history classes.

History is always skewed. "The victor decides the truth" is a quote historians constantly remind themselves of when researching sources. Americans claim they won Vietnam and Korea, whilst the rest of the world believe otherwise. When it comes to history, there are as many arguments as there are events. Yet they all agree on nuclear weapons.

Yet they all agree on nuclear weapons.

So the left and right do agree on this and you concede that the US government's official position is that nuclear weapons exist in spite of an interesting article to the contrary about the status of the official US position on their existence in late 1945.

You say that everyone unanimously agrees that nuclear weapons exist implying that the propaganda is even more thorough than the Jewish holocaust.

However, I reckon that throughout the Cold War there are holes in the Wall in both the left and right where the truth leaks out.  Aside from Seversky, Gwynne, and Dionysios there are occasional evidences of inconvenient information such as Ralph Epperson's book and the 1945 Laurence figure you referred to (whose legitimacy I am not vouching for but only citing to poke holes in you mythical assertion of unanimity).

As far as Ralph Epperson's book which states that the United States is the only country to ever have nuclear weapons, it is perhaps most comparable to Lloyd Malan's 1966 book 'Russia's Space Hoax' which usefully and technically debunks the entire Soviet space program up to that time for the hoax it was, including Sputnik and their other satellites as well as the Yuri Gagarin orbit and other Soviet propaganda.  One book debunks the Soviet nuclear myth while the other book debunks the Soviet space myth.  Both books debunk Soviet myths but do not touch on america which is not to say they are not useful.  The same critical approach needs only be taken to the respective american myths which has begun to be done much more recently with the number of technical books recently published exposing the Appollo "missions" which leaves the american nuclear myth remaining - the truth of the matter is important as the american government is still sapping this myth for every political advantage it can get out of it.

Quote from: Matrixfart

Yet they all agree on nuclear weapons.

So the left and right do agree on this and you concede that the US government's official position is that nuclear weapons exist in spite of an interesting article to the contrary about the status of the official US position on their existence in late 1945.

According to the article the US govt covered up the radiation effects in 1945. The dropping of the bomb wasa a controversial matter, and they felt it prudent to cover up the additional effects of radiation since it only meant bad press. This goes over into another conspiracy which claims the US did not need to drop the bombs, but did so anyway in order to show their might.

Today those facts do no longer apply. Today there is no disagreement to the horrors of the nuclear bomb.

Today there is no disagreement to the horrors of the nuclear bomb.

You say that everyone unanimously agrees that nuclear weapons exist implying that the propaganda is even more thorough than the Jewish holocaust.

However, I reckon that throughout the Cold War there are holes in the Wall in both the left and right where the truth leaks out.  Aside from Seversky, Gwynne, and Dionysios there are occasional evidences of inconvenient information such as Ralph Epperson's book and the 1945 Laurence figure you referred to (whose legitimacy I am not vouching for but only citing to poke holes in you mythical assertion of unanimity).

As far as Ralph Epperson's book which states that the United States is the only country to ever have nuclear weapons, it is perhaps most comparable to Lloyd Malan's 1966 book 'Russia's Space Hoax' which usefully and technically debunks the entire Soviet space program up to that time for the hoax it was, including Sputnik and their other satellites as well as the Yuri Gagarin orbit and other Soviet propaganda.  One book debunks the Soviet nuclear myth while the other book debunks the Soviet space myth.  Both books debunk Soviet myths but do not touch on america which is not to say they are not useful.  The same critical approach needs only be taken to the respective american myths which has begun to be done much more recently with the number of technical books recently published exposing the Appollo "missions" which leaves the american nuclear myth remaining - the truth of the matter is important as the american government is still sapping this myth for every political advantage it can get out of it.

- Dionysios

Just because one or two sources claim an opinion does not mean it is fact. It sounds like you don't believe in the Jewish holocaust or the Russian space program. If this is true then you are just a person who does not believe i things just for the sake of refuting them.

As I said, in every case there is two sides. Just because a handful of sources claim nuclear weapons do not exist does not make it so. You need to look at the evidence, the proof and the science from all sides, not just one.

Just because one or two sources claim an opinion does not mean it is fact. It sounds like you don't believe in the Jewish holocaust or the Russian space program. If this is true then you are just a person who does not believe i things just for the sake of refuting them.

that was the impression I've been getting...he seems to be using the holocaust as evidence of propaganda.

People write books to make money.  
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.  
America did have firebombing campaigns in WWII.  They were on civilian targets.  They used them to lower moral.  Just as the nuclear bombs that were dropped on Japan.  To lower moral.  And they worked.  The war ended.
There is no plane in the world that can lift 20 megatons worth of TNT to fake a giant explosion.  The physics allows nuclear weapons to exist.  
  

People write books to make money.  
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.

The first assertion is often enough true.  The second is false. 

Moreover, a lot of books have been written attempting to prove that atoms and nuclear bombs exist (and not the reverse) so that argument goes against you.

I read your links sources.  It took excerpts from single pages out of books.  They didn’t use the whole book. Not to mention the books used were dated 1950 and earlier. 

Go look search for scanning tunneling microscopes to see pictures of atoms. 

Quote from: sokarul

People write books to make money. 
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.

The first assertion is often enough true.  The second is false. 

Moreover, a lot of books have been written attempting to prove that atoms and nuclear bombs exist (and not the reverse) so that argument goes against you.

Maybe it is because atoms are an observed and proven phenomenon? And atom bombs are also an observed and proven phenomenon?

Quote from: sokarul

People write books to make money.  
Both atoms and nuclear bombs exist.

The first assertion is often enough true.  The second is false. 

Moreover, a lot of books have been written attempting to prove that atoms and nuclear bombs exist (and not the reverse) so that argument goes against you.

so what replaces atoms in your world? I forget...

Just because a handful of sources claim nuclear weapons do not exist does not make it so. You need to look at the evidence, the proof and the science from all sides, not just one.

Neither do the quantity of sources asserting the other side.
You make me out to be close minded when in fact I WAS ALREADY QUITE AWARE OF EVERY IDEA ASSERTED IN FAVOR OF THE OPPOSITE VIEW.  I have examined both sides.  I DO HAPPEN TO POSESS BOOKS BY KEFTIST AUTHORS DECRYING THE HORROS OF NUCLEAR RADIATION AND NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (such as those of American Indian activist Ward Churchhill or a excellent overview published by Southend Press) which books I am not totally against due to their anti-industrial arguments.  As earlier stated, I have for the most part political views in common with such left leaning people.

I am already familiar with MOST of the protests which have been posted due to the fact that every schoolboy has those opinions.

It is indeed good to check out both sides.  I never said otherwise, but it is disappointing to hear what sounds like one who has the daring to go up against such a monolith being portrayed as close minded.  OH CONTRAIRE!  I suggest that my opponents who read and say to themselves automatically that this guy is stupid and who never seriously considered the majority point of view are the ludicrously unrealistic ones. Do you honestly think that I was brought up thinking that nuclear weapons do not exist and simply never realized the other point of view?  Give me a break.

If you really think that I am the more close minded of the two sides, then if I ever go into another such battle make sure we are still on opposite sides because with all respect the last thing I need is someone who acquiesces to the majority just because they are more numerous.

It's good to hear you have read up on all sides of the argument. I am also aware that a majority does not make a truth. That said, in MY belief, the physics and evidence is so overwhelming that what I have read of the contrary just does not make up for the discrepancies.
In addition I am not a big believer in massive conspiracies. History has shown that conspiracies are found out sooner or later, no matter who the conspirers are.

So as entitled as you are to your opinion, I still find you to be odd and delusional to not believe the existence of nuclear weapons.

so what replaces atoms in your world?

You beg another topic, but atoms do not need replacement.  They are an ancient myth which was resurrected by Galileo.  Their acceptance (let alone that of "nuclear" atoms) was not nearly universal until the twentieth century.  Notably, the eminent and learned French chemical scientist Pierre Duhem (1861-1916) never accepted the atomic theory.

I do believe in aether, but a numbre of scientists from the late seventeenth to early twentieth centuries believed in both aether and atoms so aether can hardly be said to "replace" atoms.  POSSIBLY YOU HAVE CONFUSED ATOMS WITH ELEMENTS which are two different concepts.  Neither myself nor Duhem nor to my knowledge any scientist with any reason in all history ever claimed that elements do not exist.  Duhem and other scientists before him composed very learned chemical texts which knew nothing of atoms.  I can vouch for Duhem as I have seen some of his chemical treatises in French at libraries.

so what are 'things' built of? I mean, if everything is *built* of atoms, then...? I hate chemistry.

Things are not built of atoms as atoms are merely a false theory.

Matter is composed of elements.  I would think we would at least agree on that.

I am not an authority on chemistry either, but I have looked into enough to know who my authorities would be if I ever wanted to dig deeper.

Washington owns the world They know all and rule all and have the right to destory which ever heathen country they wish.









[/sarcasm]