If you don’t think direct exposure to radiation is hazardous to your continued earthly existence, sneak into BNL and stand in the beam when the separator is on line. 

And the pictures (as shown in the video) showing no blast crater, no epicenter, just damage that you would expect in a regular conventional firebombing. That's pretty damning in my opinion. If a "nuke" were dropped, there should be a crater and NOTHING at ground zero, then progressively less damage as you go outward. That is not what any of the pictures show.

I characterize your description as "one-eyed" in seeing only the relative radiation resilience of vegetation (compared to mammalian life) and denying the stunted and mutated vegetatative (and human) forms that were observed following the blasts.

There was immediate devastation of vegetation (and almost everything else within the epicenter and hypocenter of the blast zones) and, yes, there was a somewhat unexpected resilience of regrowth that was studied. The blasts' destruction and the resultant fires' destruction of vegetation and mostly-wooden buildings returned nutrients to the soil. The ash of the blasts served precisely as the ash of the much decried "slash and burn" style of agriculture. Also the blasts denuded the vegetation and buildings existent at the time of the blast and that loss of sunlight cover increased sunlight available for plants to re-grow.

All the wartime destruction, nuclear and conventional, destroyed the nationwide records of pre-war agricultural production, so no data available is sufficiently granular to quantitatively evaluate pre- and post-blast production in the bombed regions in comparison with regions affected only by conventional weapons.  There was massive nationwide post-war hunger and overall decreased agricultural production, but there are too many confounding factors (destruction of rail lines, distribution centers, black markets, etc.) to make a meaningful assessment of nuke v. non-nuke regions. The data was not and still is not available to make the case either way.

The "black rain" of the fallout did cause many plant species to display stunted and mutated growth. Other species were observed to be relatively radiation resistant.(e.g., willows, ginko, camphor).

There were radiation effects on vegetation and there were the radiation effects on humans that I have repeatedly described. I have previously described the distribution of the cataract, retina, and corneal eye damage that are uniquely attributable only to radiation. Please re-read what I wrote and posted above in this thread in those regards.


[sigh] For  the nth time:

Both Hiroshima (15 kiloton) and Nagasaki (21 kiloton) were low-yield air-bursts detonated at 1,900 ft and 1600 feet respectively… so no effing crater!!! Get it???

Because of the somewhat hilly local terrain, air-bursts used to maximize the blast overpressure across the widest possible area. A ground-burst would have wasted energy forming a crater, the hiily terrain would have shielded some areas, and would have produced far more radioactive fallout.

So… no crater, low yield, airburst all minimized the fallout contamination yet even despite those mitigating factors we still observed (1) radiation biology effects (birth defects and several eye problems) at characteristic distances that can only be ascribed to nuclear effects from the gamma burst and (2) radiation biology pattern of unique immediate and delayed cancers that can only be ascribed to the nuclear effects of ingestion (food, water, and air) of short half-life (e.g., Iodine-131) radionuclides with thyroid affinity and longer half-life (e.g., Strontium 90, Cesium-137) persistent "bone seekers" and really long half-life (e.g., Iodine-129) radionuclides.

These observations show unique patterns of (1) time, (2) distance, and (3) specific organ effects that cannot be explained by any non-nuclear cause.



I am compelled to say it. This is unmitigated ignorance of biology.

We all develop mutated cancerous cells. We are healthy when our immune systems attack and destroy those cells. We "get cancer" when cells mutate and our immune systems surveillance and control fail.

To pretend that "nooks" are the only factor responsible is just invincibly ignorant.

"We "get cancer" when cells mutate and our immune systems surveillance and control fail."

The inference of your rhetorical question is precisely that children with cancer can only get it from "nooks."

That because no human knows "100%" the causes of cancers, we should indulge debunked theories because they are "interesting."

I should be so lucky as to have life to waste on disproven nonsense.

Men who think like you are precisely why so many cօռspιʀαcιҽs are extremely healthy and won't die -- even those that should!
Because people don't take the time to actually refute them with facts and logic. They get all bent out of shape because the theory is so "out there" and they basically do the equivalent of stammering and being all flustered. They don't know where to begin, so they just throw out some ridicule and move on.

Actually, it's out of pride and self-defense. Just the THOUGHT they could be wrong about something totally freaks them out, so they jump to the easiest dismissal: ad-hominems, etc.

Any impartial, third-party observer watching that exchange will be tempted to AGREE with the conspiracy theory, since the contra side is so weak, it had to use ad-hominems, appeal to authority, bandwagon, and countless other fallacies.

If someone would adequately address (debunk) the points made in the video, just maybe it would die, don't you think? Give humanity some credit.