Page 20 of 33 FirstFirst ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 654

Thread: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

  1. #381
    Chukada1's Avatar Sagittarius
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    3,337

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Some of you are missing the point, and I don't know why.

    Atomic bombs are horrible weapons.
    Regular bombs are horrible weapons.
    Bullets are horrible.
    Getting stabbed in the face is horrible.
    Being raped is horrible.
    War is horrible.

    The Japanese government was responsible for all this. It doesn't matter if Americans are racist at the time, it doesn't matter if there was an oil embargo, the reason for the entire war was militarism from Japanese military government, and the complete disregard for taking prisoners, or human life, both Japanese and non-Japanese that led the people fighting them to disregard Japanese lives as well.

    The Japanese government, which was SUPPOSED to be protecting Japanese people, are responsible for failing them, if the atomic bombs weren't dropped, and the Americans invaded or blockaded the country, the government would get its way by either throwing every single indoctrinated man, woman, and child at the Americans, by gun point if necessary, in order to save their own war criminal butts from allied retribution. Or millions would have starved and Japan would have descended into cannibalism.

    The Atomic bombs were simply not justified, but neither is killing people who do not threaten your own life. War sucks, and in this case, people are so eager to exonerate the Japanese military/government, by putting their part in all this to the side lines, in order to discuss two bombs being used.

    I know that Chinese, Korean, Filipino, Indonesian, Vietnamese, Manchurian, Okinawan, life is of less value than Europeans and North Americans, to history. Because we wouldn't be having this debate if Japan was white, and its victims were in the majority, white. In the argument about the Dresden bombing it is routinely said that it is a response, to the bombing of civilians by Nazi Germany, but people like to quickly forget the millions of Chinese and Koreans that were being killed, the longer the war progressed, the vast majority of those, civilians.

    Was the Dresden bombing justified? Probably not, if bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not justified. Was it the fault of Nazi Germany that Dresden got bombed? Yes. Was it the fault of Imperial Japan, that Hiroshima and Nagasaki got bombed?

    I'm waiting for your double standards.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder View Post
    Probably due to the fact that compared to the stench that is China's human rights record, Britain, including it's Empire, look positively decent.

  2. #382
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,202

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    You should know better, what makes the atomic bomb different? please think before posting. Even Truman, in 1945, knew the answer.
    And what is it that makes being burned and crippled by a nuclear bomb worse than being burned and crippled by a conventional bomb? Radiation effects were of course horrible, but conventional bombing was already so horrible, that the effects of radiation were a miniscule addition to that.

    From here:http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa2.html

    Overall, nearly half of leukemia deaths and about 10% of solid cancers are attributable to radiation exposure. If one assumes that LSS(Life Span Survey) survivors represent about half of all survivors in the two cities, the total number of cancers attributable to radiation exposure through 2000 may be about 1,900 cases.
    That of course doesn't account for those who died of radiation sickness shortly after the bombing, but most of those that received a lethal dose of radiation had to be so close to the blast that they propably would have died of burns anyway. And thousands of people were crippled for life due to burns and injuries received in conventional bombings.

    My point is simply that a conventional bombing would have been just as destructive and horrible to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and people would have continued to die in the subsequent decades due to injuries and complications. There's little reason to decry the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima yet not do the same when it comes to the bombings of Tokyo and Kure and all the other cities. Since the Japanese basically chose to have a war, and chose the kind of war it got, and could have surrendered at any point when it was clear they could not win and were running out of cities that were still standing, they brought it all upon themselves. And out of all the things Japanese brought upon themselves, the nukes were only a tiny part.

    Edit: With hindsight, it could be said that if the strategic bombing campaigns in Europe and the Pacific are considered as a whole, the nuclear bombings were the most justifiable part of it. After all, the campaign utterly failed to destroy the will and capability of Germany and Japan to fight, that is until the nukes were deployed. The conventional campaign was largely just mindless butchery, but since the Allies didn't know what effect they were having they were effectively shooting blindly and thought that just little more of the same old will finally break the enemies' will. As such, since Japan surrendered few days after Nagasaki, the nukes are the least questionable part of it, since they worked and ended the butchering in Japan and the butchering the Japanese were conducting all over East Asia.
    Last edited by Hakkapeliitta; May 05, 2012 at 03:15 PM.

  3. #383
    Ludicus's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,357

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    After all, the campaign utterly failed to destroy the will and capability of Germany...to fight, that is until the nukes were deployed.
    Germany?...make no mistake, if America had nuked Germany, Germany would definitely have retaliated with large scale use of chemical/biological weapons.
    conventional bombing would have been just as destructive and horrible to Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    Nope.What goes into an atomic bomb that causes such appalling long term injury? Right, radiation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hakkapeliitta View Post
    the effects of radiation were a miniscule addition
    A minuscule addition?
    Rearead a previous post, the damage caused by nuclear weapons is not limited either in space or in time.You can´t compare the medical consequences of an atomic bombing to the injuries caused by of a conventional bombing.
    From a previous post,
    Medical consequences
    A short summary (In page 17/18/19, the descriptions deal mainly with Hiroshima)
    The pattern of fallout deposition is highly variable. It is affected by many factors, including the size and type of weapon, height of explosion, wind pattern, and especially rainfall.
    Medical effects of ionozing radiation are essentialy,
    1-Bone-marrow effects,
    2-Gastro-intestinal effects, central nervous system effects,
    3- burns on skin produced by particles emitting beta-radiation falling on the skin in the first few days after explosion with high levels of fallout
    4-damage to brain growth (microcephaly occurred in 44% of surviving children and 16% of these were severely mentally retarded -Hiroshima)
    5-The long-term effects of radiation (especially cancer) occur several decades after the explosion due to the long latency periods of cancer. These cancers arise a late consequence of exposures to initial nuclear radiation and to fallout.
    5a-The incidence of all types of leukaemia (except chronic lymphocytic) is increased with the peak incidence in Japan occurring 6 years after exposure. The incidence of solid cancers of many tissues - in particular thyroid, bone, breast and lung - is also increased by radiation. Radiation-induced solid cancers occur later than leukaemia with a latent period of 20- 25 years.
    6-The risk of genetic abnormalities arises from the effects of radiation on the ovum and the spermproducing cells. ( read slowly: gene mutations are usually recessive, which means that their effect would not become manifest for many generations)
    7-Increased incidence of infertility, some of which in women may be due to the spontaneous abortions of foetuses with severe genetic abnormalities.
    8- increased incidence of eye cataracts that has been attributed to the effects of irradiation.
    ----

    The bomb and the weight of a guilty conscience, Margaret Truman, Letters From Father,
    Churchill visited Truman as the end of his presidency neared. Margaret, the President’s daughter, describes the scene:
    Everyone was in an ebullient mood, especially Dad. Without warning, Mr. Churchill turned to him and said, “Mr. President, I hope you have your answer ready for that hour when you and I stand before Saint Peter” and he says, “I understand you two are responsible for putting off those atomic bombs. What have you got to say for yourselves?”
    Lovett intervened to save Truman from embarrassment.
    ----
    The conventional campaign was largely just mindless butchery
    I completely agree.
    the nukes are the least questionable part of it, since they worked
    In fact, America has had the burden as the only nation in the world to have used atomic bombs and intentionally take massive number of human lives in the process. As Fuller has stated, "on the pretext of shortening a war and of saving lives, every imaginable atrocity can be justified". Depending on the desired outcome, there were various alternatives. Already discussed, previous posts.
    ---
    An atomic bombing is the work of madmen,
    Stanley Kubrick came to the same realization two decades later, understanding that he had to make Dr. Strangelove as a black comedy because planning for nuclear annihilation had to be the work of madmen.
    And the fatal symptom of their madness is this: they have been carrying through a series of acts which will lead eventually to the destruction of mankind, under the solemn conviction that they are normal responsible people, living sane lives, and working for reasonable ends.
    Peter J. Kuznick,The Decision to Risk the Future
    the reason for the entire war was militarism from Japanese military government,
    Imperialism and colonialism brought the two nations into conflict.It was the Japanese reponse to Western imperialism (1) and the control of the oil. The British and Dutch colonies in the Asia-Pacific region were in danger.From 1939 to 1941, US gradually tightened the level of economic sanction and provoked Japan to take aggressive actions.
    (1) The well-known history of US imperialism in Pacific and Asia, the strategic extension of the power of the U.S. state/the economic imperatives of U.S. imperialism. In Asia, U.S. strategic interests were paramount. This was true as far back as 1853, when Commodore Matthew Perry brought his ships to Japan,
    Having overt colonies was not acceptable to the American political conscience. Americans were convinced that their imperial system did not victimize foreign peoples ... It was thought to be neither exploitative, like the nineteenth-century-style colonialism of the European empires, nor destructive of personal freedom and other worthy human values, like the totalitarianism of the Soviet Union and China and their Communist allies. Instead of formal colonies, the United States sought local governments amenable to American wishes and, where possible, subject to indirect control from behind the scenes. Washington wanted native regimes that would act as surrogates for American power
    U.S. Imperialism in the Asia-Pacific,Walden Bello, University of the Philippines,Outstanding Public Scholar for 2008 by the International Studies Association.
    ---
    Stimson’s opposition to any form of conciliation/compromise with Japan helped to make war virtually inevitable, "the coming of war in 1939, not for the first or last time in my life, was a relief."
    The War Council
    ---
    Or millions would have starved and Japan would have descended into cannibalism.
    The bomb, a prophylactic measure against cannibalism.I've never thought about that before,
    "The recent inclusion of Japanese and other Asian casualties adds an intriguing dimension to the triumphal narrative, though one that played little, if any, role in the wartime calculations of Truman and his top advisors"
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 05, 2012 at 06:54 PM.
    I can imagine no more comfortable frame of mind for the conduct of life than a humorous resignation.
    Somerset Maugham

  4. #384
    thewolflord's Avatar Yari-hei
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    The Golden State, by the Bay
    Posts
    120

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    From what I understand, Truman dropped the A-bombs to not only shock Japan into surrender, but also to demonstrate America's big new weapon to the world, particularly the Soviet Union. To achieve both these purposes, I think it would have been less deadly but just as effective to have dropped them away from population centers, but close enough to be seen, like Mt. Fuji. Once the destructive power of the bombs were realized, this, coupled with threats of additional drops on populated areas, I think would have been enough to shock the Japanese into surrender without taking 100,000+ lives.

  5. #385
    Ludicus's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,357

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by thewolflord View Post
    From what I understand, Truman dropped the A-bombs to not only shock Japan into surrender, but also to demonstrate America's big new weapon to the world, particularly the Soviet Union. To achieve both these purposes, I think it would have been less deadly but just as effective to have dropped them away from population centers...
    Finally, a sensible post; something that makes sense.
    ---

    No serious historian today fully believes that the bomb was used primarily as a means of saving American lives...
    Experts continue to disagree on some issues, but the critical questions have been answered. Recent scholarship has dealt with the same motivations for Truman’s decision, varying only on the emphasis put on one factor in favor of another.
    One thing is clear. The bomb was not an absolute necessity in winning the Pacific war. However, the dominant assumption in both the Roosevelt and Truman administration was that the bomb would be used against the enemy. Given the bomb’s assumed legitimacy as a war weapon, all other considerations for its usage became secondary. In this way, the bomb served a dual role in promptly ending the war and establishing U.S. hegemony worldwide.
    Michigan Journal of History, Jung Oh
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 06, 2012 at 04:56 AM.
    I can imagine no more comfortable frame of mind for the conduct of life than a humorous resignation.
    Somerset Maugham

  6. #386
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,202

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Germany?...make no mistake, if America had nuked Germany, Germany would definitely have retaliated with large scale use of chemical/biological weapons.
    Germany had no such capability, not the capability to produce chemical or nerve agent in
    large enough quantities, nor the capability to deliver it reliably on large scale. The Manhattan Project was developing the bombing for use primarily against Germany.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    Nope.What goes into an atomic bomb that causes such appalling long term injury? Right, radiation.
    The effects of radiation are horrible, but also hugely overblown both in lethality and duration in the public discourse due to the Cold War. Don't list some individual effects that are gruesome, those are a plenty side-effect of conventional bombing too. This kind of thing needs to be looked at with statistics, and it's perfectly clear that the bombing of Nagasaki was less destructive than the bombing of Tokyo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    In fact, America has had the burden as the only nation in the world to have used atomic bombs and intentionally take massive number of human lives in the process
    The atomic bombing resulted in the end of a war that had seen the deaths of over 50 million people. The amount of people killed by the nuclear bombs was tiny compared to the amount of people killed by the conventional bombing that had seemingly little effect. The amount of people killed by the nuclear bombs was tiny compared to the amount of people the Japanese had killed and were continuing to kill. Of course it would have been better if no one had been killed in anger, but the Japanese chose to go to war. They had no right not to have the war come to them.

  7. #387
    Blood Raven's Avatar Ashigaru
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Colne,Lancashire,UK
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    I count Dresden,Hiroshima,Nagasaki and the 1945 Tokyo raids as war crimes. Japan and Germany routinely carried out war crimes, so did the Russians. As far as I'm concerned allied leaders should have been put on trial along side axis leaders. To wipe out whole cities and say you have the moral high ground is wrong and makes you worse than the enemy you're fighting. There is no justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already beaten, her citizens were starving, her cities were rountinely being firebombed by US B-29s and furthermore she was under siege. The theory I'm going with is that Truman wanted to test the weapon on a populated target.
    Last edited by Blood Raven; May 06, 2012 at 10:11 AM.
    "Next to a battle lost,the saddest thing is a battle won"

    Field Marshall Sir Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington, Waterloo 1815

  8. #388
    Vanoi's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blood Raven View Post
    I count Dresden,Hiroshima,Nagasaki and the 1945 Tokyo raids as war crimes. Japan and Germany routinely carried out war crimes, so did the Russians. As far as I'm concerned allied leaders should have been put on trial along side axis leaders. To wipe out whole cities and say you have the moral high ground is wrong and makes you worse than the enemy you're fighting.
    Axis leaders were never charged for doing the same to Allied cities.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blood Raven View Post
    There is no justification for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was already beaten, her citizens were starving, her cities were rountinely being firebombed by US B-29s and furthermore she was under siege. The theory I'm going with is that Truman wanted to test the weapon on a populated target.
    I don't know if you have read the thread or not, but i pretty much proved Japan was not going to surrender.
    Last edited by Vanoi; May 06, 2012 at 10:16 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by RubiconDecision View Post
    Those who protect the right of terrorists to have Free Speech enable the bombings of innocents.

  9. #389
    Blood Raven's Avatar Ashigaru
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Colne,Lancashire,UK
    Posts
    96

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    [QUOTE=Azoth;11425433]Axis leaders were never charged for doing the same to Allied cities.

    They should've been
    "Next to a battle lost,the saddest thing is a battle won"

    Field Marshall Sir Arthur Wellesley Duke of Wellington, Waterloo 1815

  10. #390
    Vanoi's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blood Raven View Post
    Axis leaders were never charged for doing the same to Allied cities.

    They should've been
    Hard to charge them when you did the same thing.

    Its like with Karl Dönitz. Allies were going to charge him for unrestricted submarine warfare. But they could not, as the Allies did the same. (Not sure how its the same though. Germans sunk neutral ships, I don't think the Allies did the same.)
    Quote Originally Posted by RubiconDecision View Post
    Those who protect the right of terrorists to have Free Speech enable the bombings of innocents.

  11. #391
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,893

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Azoth View Post
    Axis leaders were never charged for doing the same to Allied cities.
    Fact free. Many Nazis were tried and convicted.

    EG LW General Lohr was shot for undertaking the bombing of Belgrade, as were the crews for doing it.

    I don't know if you have read the thread or not, but i pretty much proved Japan was not going to surrender.
    No, what you proved was your uniformed about the subject matter, and imune to facts.
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

  12. #392
    Hanny's Avatar Pili Posterior
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,893

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hakkapeliitta View Post
    Germany had no such capability, not the capability to produce chemical or nerve agent in
    large enough quantities, nor the capability to deliver it reliably on large scale. The Manhattan Project was developing the bombing for use primarily against Germany.
    http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~...re/germany.htm

    The effects of radiation are horrible, but also hugely overblown both in lethality and duration in the public discourse due to the Cold War. Don't list some individual effects that are gruesome, those are a plenty side-effect of conventional bombing too. This kind of thing needs to be looked at with statistics, and it's perfectly clear that the bombing of Nagasaki was less destructive than the bombing of Tokyo.
    You clearly do not know that radiation effects future generations, the land itself, people miles from the blast, and everyone else.

    http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects16.shtml

    US signed into law that using the same weapons as it just used, would be an international war crime, shortly after the Japaense surenderd, those laws were created during the war and awaiting the wars end to become law. Prettyy clear the US considerd the use of nukes criminal. Not least because everyone everywhere then is subject to the fallout, its not acoincidence that human cancers incidence rose dramaticly during nuke testing worldwide.


    The atomic bombing resulted in the end of a war that had seen the deaths of over 50 million people. The amount of people killed by the nuclear bombs was tiny compared to the amount of people killed by the conventional bombing that had seemingly little effect. The amount of people killed by the nuclear bombs was tiny compared to the amount of people the Japanese had killed and were continuing to kill. Of course it would have been better if no one had been killed in anger, but the Japanese chose to go to war. They had no right not to have the war come to them.
    Fact free, Japan surrendered because of USSR entyry into the war against it.

    The Holacaust was a war crime, as people were brought to incinerators, Nuclear war simply brings the incinerators to the people, and is a war crime of the same.
    To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.

  13. #393
    Vanoi's Avatar Tribunus
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    10,884

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    Fact free. Many Nazis were tried and convicted.
    And none of them were convicted over bombings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    EG LW General Lohr was shot for undertaking the bombing of Belgrade, as were the crews for doing it.
    The reason he was convicted was because the bombing had no military aim whatsoever.

    German Field Marshal von Kleist said during his trial after the war: "The air raid on Belgrade in 1941 had a primarily political-terrorist character and had nothing to do with the war. That air bombing was a matter of Hitler's vanity, his personal revenge."
    They also bombed the city without a declaration of war.

    The bombing without a declaration of war become one of the prosecution's charges which led to the execution of the commander of the Luftwaffe formations involved, General Löhr.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    No, what you proved was your uniformed about the subject matter, and imune to facts.
    Ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    Fact free, Japan surrendered because of USSR entyry into the war against it.
    I am assuming you have a source showing that Japan only surrendered because of the USSR's entry into the war, and the atomic bombs had no effect once so ever?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    The Holacaust was a war crime, as people were brought to incinerators, Nuclear war simply brings the incinerators to the people, and is a war crime of the same.
    No, its total war.
    Quote Originally Posted by RubiconDecision View Post
    Those who protect the right of terrorists to have Free Speech enable the bombings of innocents.

  14. #394
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,202

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hanny View Post
    You clearly do not know that radiation effects future generations, the land itself, people miles from the blast, and everyone else.

    http://www.atomicarchive.com/Effects/effects16.shtml
    Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not too badly irradiated, they were rebuilt and became bustling cities as quickly as reconstruction could allow. I think you've swallowed some grade-A poppycock when it comes to nuclear weapons and radiation in general.

    Look at this link and what it has to say about fallout and radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa12.html


    US signed into law that using the same weapons as it just used, would be an international war crime, shortly after the Japaense surenderd, those laws were created during the war and awaiting the wars end to become law. Prettyy clear the US considerd the use of nukes criminal. Not least because everyone everywhere then is subject to the fallout, its not acoincidence that human cancers incidence rose dramaticly during nuke testing worldwide.
    "Everyone everywhere"? Really? Show me the data that says that radiation levels rose all throughout the world enough that would warrant an increased possibility of developing cancer? Note that you have to be exposed to 100mSv of radiation during a year before you are statistically more likely to get cancer, if it's below that then there is no definite link. Normal yearly dose is about 3.6mSv so there would have have to have a huge increase in radiation during the 50s, 60s. Incidentally, the ability to diagnose cancer and access to healthcare propably coincided with nuclear testing too.

    Here is what an actual expert has to say about radiation produced by nuclear weapons from here:

    So how does a nuclear device destroy things? The primary effects that result from the initiation of a device are (in no particular order) a light flash, a heat flash a blast concussion wave and a sleet of direct radiation. In fact, of these the last is of relatively little significance. The range of the radiation is very short and is further attenuated by the inverse square law. Its only significant within the areas where blast and heat are already lethal. If thermal blast and concussion have already reduced you to the size, shape and color of a McDonalds hamburger, irradiating you as well is incredibly superfluous
    And about fallout:

    We haven't mentioned fall-out. The dreaded stuff that destroys humanity.Well, there's a reason for that; the device has only just been initiated, there isn't any fall-out yet. Fall out is caused (mostly) by debris from the ground being sucked into the fireball, irradiated and spewed out of the top. This radioactive plume coalesces in the atmosphere and falls back to earth. It's a mix of isotopes of varying half lives. The most vicious of these isotopes have short half lives and are gone in a few hours (usually before the fallout makes it back to the ground). The milder ones can hang around for millennia but their effects are tolerable (speaking relatively again). The really dangerous ones are those that have a half life of between 5 and 6 years - these are long-lived enough to be seriously contaminating and hot enough to be dangerous. The worst is cobalt). Now the blast and heat throw debris outwards, where does the debris sucked into the fireball come from? Answer is the crater scoured in the ground by the energy from the device that went into said ground. But hang on, we've just discovered the best way to knock a city down is to use an airburst that doesn't crater the ground. Doesn't that mean no fallout? That's right, airbursts are relatively clean from a fallout point of view. They do generate some fallout from atmospheric dust and water vapor and a bit more (some very nasty) comes from the debris of the device but not as much as legend holds. This is especially the case since modern devices are very clean indeed and the debris from their initiation is far less than from the older designs.
    The problem of fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? There wasn't much of one, because the detonations were airbursts. Now I'm not saying that there was no issue with radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was and plenty of people died after the bombings. But does that make it magically worse than conventional bombing? No I'd say, dead people are dead, whatever the method they were killed by. It was all war and war is hell, and if the Japanese didn't want to be bombed, then they should have surrendered before that as was well within their capacity. Or even better, don't be a murderous militaristic regime that starts wars in the first place.
    Last edited by Hakkapeliitta; May 06, 2012 at 06:27 PM.

  15. #395
    Ludicus's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,357

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    This kind of thing needs to be looked at with statistics, and it's perfectly clear that the bombing of Nagasaki was less destructive than the bombing of Tokyo... dead people are dead,whatever the method they were killed by.
    1)It's important to avoid faulty methods of argumentation in order to remain above an intellectually dishonest level.

    2)Sources,
    Delayed Medical Effects at Hirohima and Nagasaki, Takwshi Ohkita, MD
    The Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Delayed Effects, William Hollingsworth, MD

    There was a peak mortality on day 4 and a second peak at 3 - 4 weeks, though radiation effects complicated these latter fatalities.
    Approximately 40,000 persons entered Hiroshima soon after the explosion to help with rescue work. Those entering within the first 3 days were exposed to lingering radiation and, together with the exposed survivors, subsequently showed an increased incidence of leukaemia and solid cancers.

    -The incidence of leukemias amog the survivors increased sigificantly during the 1950s and decreased since then; but the leukemia risk in heavily exposed survivors is still higher than the average for Japan

    -Eye, radiation ilness -infections, ischemia/hemorraghy, cataracts.


    -Disturbances of Reproductive function - sterility during 5 years; permanent degenerative changes in the testicular tissue.

    - A marked increase in fetal and infant mortality and in mental retardation and microcephalyIn Nagasaki, mentally retarded microcephalic children were observed under 150 rads. In Hiroshima, (greater proportion of neutron radiation) the frequency of microcephaly was already seen among those whose mothers had received low doses of radiation, such as 10 and 19 rads.

    -Growth and Developmental Disturbances
    Average heights were lower among those exposed to more than 100 rads in early childhood.

    -Malignant tumors
    -Malignant tumors in lymphoid tissue linked to radiation dose

    -Increased leukemia in the alte 1940s and early 1950s, with a peak in 1951. The risk at every dose level has been greater in Hiroshima than in Nagasaki.
    The leukemia-causing effect of radiation was different in relation to age at exposure.
    -The ocurrence of solid tumors generally increased from around 1960, after the peak of leukemia incidence.

    In the early stage of studies until 1968, a definite correlation between exposure distance and malignancy was reported to cancers of thyroid, breast, and lung. Aside from clinically evident thyroid cancers, pathological investigations have revealed large numbers of malignant tumors of the thyroid that did not produce synptoms. A subsequent study of thyroid cancer after 1970 is in progress. Of 3067 cases autopsied up to 1968, 536 primary thyroid cancers were found.

    Breast cancer- the risk was higher in heavily exposed women who were 10-39 years old at the time. The histological type of breast cancer did not differ by exposure dose.

    Lung cancer- The radiation effect of the bombing on lung was definite by 1958. According to the pathological study by RW. Cihak and co-workers, small cell anaplastic carcinomas were definitly increased in heavily irradiated persons.

    In adition to the thyroid, breast, and lung, people exposed to 200 rads and more demonstrated a significantly increased risk for developing cancers of esophagus, stomach, colon and urinary tract. an increased risk to persons exposed to heavy radiation for the development of malignant salivary gland tumors and primary brain tumors in males has also been suggested.

    Cromossome Changes, -Cromossome aberrations in the peripheral blood lymphocytes, bome marrow cells, and fibroblasts increased significantly in survivors who where exposed wheter in utero or after birth.
    The casualties from radiation exposure at a cellular level have not yet healed.
    The biological implication of chromosomal aberrations of somatic cells for the health of the exposed is still unknown.

    -Its still too early to say definitly that there has been no genetic effect. All three generations should continue under medical and epidemiological surveillance to the extent feasible.

    ---
    3) Source,
    Health Effects of Radiation Findings of the Radiation Effects Research Foundation,

    "For more than 50 years, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) has conducted health follow-up studies on survivors of the August 1945 atomic bombs that devastated the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    RERF’s research results have become the world’s primary guide for radiation induced health effects, especially cancer. Through its study of 200,000 survivors and their children—the most extensive study of health effects in a human population ever conducted—RERF has examined the links between radiation exposure and disease, cell and genetic damage, and other factors.
    The study’s strength lies in its very large, well-defined study population, its excellent followup, and the fact that there are good estimates of individual radiation exposures, 70% of the cancers attributable to A-bomb radiation are expected to appear in the next 20 years.

    Link to Leukemia
    A-bomb related leukemia has shown the following characteristics: Incidence of leukemia rose almost in direct proportion to dose. The risk for leukemia was much higher for those exposed as children than for those exposed as adults. Incidence of radiation-related leukemia peaked at 7– 8 years after exposure.

    Link to Solid Cancers
    Risks of solid cancers increase in direct proportion to dose.The percentage increase in risk was greater for those exposed as children, at least in the early part of the follow-up. Increased risks of solid cancers do not diminish but last throughout a lifetime. There is a marked radiation effect when survivors reach the age at which cancers most often occur.

    Non-cancer Effects of Radiation
    Some radiation effects have been found in the Life Span Study population, with statistically significant excess risks for cardiovascular, digestive, respiratory and non-malignant thyroid diseases.

    Effects of Fetal Exposure
    RERF’s examination of the in utero study population (about 3,000 people) has revealed a correlation between radiation exposure and both mental retardation and microcephaly (small head size).

    Genetic Effects on Children of Survivors
    Genetic effects can only be caused by radiation damage to sperm and ovarian cells.Recent advances in molecular biology make it possible to evaluate genetic effects at the gene (DNA) level. RERF scientist are preserving blood samples that can be used for such studies. Monitoring of deaths and cancer incidence in the children of survivors continues, and a clinical study will be undertaken to evaluate potential radiation effects on late-onset genetic disorders.
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 06, 2012 at 09:44 PM.
    I can imagine no more comfortable frame of mind for the conduct of life than a humorous resignation.
    Somerset Maugham

  16. #396
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,202

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Radiation Effects Research Foundation is a great organization. I don't dispute the effects radiation has on people, I don't dispute that radiation had many ill-effects on survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, I'm just disputing that those effects are so special and horrible and widespread as to make conventional bombing pale in comparison.

    From the RERF, here:

    Efforts to detect genetic effects began in the late 1940s and continue. Thus far, no evidence of increased genetic effects has been found.
    Monitoring of deaths and cancer incidence in the children of survivors continues, and a clinical health survey was undertaken for the first time during 2002 to 2006 to evaluate potential effects of parental radiation exposure on late-onset lifestyle diseases. To date, there is no radiation-related excess of disease in adulthood

    Overall, nearly half of leukemia deaths and about 10% of solid cancers are attributable to radiation exposure. If one assumes that LSS survivors represent about half of all survivors in the two cities, the total number of cancers attributable to radiation exposure through 2000 may be about 1,900 cases.
    Note that they have to extrapolate a larger sample size to even get that high a number.

    The bombs were detonated far above ground, so neutron induction of radioactivity on the ground did not produce the degree of contamination people associate with nuclear test sites
    Past investigations suggested that the maximum cumulative dose at the hypocenter from immediately after the bombing until today is 0.8 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.3-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. When the distance is 0.5 km or 1.0 km from the hypocenter, the estimates are about 1/10 and 1/100 of the value at the hypocenter, respectively. The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly 80% of the above-mentioned doses were released within a day, about 10% between days 2 and 5, and the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward. Considering the extensive fires near the hypocenters that prevented people from entering until the following day, it seems unlikely that any person received over 20% of the above-mentioned dose, i.e., 0.16 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.06-0.08 Gy in Nagasaki.
    These last two confirm what I quoted from the guy who's job description required him to intimately know nuclear weapons. Mainly that there was no fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (except for the "black rain" in Hiroshima) and that the radioactivity spends itself fairly quickly and is short ranged, and that receiving high doses of radioactivity heavily overlaps with being burned horribly. Of course a lot of people received enough radiation to make the likelihood of developing cancer later in life higher, but I don't see how that is worse than being burned and crippled for life after having survived a bombing in Tokyo or Hamburg, or having been the test subject for Unit 731.

  17. #397
    Ludicus's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,357

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Let´s clarify,you wrote,

    1) "What is the signifigant difference between these two? Other than of course that more people were killed in the conventional bombing than in the nuclear bombing"

    2)"the effects of radiation were a minuscule addition".

    3)"no evidence of increased genetic effects has been found..in the children of survivors"
    Yet.
    The studies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are not designed to test the hypothesis that radiation produces mutations in the survivors. In the Japanese studies, estimation of the doubling dose is still forthcoming and must eventually take in account the various types of genetic outcomes that were measured, for example chromosomal abnormalities and adverse pregnancy outcomes, in addition to a more refined estimation of gonadal dosage -Fundamentals of Genetic Epidemiology, medical textbook)
    On the basis of all that is known of radiation genetics, there is no real reason to doubt that mutations were produced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki -The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors: A Genetic Study);

    4)"there was no fallout in Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (that is not the point)

    ---
    In fact, you are still trying to minimize the horrible consequences of the radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki;the physical, medical, psychological and social effects of the atomic bombings.
    There is abundant evidence in current medical literature (eg.previous post ); the biological damage caused by radiation exposure has led to excess cancer rates among bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Cancers of all types is increased among survivors and continues high to the present.
    Book,
    Delayed Medical effect at Hiroshima and Nagasaki

    More on the subject,
    Hiroshima survivors exposed to very low doses of A-bomb primary radiation showed a high risk for cancers
    The aim of this study was to compare the risk for cancers of A-bomb
    survivors in the ongoing life span study (LSS) with unexposed groups consisting of the entire populations of Hiroshima prefecture and neighboring Okayama prefecture.
    "Results even at low and very low dose categories, the SMR-H and SMR-O were significantly high for all deaths, all cancers, solid cancers, and liver cancers in male subjects, and for uterus and liver cancers in female subjects, respectively. The results show that, if the dose estimations of the dosimetry system 1986 (DS86) are correct, there are significantly increased risks of cancer among even survivors exposed to the very low dose level.Hiroshima survivors exposed to very low doses of A-bomb primary radiation showed a high risk for cancers"
    Hiroshima survivors exposed to very low doses of A-bomb primary radiation showed a high risk for cancers
    ---
    Skin,
    Int J Cancer. 2005 Nov 10;117(3):363-9.
    Histologic characteristics of skin cancer in Hiroshima and Nagasaki:background incidence and radiation effects,

    "Background incidence rates and radiation effects were assessed by Poisson regression models allowing for the effects of demographic and other covariates. .. The excess absolute risk of BCC (basal cell carcinoma) per unit skin surface area related to atomic-bomb radiation exposure did not differ between UV-exposed and shielded parts of the body, suggesting the additivity of the radiation-related and background BCC risks"
    --
    Eur J Cancer. 1994;30A(6):801-7.
    Cancer incidence in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 1958-1987.
    Goodman MT, Mabuchi K, Morita M, Soda M, Ochikubo S, Fukuhara T, Ikeda T, Terasaki M.
    "The rate of liver cancer has increased dramatically among males during the past 20 years, with a 2-fold increase in incidence in the past 10 years alone. The populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki now have among the highest rates of liver cancer in the world"

    --
    Sixty years of follow-up of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors: Current progress in molecular epidemiology studies

    Mutation Research 659 (2008) 109–117

    "Preliminary results from our molecular oncology studies on adult-onset papillary thyroid cancer provide evidence for the induction of RET/PTC rearrangements and BRAF point mutation (both known to be early stage events in adult-onset papillary thyroid cancer) but with a difference: cases associated with the rearrangements were more frequent at high doses, and developed sooner than those with BRAF mutation. In the case of colorectal cancer, the results suggest that radiation exposure might influence microsatellite instability (MSI) status through MSI-related epigenetic and genetic alterations—processes that might occur in the early stage of colorectal carcinogenesis".

    ---
    Cancer Incidence in Atomic-bomb Survivors
    by Kiyohiko Mabuchi, Department of Epidemiology, RERF, and Dale Preston, Department of Statistics, RERF
    Comparing incidence and mortality data
    The RERF Life Span Study (LSS), comprising 93,000 atomic-bomb (A-bomb) survivors and 27,000 unexposed persons, is a major source of epidemiological data for cancer-risk assessment. Periodic analyses of LSS mortality data have been published by RERF, beginning in 1961.
    The overall conclusions, regarding which cancer sites provide significant evidence of dose response, are consistent for incidence and mortality data. Both incidence and mortality data show significant excess risks for all solid cancers of the stomach, colon, liver (defined as primary liver cancer or liver cancer not otherwise specified on the death certificate), lung, breast, ovary, and urinary bladder"

    Of course a lot of people received enough radiation to make the likelihood of developing cancer later in life higher, but I don't see how that is worse than being burned and crippled for life after having survived a bombing in Tokyo or Hamburg
    If you don't see the difference here, you are blind. (j/k)
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 07, 2012 at 02:59 PM.
    I can imagine no more comfortable frame of mind for the conduct of life than a humorous resignation.
    Somerset Maugham

  18. #398
    RomanSoldier9001's Avatar Sōkō no yari
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    1,227

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by hellheaven1987 View Post
    Why not used the A-bombs on Japan be honest?
    Soviet Army would be sufficient for Japan surrender to the Western Allies. Now if you just want your "criminal" to suffer more is your choice. I think atomic bombing is imoral anyhow I dont think war itself is imoral after all you can have a Just War according to years of philosophical thinking. But atomic bombing puts and end to all that you can define "just" in war with its aftermath is also takes out the little honor a industrial war had in it. Junger nigthmare to be a short story. It strikes me how democracies and peoples that suport them still find this "just" as anything can be justified in end even destruction of everything can be justified somehow according to democratical thinking. Remember if you go after Devil and destroy all moral barriers of defense against him in end he turn on you and what will you do?

  19. #399
    Hakkapeliitta's Avatar Princeps
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Dark side of the Moooooon (where the cows are)
    Posts
    1,202

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus View Post
    If you don't see the difference here, you are blind. (j/k)
    You really don't seem to have anything other to say than that "radiation is the worst thing ever". In the context of the WW2 and the conventional strategic bombing, nuclear weapons did not have a particularly large impact on human suffering in the short or long term, and since strategic bombing was the only way to damage Japanese war making ability it was the correct thing to do, and Japan could have surrendered at any point to stop it any way.

    All you have done is state that exposure to radiation has potentionally severe health consequenses. No one is disputing that.

    In fact, you are still trying to minimize the horrible consequences of the radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki;the physical, medical, psychological and social effects of the atomic bombings.
    There is abundant evidence in current medical literature (eg.previous post ); the biological damage caused by radiation exposure has led to excess cancer rates among bomb survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.Cancers of all types is increased among survivors and continues high to the present.
    RERF states that normally leukemia occurs in 7 out 1000, among the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki it is 10 out of 1000. Hardly the end of the world. As of yet there are 94 deaths from leukemia that is attributable to radiation. And anyway, war always has "physical, medical, psychological and social effects" and a war like WW2 had an enormous amount of that.

    RERF on solid cancers:
    For the average radiation exposure of survivors within 2,500 meters (about 0.2 Gy), the increase is about 10% above normal age-specific rates. For a dose of 1.0 Gy, the corresponding cancer excess is about 50%
    Note that the vast the majority of the survivors were not exposed to 0.2 Gy (200mSv) but received less radiation than that, with the corresponding drop in likelihood of cancer due to the radiation received in the bombings. The RERF documents, what, 900 cases of cancer that are most likely due to the bombings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ludicus
    "Results even at low and very low dose categories, the SMR-H and SMR-O were significantly high for all deaths, all cancers, solid cancers, and liver cancers in male subjects, and for uterus and liver cancers in female subjects, respectively. The results show that, if the dose estimations of the dosimetry system 1986 (DS86) are correct, there are significantly increased risks of cancer among even survivors exposed to the very low dose level.Hiroshima survivors exposed to very low doses of A-bomb primary radiation showed a high risk for cancers"
    And what is a very low dose of radiation? The lowest category in the RERF survey for radiation exposure that increases risk of cancer is 0.1-0.005 Gy which is 100mSv-5mSv, with and increase of 1.8% in cancer occurence in that category. It's also the category that the majority of the survivors belong into. Also RERF counts a dose higher than 5mSv as significant, but the yearly dose received from natural and medical sources can easily be more than that.

    On the other effects, you're just going to have to show the occurence among non-exposed population and occurence among the survivors. Not that I doubt that those effects exist and are horrible, but how widespread they are I don't know.

    This is what RERF has to say about non-cancer deaths attributable to the bombings:

    Aside from diseases of the blood, the number of excess non-cancer deaths associated with A-bomb exposure is estimated at 150 to 300 cases. The death rate following exposure to 0.2 Gy (the mean radiation dose for the 49,114 survivors with doses >0.005 Gy) is increased by about 3% over normal rates. This is less than the death rate increase for solid cancers, where corresponding increases are 7% in men and 12% in women
    It seems that you just throw around "higher risk" and "RADIATION" and assume that everyone who survived the bombings is a mutant or something. Are you Jane Fonda or something

    And lastly I'm absolutely not trying to minimize the horrible consequenses the A-bombs had, I'm just not at all convinced that the human suffering and cost incurred warrants the fixation some people other than scientists and survivors and their relatives have for the event. My overall point is that if the conventional bombing campaign was justified, then so were the nuclear bombings. The ability to destroy a city was there prior to the A-bombs as shown by the destruction of cities like Hamburg and Tokyo via conventional means. All the nuclear bombs changed was that the destruction could be visited on a city by one bomber dropping only one bomb. That the bombings had long term consequenses on the survivors is unfortunate, but wars always have long term consequenses: orphans, cripples, psychological traumatization, enviromental devastation etc. The long term effects of the nuclear weapons used in WW2 were a drop in a sea of suffering and don't warrant the moral crusading you're engaged in. Especially when Japan was at any point prior to the bombings when they already knew they were going to lose free to surrender and stop the wars it itself started.

  20. #400
    Ludicus's Avatar Citizen
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    6,357

    Default Re: The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Justified?

    You really don't seem to have anything other to say than that "radiation is the worst thing ever".
    You don´t seem to have anything other to say that "the effects of radiation were a minuscule addition". Read below.
    All you have done is state that exposure to radiation has potentionally severe health consequenses
    Potentionally is the wrong word. Nope, you are conveniently missing the fact that the effects of ionizing radiation can either be acute (occurring within several hours to several weeks after exposure) or delayed (occurring several years after the exposure).Acute radiation syndrome is what the people of Hiroshima received during the hours/ weeks after the bombing.

    Source, "Health Effects of Low-level Radiation"by Dr. Sohei Kondo,
    "Persons exposed to the bombs at the time of detonation did show effects from ionizing radiation and that many of these patients, otherwise uninjured, died.Death mortality probably between 50% and100%. Its the acute irradiation syndrome.
    Deaths from acute radiation syndrome began about a hours/ a week after exposure and reached a peak in 3 to 4 weeks;they practically ceased to occur after 7 to 8 weeks. The deaths that occurred between 2 or 10 days- and four months later (9,000 and 17,000 deaths)were due to acute radiation sickness[/U][/I].Many of the deaths in Hiroshima occurred in victims with very low leukocyte counts.
    In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the primary cause of acute death was bone-marrow injury brought about by external irradiation with gamma rays and fast neutrons.(Hiroshima-Nagasaki Comm., 1985; Nihon Gakujutsu Kaigi, 1953; Ohkita, 1975; Watanabe, 1974)"
    ----
    And I also said that cancers of all types is increased among survivors and continues high to the present.
    ----
    Leukemia....
    Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,Beir VII Phase 2, National Research Council of the National Academies, page 141,
    "Leukemia was the first cancer to be linked with radiation exposure in A-bomb survivors (Folley and others 1952) and has the highest relative risk of any cancer. Pierce and colleagues estimated that 78 of 176 (44%) leukemia deaths among survivors with doses exceeding 0.005 Sv were due to radiation exposure.
    Preston and collegues estimate that 8% of the 5502 solid cancer deaths among those with doses exceeding 0.005 Sv were due to radiation, much lower than the corresponding percentage of 44% for leukemia. This percentage was slightly higher for the incidence data, where 11% of 4327 cancers in the exposed were estimated to result from radiation exposure (Thompson and others 1994).
    Cancers at some sites may fail to exhibit associations because of small numbers of cases and diagnostic misclassification, which is more problematic for mortality data than for incidence data.

    ---
    It seems that you just throw around "higher risk" and "RADIATION" and assume that everyone who survived the bombings is a mutant or something. Are you Jane Fonda or something

    Jane Fonda is an actress, not a physician.Physicians/epidemiologists seek to describe the populations at risk and to discover the causes of diseases.The effects of radiation on incidence of or mortality from diseases have large implications for public health.Although cancer is the main late effect that has been demonstrated in the survivor studies, several studies have addressed the effects of radiation exposure on other health outcomes including benign tumors and...take a look,

    ...Mortality from causes of death other than cancer.

    Health Risks From Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation,Beir VII Phase 2,National Research Council of the National Academies, page 153,

    "A statistically significant dose-response relationship with mortality from nonneoplastic disease in A-bomb survivors was demonstrated by Shimizu and colleagues (1992) based on mortality data for 1950–1985. The addition of five years of mortality data (through 90) strengthened the evidence for this effect and allowed a more detailed evaluation (Shimizu and others 1999). In these analyses, statistically significant associations were seen for the categories of heart disease, stroke, and diseases of the digestive, respiratory, and hematopoietic systems"
    Wong and colleagues (1993) found statistically significant positive dose-response relationships (p < .05) for thyroid disease (p < .001), chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (p = .007), and uterine myoma (p < .001). In addition, myocardial infarction showed a significant dose-response for 1968–1986 among those who were under 40 years of age at exposure (p = .03).
    Kodama and colleagues (1996) reviewed results of studies addressing noncancer diseases and their relationship to radiation exposure in A-bomb survivors. They found a statistically significant association for myocardial infarction based on all of the data (p = .02), with an estimated ERR/Sv of 0.17 (95% CI 0.01, 0.36). The association remained significant when analyses were adjusted for various risk factors including blood pressure and cholesterol. Positive dose-response relationships were also found for several other end points of atherosclerosis, which the authors interpreted as supporting a real association between radiation exposure and atherosclerosis.
    Dose-response relationships for the increase in cholesterol levels over time were demonstrated for women in general.These results may partially explain the dose-response relationship for coronary heart disease that has been observed in other studies of atomic bomb survivors.
    Of particular note, a dose-response relationship with mortality from nonneoplastic disease was demonstrated in 1992, and subsequent analyses in 1999 and 2003 have strengthened the evidence for this association. Statistically significant associations were seen for the categories of heart disease, stroke, and diseases of the digestive, respiratory, and hematopoietic systems.

    Page 313,
    Research Need
    "It is important that follow-up for mortality and cancer incidence continue for the 45% of the cohort who remained alive at the end of 2000.There is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans


    My overall point is that if the conventional bombing campaign was justified, then so were the nuclear bombings...strategic bombing was the only way to damage Japanese war
    Or using any weapon of mass destruction (chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear). But please don´t call it "strategic" bombing. The annihilation of entire cities is a war crime,with conventional and/or atomic bombs,
    "Reflecting on Japanese atrocities and war crimes committed during the colonial era and the Pacific War can provide the occasion for Americans, whose government vigorously criticized earlier Japanese and German bombing of cities, to reflect on our own war crimes in firebombing Japanese cities and using nuclear weapons to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as subsequent deployment of weapons of mass destruction targeting civilian victims"
    Prof.Mark Selden, Living With the Bomb
    ---

    "Part of the rationale for the concept of war crimes is utilitarian — if one side begins doing it, the other side might very well follow suit. For example, if one army starts to torture and kill prisoners of war, it knows that the other side might reciprocate. But another rationale involves fundamental moral principles. While the argument can certainly be made that war is hell and that victory should come at any cost, a civilized people recognizes that often times it is important to maintain a sense of moral perspective even within the horrors of war.
    Thus, even though barbarians on the other side might begin torturing, mutilating, and raping their prisoners, a civilized nation would refuse to follow their lead"
    Jacob G. Hornberger
    Last edited by Ludicus; May 08, 2012 at 02:01 PM.
    I can imagine no more comfortable frame of mind for the conduct of life than a humorous resignation.
    Somerset Maugham

Page 20 of 33 FirstFirst ... 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •