2053....not the year, the # of nuclear explosions
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
That's right, can't be worrying about understanding what we read or hear.:roll:
Keep writing, seems your stupidity knows no bounds.
People make mistakes all the time, the only thing stupid is your attitude... Tonnington isnt worried so why should you be? Flame bait much? And if iam stupid like you say id rather be stupid than lack character like you......
Last edited:
care the elaborate gerryh?
as you can see the westerlies blow to the east, so i dont know why gerryh is rolling his eyes.... When chernobyl blew its top, radioactive isotopes went where the wind took them
A 22.6 increase in global average of radioactive toxins.
Toxins are not evenly distributed globally as per wind patterns.
The majority open air tests (Americans, French and Brits) were in the southern hemisphere.
Latitudes where air descends would have higher concentrations than latitudes where air rises, like the south half of Canada.
Last edited:
see thats interesting, did it get into more detail about kazakhstan? there was no link
But if you seen the video the biggest spots were in the south west of the united states.. Thats in the northern hemisphere
Last edited:
strontium 90: Definition from Answers.com
but your right EOA they dropped after that. And that was my MAIN question and concern...
in my link it mentions people still have some strontium in them, possibly from nuclear reactor emmissions, could the wind play a role in this? The people they tested were in the north east......
it looks like the wind was involved i guess here, i highly doubt it hitchhiked there
but your right EOA they dropped after that. And that was my MAIN question and concern...
in my link it mentions people still have some strontium in them, possibly from nuclear reactor emmissions, could the wind play a role in this? The people they tested were in the north east......
Last edited:
A very clever video representation of several decades of international insanity. For a real look at nuclear testing up until the first Limited Test Ban Treaty check out Trinity and Beyond: The Atomic Bomb Movie, narrated by the brilliant Canadian William Shatner. The film is extremely well done and is a must see for those interested in understanding the incredible madness of the arms race.
While weather and winds are highly variable, I'd judge from the winds diagram that radioactive toxins from Nevada would most likely settle downwind in the subtropical high pressure area.
related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fallout
I saw the video. Size matters...
In general, Americans tested A-Bombs in Nevada, H-Bombs in the South Pacific.
Last edited:
Maybe you already were aware of the scale of nuclear tests. I wasn't. Art can be used to help interpret facts. Naked facts can be objective, but subjectivity is what drives the majority of human opinion forming.
For instance, can you perceive how small something like a toxic screening result is? What does one part per billion mean to you? Small, sure, but how small?
Cool. People must have slacked off lately, though, because I haven't seen any 3 story tall spiders scooting around for a long time.
The amount of nuclear testing means absolutely nothing. If what the "artist" is trying to assert is that this is "damaging our earth", then why dance around the bush? Why not provide "naked facts" showing this assertion? Because there are none. Instead, he would rather make some obscure correlation by just showing the number of tests, than the straight out effects. As you put it, the artist finds what avenue he needs to display his agenda, when in reality it is useless information. I'm merely calling out on his bluff.
See, this was one of the posts the artist probably wanted to stir. The validity of such statements however are a completely different matter.
Let me understand something. Are you trying to say that the billions wasted on nuclear testing; the huge amount of radiation released into the environment; and the manufacture of enough nuclear weapons to destroy civilization was nothing to be concerned about?
And what bluff are you calling? I did not detect any hint of the creator of the video bluffing about anything. He was merely illustrating an unfortunate episode in history.
The amount is the amount. It means what it means.
The facts are the date and country which conducted the test. Why you even have objections to a timeline where we can discern those is beyond me.
What is the correlation?
Instead of even bothering with this kind of MAD ideology, I'll just send you back to the 1980's where it was more popular, seeing as your politics are stuck in that time frame.
Which was why I said such information is useless. Its akin to stating the amount of houses sold per annum. Thanks but no thanks.
BS It indicates the stupidity in misusing gov't funding.
That it is useless is only your opinion. Not a big deal.
But then even something more-or-less useless or irrleevant can have vast ramifications. You seem to forget that. Or maybe you just aren't aware of it.
As is your opinion.