Undoubtedly to many, one of the main threats of our age is the existence of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear arsenals among the powers that be.
Ever since we were children we were taught about the devastation that would come from even a single explosion of this kind, how nature would require millions of years to somehow absorb and overcome the nuclear radiation and how we would irrevocably destroy the basis of our existence if we ever allowed a hot nuclear war to unfold with only a few bombs dropped anywhere on Earth - it would spell our end as humanity. Or so we are told.
Since for once everybody seems to agree that nuclear power is terrible and devastating maybe we ought to ask some audacious child-like questions about the matter... and see what kind of answers we get, if any.
We may disagree with most government narratives, may have seen through a million lies that have negatively affected our lives and that of the people that came before us and may have even vowed to never legitimize these controllers ever again. But then we turn around, listen to the same sources of information for our basic worldview and then simply run with the dystopian story we have been given. A story that is worth a second look before we get too carried away by fear of an invisible enemy...
While the government's "educational efforts" about teaching kids methods like "duck and cover" have been broadly criticized for their "irresponsibility", I seldomly read about people willing to question the whole notion of nuclear weapons as such, something I always thought to be weird - why would nuclear power be exempt from closer inspection at a foundational level?
Wait, what are you saying?
Well before I make any claims or assertions here I want to share this question with you that has been on my mind for many years, and has in hindsight turned out to be my motor for digging a bit deeper into this topic. The question I have always asked myself about nuclear weapons and radiation is as simple as it is relevant even today:
If the explosion of nuclear weapons is such a life ender and literal poison to the ecosphere for millions of years to come... how is there anything going on at all in places like Hiroshima and Nagasaki today?
Have you ever asked yourself that?
I remember being amazed when I found out that there are somehow people living in those places today, not a century after the supposed radiation bombs have been dropped. I wondered how that would be possible if nuclear radiation were indeed the menace to biological health of organisms and the environment we have been led to believe it is? Don't forget, we are told that nuclear radiation destroys cells of living things for generations to come - all living things.
The reaction of people was a real hint that something more was going on here when I first asked this in school: Nobody really seemed to care about the question. Not my teacher, nor the other students in class... Some people were quick to offer ideas how this could potentially be possible, and I gotta say none of them convinced me one bit maybe because they didn't believe the reason themselves and just wanted to justify the story all of us already knew...
I had issues with the cognitive dissonance in looking at this technology in a specific authority-sanctioned way - namely that nuclear bombs were the most devastating weapon humanity had ever devised that can permanently contaminate an area to such an extreme degree that no life would thrive here again in the next million years or more... and then to turn around and not become sceptical when a student asks how there is anything going on in those former bombing locations in Japan mere decades later...
If radiation permeates and destroys all living cells with an incredibly large halflife span, then how does nobody have the same question about Hiroshima and Nagasaki where people actually live, go to restaurants and raise their children today?
But my fellow students didn't really care to dive deeper and the topic was dropped. Looking back I think that is the first time that this area of inquiry became interesting to me - obvious questions with insufficiently-reasonable answers. If this is such a threat, how is life thriving there? How is any animal life coping, not to mention all the people going about their daily business as if nothing major had ever occured here?
My questions didn't really stop there though. I found out rather recently that Chernobyl is apparently a place where nature flourishes as well. Yeah I know, I know, how can that be right when we have all those "measurements" of radiation... Well, take a look at some pictures and videos showing this place that humanity has allegedly poisoned for millions of years to come no 30 years ago... And then tell me this looks like a poisoned forest if you compare it to any "non-radiation" forest you have ever seen...
Or what about the most recent "disaster" on our minds, the meltdown of Fukushima Daiichi? Do you really think an ecologically interlocked system (nature) would look as healthy and flourishing not a decade after the event? I have a really hard time accepting that this area is somehow completely unfit for life, and showing me Geiger counters and red markings on maps somehow are not enough to disctract from the simple fact that nature thrives here where all the humans have left. And that nature doesn't really seem to care about human's radiation measurements and radiation thresholds...
We will probably look a bit deeper into this topic in the future as there are some really interesting points to be uncovered about the history of nuclear power and how it has been utilized to further a certain agenda, something that really surprised me and that wants to be considered. But I figured it may be prudent to simply start with the question about the discrepancy between the affected environment we expected to find, and the actual environment that is observable and in stark contrast to mainstream science's predictions about the degree of biological devastation.
Maybe the purpose of these technologies is something else altogether...
Since the system offers explanations for anything there are of course attempts to explain this away for the one kid who does ask the question. Highly dogmatic attempts. But we will leave that be for now and explore those in the next part of this miniseries, I am tempted to leave the debate open as long as possible here.
So let me ask you: Do you find this discrepancy weird? Were your surprised at all to see nature in these places thrive so short after a big disaster? Can you find an answer that satisfies your curiosity from the get-go or does the question start to nag? I would be thrilled to collect the best ideas that attempt to explain this away and will share them in the next part of this mini-series.
wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org
onlyinjapan.tv
wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org
wikimedia.org
unsplash.com
A lot of the confusion comes from the distinction between radiation and radioactive contamination. They often occur together, but they are really two different phenomena.
Radiation is the photons, beta particles, alpha particles, and neutrons that damage tissues. We all get a significant dose of radiation from the sun, some get twice as much due to other natural sources. A long plane flight, for example, gives you about 10% of a months normal dose in just a few hours.
Radioactive contamination is not radiation, but is the spread of materials that produce radiation. If the contamination produces mostly alpha and beta particles, which is often the case, then the people in the contaminated area will get relatively small radiation dose because the particles don't penetrate very deeply into skin or clothing.
When the bombs in Japan went off they gave everyone in the city a short, intense dose of radiation exposure from gamma rays. The exposure caused radiation sickness and burns for people close to the blast, but anyone who recovered from the radiation sickness went on to live a normal life, just with a slightly higher cancer risk.
The contamination is another thing, though. The pieces of the bomb turn into radioactive dust, which is the fallout that you hear about. The hazard from contamination is not an acute hazard like gamma exposure, but there is a significant chronic risk.
For example, you could walk through a heavily contaminated city and get a relatively small dose if you wore a dust mask and kept your skin covered. Your clothes would be heavily contaminated, but if you took them off carefully and washed them the danger is relatively low.
If you, on the other hand, went scrounging for food in the same contaminated city, you would probably ingest enough contaminated food to cause a dangerous internal dose.
The contamination lasts for a long time, but it can be cleaned up and/or avoided.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I appreciate your adding more information to this topic, thank you.
As we always hear about, the radioactive dust and particles are taken away by the wind and spread over the surrounding areas, even farther away as well, eventually settling and affecting biological systems and materials, such as animals, plants and water. Regardless of the type of material putting out radiation to its surroundings there will be increased levels of radiation overall, passing through cell membranes and affecting all types of matter on their wavelength depending on its type of radiation, like you eluded to. What I am saying is that radiation will be present in the area and continously affect matter in its surrounding simply because the contaminating particles are everywhere. so I fail to see how these types of radiation would be defendable against when the particles giving off this radiation are everywhere.
I don't see how making a distinction between the material that causes radiation and radiation is relevant for determining how people can live in these affected areas in contrast to the narratives we are always told, yes contamination is spread by radioactive materials not by itself. You say radiation can be cleaned up and or avoided I guess the question of this article is to what degree that is plausible in light of the doomsday narratives surrounding radioactive contamination (be it caused by weapons or due to radioactive power plant "disasters").
Are you saying these bombs were simply so low in their radiation capacity that their contamination potential is somehow neglegible? What sort of methods can you point to that claim to be able to clean up or avoid nuclear contamination and do you consider them feasible at all?
Thanks
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Contamination is not difficult to deal with. In some ways radioactive contamination is easier to deal with than chemical contamination because you can use a simple handheld detector to find radioactive contamination. Once you locate a contaminated surface, you can clean it using paper towels and a bottle of household spray cleaner. That is how we clean off tools and other smooth surfaces.
Cleaning up large areas of porous surface, like a parking lot or the outside of a building, is harder. You would have to hose it down with a large volume of water and catch all of the water so that you could filter it.
Contaminated soil is especially problematic. You really need to scrape off the top layer of soil with a bulldozer right away so that rain doesn't wash the contamination deep into the subsoil. They generally make a small, lined landfill pit next to the contamination site and quickly move the most heavily contaminated soil into the pit, then cover it with packed clay. The runoff water from rain hitting the landfill needs to be collected and filtered.
The farmland downwind of Chernobyl was not treated this way because the government tried to hide the fact that they had caused such a horrible disaster. One of the worst effects was that many dairy cows ate contaminated grass and passed the contamination in their milk, which was unknowingly given to children.
The same farmland is probably only lightly contaminated now. Natural erosion and radioactive decay will eventually decontaminate the land. Hopefully the people in the region are not forced to use it for crops, but if they were desperate, they could probably grow food there with a relatively small risk.
In the past 70 years we have contaminated and cleaned up every imaginable place and/or object. The people who do it every day live long and healthy lives. I know one fellow who retired after 55 years of working in a contaminated building. He would probably still be working if his knees didn't need to be replaced.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Fair and logical, thank you for this elaboration. All of these points do make sense to me from a rational standpoint. Still the discrepancy remains between the degree of alleged hazard that such an event would cause in the long term, and the - literally bearable - effects of contamination in actuality.
People have tried telling me that the former drop locations carry so little contamination today because a largely plant-based diet has helped the people to evade the process of storing contaminated particles in their bodies. Not sure I believe that, considering the other bits of information out there regarding nuclear radiation that are rarely talked about. BUT, I am glad we have the full case here for the 'official' story, thanks again for your time I do appreciate it a lot.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We humans always stay with our fear and hatred. We built atomic bomb in the name of getting advantage from our enemies. Our sense of national pride is just opposite the national interest of other people. A citizen of one country feels enmity toward the citizen of other country but he/she never has met any person of that country. The citizens of our enemy country have never caused any harm to us but they are enemy for us. In fact our worst enemy are our own fellow citizens but we forget about them when time comes to feel national pride.
We made weapons to protect us and so others. This is a never ending process. We are upgrading and amassing destructive weapons to kill our 'enemies' while so called enemies are doing the same thing. So, we all are doing the things which will ultimately destroy us and so the problem. Patient and the disease both will end at once.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Do you have any hope that patriotism might overcome nationalism? I think that is the only way to prevent conflict. Waiting while the nationalists kill each other off doesn't really seem like a viable option in the nuclear era.
Posted using Partiko Android
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Patriotism is a positive ideology while nationalism is blindly following of the political leaders ideology. However, there is a thin line between both. One's feeling of Patriotism can be exploited easily. Blind patriotism is nothing but nationalism.
This world is full of insane people. Whoever now what these people can do?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I guess the great thrill of our age is finding out whether destroying ourselves really is a necessary experience to have... again...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
We have been created in such a way.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
<3
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Good on you for pointing out that "nuclear bombs" are complete bullshit - not many people seem to get that...
I did a post about this too - long ago, and it wasn't universally embraced :)
https://steemit.com/life/@sift666/atomic-bombs-are-a-complete-con-job-they-don-t-even-exist
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Hehe, I can imagine. Thanks for linking it as well. I always like to approach these things slowly but it had to be asked. Too many holes in the story, not to mention certain former high level people who have long blown the whistle in graphic lectures, but you probably know all that <3
Followed!! Thanks for reaching out.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
It's fascinating cover up isn't it? - people have been so well programmed on nuclear since 1945, and grasping this leads to seeing so many other psyops. But when it took over a decade for many people to grasp 911, it may not happen overnight!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit