Moron Bush flapping his moron gums again

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't understand how Op Crossroads can be considered "deliberate" exposure of service personnel to radiation.

It might be a matter of semantics though. I spent a few years working in a research reactor facility, and received a Whole Body ionizing radiation dose of 70 millirem during that time. Would you consider that to be "deliberate" exposure?

Did you read the article at all..

You chose to be there in the research Facility.. Those sailors were there under orders... cleaning up the debris... those soldiers at the Nevada Test site... they were ordered to get out of their trenches and march toward ground zero.

All of them got far higher doses that you did.... and I bet they did not make the money you did.. they were there serving their country.. and their country did not serve them very well.

PS.. I got to do some research in the mid 80s at 200 area... and was exposed... I chose to be there as well at PUREX doing the sampling we were doing... but I had already been exposed before that across the river from Hanford during some training years before. It was incidental... but I was not there for my health at the time.

I spent 4 years in 200E after college.. What a craphole. Never got to go inside PUREX. Where I got the "dose" was at FFTF before college (I was inside the containment building during the first full power run!).
------------------------------------

Anyway, yes, I read the same report yesterday, but it may have been a different version.

The one I read said this near the beginning:

"Before the first test, all personnel were evacuated from the target fleet and Bikini Atoll. These men were placed on units of the support fleet, which sortied from Bikini Lagoon and took safe positions at least 10 nautical miles (18.5 kilometers) east of the atoll."......

WITH THE SAME STUFF AS YOU POSTED IN TH MIDDLE.

And this near the end:

"All CROSSROADS operations were undertaken under radiological supervision intended to keep personnel from being exposed to more than 0.1 roentgen (R) per day. At the time, this was considered to be an amount of radiation that could be tolerated for long periods without any harmful effects on health.

Radiological supervision included predicting areas of possible danger, providing trained personnel equipped with radiation survey instruments to act as guides during operations involving potential exposure, and elaboration of rules and regulations governing conduct in these operations. Personnel were removed for one or more days from areas and activities of possible exposure if their badges showed more than 0.1 R / day exposure.

About 15 percent of the JTF 1 personnel was issued at least one of the 18, 875 film-badge dosimeters during CROSSROADS. Approximately 6, 596 personnel were on the islands or ships that had no potential for radiation exposure. Personnel anticipated to be at the greatest radiological risk were badged, and a percentage of each group working in less contaminated areas was badged. The maximum accumulated exposure recorded was 3.72 R, received by a radiation safety monitor."
---------------------------------------------


Here's how I look at it (Crossroads). First, nothing in the report indicates to me that the soldiers were the subjects of "experimentation", i.e. there was no hidden plan to crap them up and see what happens. I use a much less liberal (big surprise) definition of "Human Radiation Experiment" than does the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments.

Second, reasonable (actually surprisinly good) effort was taken in the original planning to minimize dose. 100mR daily limit, moving people away from the blast, waiting before sending them back in, etc.

So then they had problems with the bombs mising the target, and to stay on schedule, violated the 100 mR/day rule. Was it willful, yes. Was it wreckless and without concern for the soldiers, no. The report says they evacuated the guys that got a flash dose to the other side of the atoll, made an effort to monitor doses as best they could,etc. Remember, it's 1946, not PUREX or PFP in the 60's (that was probably worse, actually).

I can't remember if Crossroads was one of the operations where the Army hid or destroyed dose logs, but I'll assume is was. It doesn't matter anyway for the purposes of this discussion because it's limited to the "intentional exposure" question.

So based mostly on the fact that it wasn't a "Human Radiation Experiment" as well as on the reasonable safeguards (for the time) applied, My opinion is that it doesn't constitute "deliberate" exposure of service personnel to radiation". I call it a stupid clusterfuck that was probably typical for the time, even though I was surprised to read that they took the safety measures that they did.

Notwithstanding the illnesses that are claimed (haven't read much on it), it turns out that the personnel really didn't get much dose, and the distribution of doses was weighted heavily on the low end. In July and August, 92% of the people were at or between 0 and 100 mR, ~8% were between 100 mR and 1 R, and 6% were between 1 R and 3.75 R, which was the highest dose recorded. As to whether the doses they received were harmful, I have a strong opinion, but it would be better to compare their doses to the current occupational limit, which is 5 R/year. I'm sure some people exceed that during the operation, but it's very unlikely (based on the report) that anyone got more ~20 R during the op, and it would be very few people.
------------------------------

I'm certain you won't agree, but I'm not trying to change your mind.

------------------------------
The people that I believe really were the subjects of "Human Radiation Experiments" were the guys, some of whom were not told, and some of whome were mentally disabled, and unable to give consent that they injected with Pu and shit. We should be ashamed of it and hopefully are. There's many other things stupid things we have done, too.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy.

Strive for a little composure, Professor.

Read my citations I posted at least twice now and refute something, anything about them.

And your cites about the cities being left untouched (at least prior to May 1945, when the selections were made) was (and is) more bullshit.

You, mnealtx, wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy.

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


Once again, in which post did Lucky claim that?

The BS is all coming from your side.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Read This .

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

As you know, this whole stupid series of posts stemmed from people asserting/implying that A-Bomb targets were preselected at or near the beginning of the war,

Who asserted that? Link please.

I'll make you a deal. If you can precisely describe to my satisfaction, and in your own words, how the Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments defines "Human Radiation Experiment", including how they selected that definition, I will answer your question.

Deal?
-------------------------

What a joke, this is like dealing with kids. The liberals here just research and post citation, yet the conservatives act like they porttray the french, claim they are being picked upon and play fussy games to get what they want. Has a conservative even once posted a citation in this thread or just continued to demand the we post citation after another.

If you have a point to make then make it and quit with the silly games. Hadn't you already retreated from this thread once?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't understand how Op Crossroads can be considered "deliberate" exposure of service personnel to radiation.

It might be a matter of semantics though. I spent a few years working in a research reactor facility, and received a Whole Body ionizing radiation dose of 70 millirem during that time. Would you consider that to be "deliberate" exposure?

That explains volumes.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. .

At least he got his history correct, unlike his critics from the right who have had to be dragged kicking and nitpicking the whole way in their denial.

1. Hiroshima was a "reserved target" by the Manhattan Project Targeting Committee. The committee minutes show clearly that they wanted a large undamaged target "so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb".

2. The US govt (AEC) deliberately exposed thousands of service personnel and civilians to radiation, by a number of methods including injection, exposure to fallout from nuclear detonations, deliberate releases from AEC facilities, and direct exposure to the detonations themselves.

The historical record from government documents is absolutely clear on both these points.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***

As you know, this whole stupid series of posts stemmed from people asserting/implying that A-Bomb targets were preselected at or near the beginning of the war,

Who asserted that? Link please.

I'll make you a deal. If you can precisely describe to my satisfaction, and in your own words, how the Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments defines "Human Radiation Experiment", including how they selected that definition, I will answer your question.

Deal?
-------------------------

We all know what that means. You can't provide the link.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's not MY fault if the quotes YOU provided don't prove out Lucky's claim that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were essentially untouched during the course of the war solely to provide targets for Fat Man and Little Boy.

Strive for a little composure, Professor.

Read my citations I posted at least twice now and refute something, anything about them.

And your cites about the cities being left untouched (at least prior to May 1945, when the selections were made) was (and is) more bullshit.

At the very least, these cities were left untouched throughout the entire war. Let's see, not being military targets would be the likely reson. Did we conventionally bomb any cities that had little to no military significance? Not that I know of and why? Because that is the logical thing to do; bomb military targets. Hell, even your POS president did that (bomb only military targets) during this war-hobby now.

But, when it came to showcasing our new toy we wanted to hit a city that:

1) Had an urban surrounding

2) Wasn't necessarily military

3) Would yeild great civilian deaths

Even if that decision was made the day before the droppings, Aug 6 and Aug 9, 1945, wouldn't it rock your world that we actually intentionally aimed at citizens rather than military? Instead you run behind some semantic game of whether we had this planned at the start of the war or whether any of us said that. IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER, WHAT MATTERS IS THAT AT SOME POINT WE AIMED AWAY FROM MILITARY TARGETS AND AIMED TOWARD THE CIVILIAN POPULOUS. Hell, even the 911 scum aimed at a fisal center and a military adminstrative hdqtrs and probably the white house, an excutive/administrative hdqtr. They had a goal to focus on these issues likely to the fact that they wanted to pass a message that they disliked American greed, American military involvment and hated the president. WHat did we do? We aimed at the civilian outskirts that hadn't been scattered and you want to enter into a game of semantics as to when we made that decision to aim away from the military and aim onto the civilian populous. Nice.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Everybody deserves to win at something. Sort of like the family argument where the one who screams loudest and longest is considered the winner.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Call it a "Good Ol' Boys Club" if you want, the fact remains that they are alive because the bomb was used. I'm sure they couldn't care less what you think of that.

You remarked that Hiroshima was intentionally left untouched by conventional bombing. This is true. However, you assert the reason for this is so damage by a nuke could be measured. Care to share with us where you got this tidbit of info, or is it just speculation? Many cities of known military value were left untouched and for many reasons, including strategic and tactical.

"Hiroshima is the largest untouched target not on the 21st Bomber Command priority list. Consideration should be given to this city", Gen. Leslie Groves, memo on guidelines for target selection, Manhattan Project Target Committee, April 27, 1945

Said quote, however, does NOT provide proof the city was left untouched solely to provide a target for an atomic bomb.

Sorry.

Unless we pull FDR and Truman out of their graves to testify to you, Mikey, you won't believe what is reasonably established and substantiated by the very acts of the US at that time. If not, why did we bomb a city that we hadn't bombed all during the war and that had very little military importance?

It is obvious you haven't a clue as to what is meant by "strategic" and "tactical". There is a HUGE difference.
It is also apparrent that many people don't know that for strategic reasons what not to bomb is just as important, sometimes more so, than what to bomb. Hiroshima was left alone for a reason. It was only in May of '45 that it was left alone as a potential nuke drop.

Ok, you make inferences to a possible point, but you don't finish them. If you have a point to make, please do. Instead of listing all the things I supposedly don't know, make your point.

>>>>Hiroshima was left alone for a reason. It was only in May of '45 that it was left alone as a potential nuke drop.

OK and that makes your point how? Was it 3 months or 3 years before th dropping that we decided not to bomb them so as not to scare off the population? Pure semantics; who cares? At some point we found a city of virtually all civilains and dropped the most devastating weapon upon them as opposed to finding a miltary target just so we could hit the most civilians as possible. How is that not a large scale version of 911?

Hiroshima did have value as a military target beyond it's civilian population. Just because you never took the time to find out what that was is no reason to blame others for your ignorance.
I, for one, am glad we dropped the bombs. My friends who came back from that war alive did so most likely because we dropped the bomb. (Yes, it's speculation. But based on what they had gone through on smaller islands it is well founded speculation.) The Japs started the war by killing millions of civilians in China, etc. We finished it by killing a very small fraction of that. Anyone who compares us using the bomb to 911 is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

>>>>>Hiroshima did have value as a military target beyond it's civilian population. Just because you never took the time to find out what that was is no reason to blame others for your ignorance.

It was an a assembly area for some troops and had some assorted, minor role in the military. Essentially it had no real value. I imagine every city played some role, even if supplying food for the troops or some other indirect military significance.

>>>>>>>Just because you never took the time to find out what that was is no reason to blame others for your ignorance.

And just because you won't address the fact that we intentionally aimed the most devastating bombs of that day onto civilian populous makes you, well, I better not say it. If you want to post the purpose for the city just refer to the citations I posted, it is on there.

>>>>>>>>I, for one, am glad we dropped the bombs.

Well of course you are, after all, killing 200-300+K civilians in two fell swoops passes a big message the apanese as well as Russia and the rest of the world. KIndof like a kidnapper at a bank dropping out 1 hostage an hour, dead.

>>>>>>My friends who came back from that war alive did so most likely because we dropped the bomb. (Yes, it's speculation. But based on what they had gone through on smaller islands it is well founded speculation.)

Yep, speculation.

>>>>>>>The Japs started the war by killing millions of civilians in China, etc.

Of course. Here is an interetsing site that lists the deaths by country and %:

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

China lost 16 million civilians and 4% of their total populous. Poland lost >18% of their total populous. Not sure how that justifies the US dropping the 2 bombs on civilians. Comparing atrocous behaviour?

>>>>We finished it by killing a very small fraction of that.

As I just posed, justification. Nice.

>>>>>>>Anyone who compares us using the bomb to 911 is a few fries short of a Happy Meal.

Anyone who rationalizes any country turning its weaponry away from military targets and onto the civilian populous is an armband away from being full fledged.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Here's a thought, since we will never see world disarmament, what if everyone had the same nuclear capability? Wouldn't we all tend to act with respect? An armed society is a polite society, so an armed world is a polite world.

I sincerely hope I'm missing your sarcasm. MAD does not produce a stable equilibrium, and the more circus performers you add to the balancing act, the more likely it is someone falls off the tightrope and takes others nearby with them.

I'm speaking in ideology only, but what makes the US so responsible? We've misused our authority more than we've used it correctly, so what makes us so great with nuclear weapons?

In some discussions the polar ideologies of the subject matter serve as useful baselines to aspire to, but in this case I don't think lengthly discussions about how we might or might not some day "get there from here" are worthwhile.

I'm not going to go off on a tirade about why the United States is the best thing since sliced bread, and how that means we should be the ones with our finger on the button. As of today, we're one of the countries burdened with the responsibility that comes along with possessing a nuclear arsenal. Thus far we've proven to be "reasonably okay" at it. The more states that have them, the more leadership changes that happen, the more deployment and maintenance plans and facilities you end up with, the more chances you get for something to go wrong.

By stating that I don't wish to see nuclear weapons proliferate, I'm not suggesting that we (the United States as a country) are perfect, I'm suggesting that we (humans as a species) are imbeciles.

>>>>>>>In some discussions the polar ideologies of the subject matter serve as useful baselines to aspire to, but in this case I don't think lengthly discussions about how we might or might not some day "get there from here" are worthwhile.

That's becuase aiming at civilian populations is unjustifyable and you are left trying to as you won't admit that anyone doing so is scum as we were in that instance. Why is it some people refuse to admit that we have been atrocious at times thru history?

>>>>>>>>I'm not going to go off on a tirade about why the United States is the best thing since sliced bread, and how that means we should be the ones with our finger on the button.

Even though you feel that way.

>>>>>>As of today, we're one of the countries burdened with the responsibility that comes along with possessing a nuclear arsenal. Thus far we've proven to be "reasonably okay" at it.

Turning them away from military targets and onto civilian targets is OK? BRILLIANT.

>>>>>>>The more states that have them, the more leadership changes that happen, the more deployment and maintenance plans and facilities you end up with, the more chances you get for something to go wrong.

With that, we should go back to a Monarchy. Let me guess, you vote for Bush to be king. As for, go wrong," I would assert that nothing went wrong, we aimed civilians and everything went as planned.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

>>>>>I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post.

IOW's, you're intentionally tangenting.

>>>>>>Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

No, no, of course not and there is no way I look at you as a troll either, no way. You are the exact embodiment of a troll, just becuase you post something admittedly totally away from the subject matter, so what. I mean all the best to you to.

>>>>>>>Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive.

And yours is off-topic and defamatory.

>>>>>>>You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response.

Really? I bet of bothered to word vount you would find an average of post length greater than most. And you say I've overparticipated? I just answer when addressed, something your side often refuses to do. In fact, I post every single statement and address each on most instances so I don't see your off-topic point.

>>>>>>>There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name.

*Bold face - illustrates emphasis
*>>>>>Arrows - establishes the statement I'm answering
*Italics - maybe once to show what I've previously written
* white space - what white space?
*broken quote blocks - never
*urls - ok, first you guys want citations, now you don't. I feel like I'm dealing with my GF
*copied and pasted text - Not true, I transcribe every word by hand
*text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name - HUH?

>>>>>>Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote.

Here, I'll sum it up for you: THE US FUCKING AIMED IT'S MOST AWESOME, UNTESTED ON MASSES OF PEOPLE WEAPON ON 2 CIVILIAN POPULATIONS NOT LARGELY INVOLVED IN THE WAR. Hope that hepls, becuae I am here to help you.

>>>>>When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Look up, "acquiescence" and you'll understand.

I've heard about this, this is where the people without a way to answer postings will attack the credibility of the author. WOW, first time I've ever seen this.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Are you denying
deliberate exposure of service personnel or just being obtuse?

How lovely, following that lie up with an insult. You're a class act.

Quote

Whaddaya know. Kallend produced evidence to back up one of his (seemingly) far fetched claims. I'm impressed.

Kudos to you Kallend. You made your case. Good job!

this post has been edited because I went back and read post 169. Seems pretty compelling.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Everybody deserves to win at something. Sort of like the family argument where the one who screams loudest and longest is considered the winner.

In his case it's the side that has posted citations and made their case beyond a great standard vs your side that has to my recollection posted maybe 1 if any citation and hasn't addressed the contention that we aimed at 100's of thousands of civilians other than to say, "WAR IS HELL."

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Are you denying
deliberate exposure of service personnel or just being obtuse?

How lovely, following that lie up with an insult. You're a class act.

Quote

So, negligence is the same as intentionally exposing them so we could study the longterm effects of radiation, which is what I asked about in the first place?

Actually it was me who threw in the obvious fact of negligence, but I think it was deliberate. We knew what it would do so much that we chose Tinian to load them so if something went awry there would be minimal damage. That pretty much illustrates what we knew the bomb would do. What if conventionally bombed civilian populations? No biggy?

[1969912 0]

Quote

Read This .

Thanks. I've been reading the same report for a couple days, but my copy was a low quality pdf. This one is much better.

Which part would you like me to read?

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

I second the motion.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[nerdgirl 0]

I should read more on the civilian exposure issues - thanks to all who have provided links and recommendations.

For those interested in additional info on exposure (not necessarily deliberate, negligent, or otherwise) of service members during atmospheric tests, see "For the Record - A History of the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program, 1978 - 1993," which is available to download as pdf from DTIC (http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?&verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA306360). Abstract appended below.

For a summary of some of the programmatic and technical challenges, I highly recommend Dr. Paul Blake's (Captain, USN ret) June 2008 brief "Update on Nuclear Test Personnel Review" (http://vbdr.org/meetings/2006/materials/austin/Dr.%20Blake.ppt).

Some of the current problems that the NTPR program had were discussed in the March 2007 Vanity Fair 'expose' on SAIC, who effectively ran the NTPR up until a few years ago (before Blake was brought aboard): (http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/03/spyagency200703)

"One early project came in the 1970s and 80s, when SAIC received Pentagon contracts to reconstruct the amount of radiation absorbed by military personnel during atomic-bomb tests and other service-related exposures. The government's bookkeeping was so erratic from the early days of the Cold War that it was often difficult to tell how much radiation soldiers had received and whether it might have been responsible for their various cancers. When SAIC did the numbers, few veterans qualified for compensation. The Pentagon's nuclear testing was in effect off the hook, and ailing veterans were out of luck. After years of hearings, Congress in 1988 passed the Radiation-Exposed Veterans Compensation Act, which gave veterans the benefit of the doubt. It was presumed that their cancer was attributable to nuclear exposure without considering the radiation dose. By then many of the veterans were dead. A health physicist who testified later on behalf of the veterans spoke unkindly of the original SAIC work: 'Atomic veterans have been deprived of benefits intended by Congress through [SAIC's] deceptive internal dose reconstructions and poor understanding of radioactive material distribution in the body.' SAIC disagrees, saying that it 'continues to work with the government to apply the best science to performing dose reconstruction for atomic veterans.'"

----

It's not a 'sexy' issue, but the nation (im-ever-ho) owes it to the veterans to do something.

VR/Marg

"For the Record - A History of the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program, 1978 - 1993"
Abstract: "This volume is a history of the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) program from 1978 through September 30, 1993. It identifies the origins, missions, and historical evolution of the effort, focusing on the contributions of the Defense Nuclear Agency, the NTPR teams, the Veterans Administration, and the Department of Energy. In addition, the narrative describes U.S. nuclear operations, including weapons testing and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, personnel participation in those operations, and radiation safety measures. The report also discusses radiation dose determination and medical studies of potential dose effects."

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

Nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually saved the lives of many more Japanese, whom we would have had to kill if an Invasion took place.

Then how can you denounce the actions of Timothy McVeigh or the 911 terrorists with that logic? You can't.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. .

At least he got his history correct, unlike his critics from the right who have had to be dragged kicking and nitpicking the whole way in their denial.

1. Hiroshima was a "reserved target" by the Manhattan Project Targeting Committee. The committee minutes show clearly that they wanted a large undamaged target "so that we could more definitely determine the power of the bomb".

2. The US govt (AEC) deliberately exposed thousands of service personnel and civilians to radiation, by a number of methods including injection, exposure to fallout from nuclear detonations, deliberate releases from AEC facilities, and direct exposure to the detonations themselves.

The historical record from government documents is absolutely clear on both these points.

Hiroshima was a 'reserved target' only from May - Aug 1945...it was NOT a reserved target before that date as your own quotes from MP personnel show.

Your *interpretation* of the historical record may be clear in your own mind, but the documentation provided does not support it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

And what needs to be answered is that of why the US turn its most awesome weapon on civilians for the cause of effect, to wow the other side and the world. I won't wait for it, it simply won't happen

I am going to make the answer simple. We were at war with Japan. Pearl Harbor, does that ring a bell for you? The idea of war is to win. Win at all costs. That is what the US did. Many people died on both sides. It is what it is. If you can't wrap your liberal beliefs around that simple fact that War is ugly and we did what had to be done then it is pointless to debate semantics.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Hey Mike, I find it very peculiar that someone would lecture me about nuclear weapons.(not you)

I will refrain from commenting.


BTW I do not have a Phd. so therefore I could not possibly know anything at all.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I've separated this out from my last posting because it has nothing to do with this particular discussion, and is not meant to say anything one way or the other in regards to any of the content you've added in any given post. Likewise, it is not intended to accuse you of being a troll or anything of that nature, I say this meaning all the best.

Lucky... seriously... your posting style is atrocious and repulsive. You've rapid-fired almost a quarter of the posts in this thread and many contain vast quote blocks only to add a single line response. There's almost always a jungle of bold faced type, arrows, italics, white-space, broken quote blocks, urls, copied and pasted text, and text quoted multiple times in the same post waiting to the right of your name. Sometimes it's hard to tell what the heck you even wrote. When you combine that with statements that you take your opponents' silence to mean concession it's no wonder you "win" so many of your arguments around here.

Thanks. That needed to be said.

I second the motion.

And you also refuse to answer. Amazing at how the all the people who refuse to answer are the same ones who agree that misdirecting to a character attack is good idea?