i'm not sure if You're responding to me Bob - Enough, but here's my response to You: i refer to the following as my source; what. may i ask, is Yours?
And again, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not hit by atomic bombs, what destroyed them? Or were they never really destroyed?
FACT CHECK: HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI HIT BY NUCLEAR BOMBS IN 1945, RADIATION DISSIPATED [EXTRACTS] by Reuters Fact Check 082823
...”A Facebook video with the text “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never nuked” points to the fact that the two cities are thriving today and asserts that lingering radiation should have made them uninhabitable for centuries (link).
However, most of the radiation released in the mid-air blasts in 1945 never made it to the ground, according to scientists, and what did was mostly short-lived, decaying not long after the explosions.
The post suggesting that the two Japanese cities were never bombed surfaced in August 2023 around the 78th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and the release of the film “Oppenheimer”, which tells the story of the bombs’ creation (link).
Both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were designed to detonate thousands of feet above the ground, leveling buildings for miles with the force of the explosion itself and the resulting fires. But the intense radiation released by the blasts caused the majority of immediate deaths through radiation burns and radiation poisoning, according to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), a U.S.-Japanese research organization focused on studying long-term health effects in survivors of the 1945 blasts (www.rerf.or.jp/en/faq/).
Because of the altitude of the detonations, most of the radiation from the explosions did not even reach the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Jeffrey Hart, RERF’s chief of public relations and publications, said in an email.
“Because the burst heights of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at 600 meters in the air and 503 meters, respectively, most of the radiation (90%) was pulled up into the atmosphere,” Hart said.
RADIOACTIVE DECAY
THE CIRCULATING VIDEO STATES, “PLUTONIUM 239 HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 24,110 YEARS AND URANIUM 235 HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 703 MILLION YEARS, IN THEORY MAKING BOTH HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI UNINHABITABLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,” HOWEVER, THIS MISREPRESENTS THE NATURE OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY, according to Derek Haas, an associate professor in the Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program at the University of Texas at Austin.
“Rate of decay is inversely proportional to half-life, so something with a long half life, it’s not very radioactive,” Haas said in a phone interview.
Emphasizing the distinction between the radiation released by the blasts themselves, and radioactive materials that would have fallen to the ground and contaminated the area, Haas said that what reached the ground would have included “a mix of fission products and some leftover material from the bomb itself.”
The isotopes that would have caused the most harm include iodine 131, which has a short half life and is very dangerous, he said. “But the most dangerous ones would have decayed with hours.”
“If you look at all the radioactivity at one day, it’s decayed by factor of 100,000; at 10 days by a factor of 1 million; at 10 years, it’s gone down by a factor of 1 billion.”
Today, the city of Hiroshima explains on its website, the city’s level of radiation is “on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth” and has no effect on humans (link).
So isn't the major fear of nukes the threat of lasting radiation? If no radiation, how are the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki different from the firebombing of other cities in Japan and Germany?
Based on the books I have posted here, there were no nukes used. No nukes would also be a reason for no radiation would it not? Reuters seems to have come up with an excuse to give us as to why there is no radiation. I don't buy it, but if you have an emotional desire to believe in nukes, I can't convince you otherwise. I choose to think logically and rationally with as much information as I can get my hands on.
i'm not sure if You're responding to me Bob - Enough, but here's my response to You: i refer to the following as my source; what. may i ask, is Yours?
And again, if Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not hit by atomic bombs, what destroyed them? Or were they never really destroyed?
FACT CHECK: HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI HIT BY NUCLEAR BOMBS IN 1945, RADIATION DISSIPATED [EXTRACTS] by Reuters Fact Check 082823
...”A Facebook video with the text “Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never nuked” points to the fact that the two cities are thriving today and asserts that lingering radiation should have made them uninhabitable for centuries (link).
However, most of the radiation released in the mid-air blasts in 1945 never made it to the ground, according to scientists, and what did was mostly short-lived, decaying not long after the explosions.
The post suggesting that the two Japanese cities were never bombed surfaced in August 2023 around the 78th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings and the release of the film “Oppenheimer”, which tells the story of the bombs’ creation (link).
Both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were designed to detonate thousands of feet above the ground, leveling buildings for miles with the force of the explosion itself and the resulting fires. But the intense radiation released by the blasts caused the majority of immediate deaths through radiation burns and radiation poisoning, according to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), a U.S.-Japanese research organization focused on studying long-term health effects in survivors of the 1945 blasts (www.rerf.or.jp/en/faq/).
Because of the altitude of the detonations, most of the radiation from the explosions did not even reach the ground in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Jeffrey Hart, RERF’s chief of public relations and publications, said in an email.
“Because the burst heights of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were at 600 meters in the air and 503 meters, respectively, most of the radiation (90%) was pulled up into the atmosphere,” Hart said.
RADIOACTIVE DECAY
THE CIRCULATING VIDEO STATES, “PLUTONIUM 239 HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 24,110 YEARS AND URANIUM 235 HAS A HALF-LIFE OF 703 MILLION YEARS, IN THEORY MAKING BOTH HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI UNINHABITABLE FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS,” HOWEVER, THIS MISREPRESENTS THE NATURE OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY, according to Derek Haas, an associate professor in the Nuclear and Radiation Engineering Program at the University of Texas at Austin.
“Rate of decay is inversely proportional to half-life, so something with a long half life, it’s not very radioactive,” Haas said in a phone interview.
Emphasizing the distinction between the radiation released by the blasts themselves, and radioactive materials that would have fallen to the ground and contaminated the area, Haas said that what reached the ground would have included “a mix of fission products and some leftover material from the bomb itself.”
The isotopes that would have caused the most harm include iodine 131, which has a short half life and is very dangerous, he said. “But the most dangerous ones would have decayed with hours.”
“If you look at all the radioactivity at one day, it’s decayed by factor of 100,000; at 10 days by a factor of 1 million; at 10 years, it’s gone down by a factor of 1 billion.”
Today, the city of Hiroshima explains on its website, the city’s level of radiation is “on a par with the extremely low levels of background radiation (natural radioactivity) present anywhere on Earth” and has no effect on humans (link).
Full article at https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/hiroshima-and-nagasaki-hit-by-nuclear-bombs-in-1945-radiation-dissipated-idUSL1N3A9220/ ; EMPHASIS added.
Not sure as I am having trouble following this thread and "who is who" for some reason... but I do not believe in them (as simple as I can be).
So isn't the major fear of nukes the threat of lasting radiation? If no radiation, how are the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki different from the firebombing of other cities in Japan and Germany?
Michael Palmer visited Hiroshima shortly after the end of hostilities. https://archive.org/details/Hiroshima_revisited
Based on the Reuters article, that apparently depends upon where those nukes are detonated: on the ground or at altitude.
Based on the books I have posted here, there were no nukes used. No nukes would also be a reason for no radiation would it not? Reuters seems to have come up with an excuse to give us as to why there is no radiation. I don't buy it, but if you have an emotional desire to believe in nukes, I can't convince you otherwise. I choose to think logically and rationally with as much information as I can get my hands on.
And so do i choose to think that way, Kenneth; and employ the same strategy and tactics.
And i guess my "emotional desire to believe in nukes" is at about the same level of intensity as Yours NOT to believe in them.
i'm not going to waste any further of Your or my time trying to make those apparent "emotional desires" come to some sort of an agreement.
Have a great day. jeff
A rational person does not believe in stories that have no evidence to support them. And truth does not fear investigation.