Moron Bush flapping his moron gums again

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you think the US government deliberately exposed US soldiers and civilians in Nevada and Utah, and US sailors in the Pacific?

Please provide a source for your claim that the US government deliberately exposed US civilians in Nevada and Utah.

So you ADMIT that it deliberately exposed US soldiers and sailors. I guess we're getting somewhere.

Now you're making up lies? That's rich. I'm not surprised.

Quote

Now, have you heard about fall-out and prevailing winds? So had the US when it did atmospheric testing at the Nevada test site. The tests were quite deliberate, and the US knew quite well that civilians were downwind.

The possibility that people conducting the tests thought the fallout would dissipate to non-toxic levels before reach citizens is not an option, eh?

If what you assert is true wouldn't there have been tons of lawsuits for the US government intentionally (key word - intentionally) harming citizens.

I know of government actions to compensate those harmed, but none where it was shown the harm was intentional.

Give it up, perfessor.

How about negligence? Does that make the US scum for that or not? Negligence with you car is one thing, negligence with a Nuclear weapon is quite anither.

[Lucky... 0]

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

Bzzzzzz... Wrong answer! Being picked as a target because it was untouched is one thing, being intentionally left untouched for the purpose of studying the effects of an atomic blast is something entirely different.
To difficult to understand? Try this...
I drove my car in the left-hand lane this morning because it was empty. Does that mean it was empty just so I could drive there? I wish!

Care to try again?

Please pay attention. See the rest of the thread. Hiroshima was "reserved" by the targeting committee.

"Reserved" in May '45. After 3 1/2 years of war it was still untouched and yet, because it was left untouched for the next 3 month, you conclude the reason was so it could be used as a test bed.
Read your own postings and you will understand two things:
1) It was chosen because it was untouched, not untouched because it was chosen (except for the last 3 months) and,
2) The reasons listed for bombing an untouched city were so the maximum damage could be sustained and emonstrated to the Japanese. To have dropped the bomb on a city that was already a pile of smoldering ashes would have not had the same impression upon the Japanese leadership.
Nowhere have you or Lucky shown anything that points to Hiroshima being left alone for the entire war just so the effects of an atomic bomb could be tested on people and structures.

>>>>1) It was chosen because it was untouched, not untouched because it was chosen (except for the last 3 months) and,

OK, and why was it untouched? Perhaps.....uh, cause it had virtually no militayr significance? YEA, exactly, no reason to bomb it, hence left untouched until we wanted to provide some collateral damage and document the evidence.

>>>>>>2) The reasons listed for bombing an untouched city were so the maximum damage could be sustained and emonstrated to the Japanese.

I'm sorry Willard, did you mean to write the maximun number of innocent civilians would be smoked so we could count the damage? Demonstrated to the Japanese? Uh, demonstrated to the world, esp the Russians.

>>>>>To have dropped the bomb on a city that was already a pile of smoldering ashes would have not had the same impression upon the Japanese leadership.

Really good point, so we'll do the Ameican thing and bomb a city of 200k innocent civilians. Perhaps we could have found a coullection of Japanese troops or Japanese war machines and dropped them there? Nah, that's no fun and that's not.....American.

>>>>>>Nowhere have you or Lucky shown anything that points to Hiroshima being left alone for the entire war just so the effects of an atomic bomb could be tested on people and structures.

It was left alone becuase it had no military significance, bombed with the A bombs because it was unmollested and there was collection of civilian victims to be murdered.

[willard 0]

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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

For fuck's sake...WW2 is over. The Allies won, the Axis lost. No fucking point in trying to change this fact. I'm glad they dropped the Atomic bombs. It saved Allied Lives. In war that is the only real priority.

If you're any ethnicity other than Japanese or Bikinian, (IMHO the only real victims of The Manhattan project) You should thank the AAF for doing what they did and go about your fucking business.

We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare.

It is aisnine to debate the morality of war. It's an inherently ugly thing. Fight it in a humane way and you only kill more people because it lasts longer.

I know god damnit, please PM me so you can impart that logic upon me. I mean, I want to be a real American like you, I just keep getting hung up on little distractors like murdering 200-300k civilians, counting those who died after the bombs were dropped from radiation sickness.

For fuck's sake people, dissent is BS, America is always right and liberals keep confusing things with factsand history. For fuck's sake, we enslaved people, fuck, sorry. We didn't allow women to vote until 85 years ago, for fuck's sake, they can now, so what's the big deal, let's go over it and never talk about it again. I have just one more thing to say and that's...... FOR FUCK'S SAKE!!!

>>>>>We could've nuked Tokyo, but we didn't because we didn't want a political nightmare.

Tokyo was already conventionally smoked and the civilian populous had left. AGAIN, WE WANTED A TARGET RICH IN CIVILIAN CASUALTIES, ONE THAT HAD NOT BEEN BOMBED BEFORE. You know, like terrorists do, look for civilian pockets of people to exterminate rather than going after military targets.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>It is aisnine to debate the morality of war.

One more thing, the WTC attacks were an act of war as per your president, so that mans we shouldn't debate the morality of 911. Nice

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yeah, but this is about some posters making bullshit unsupportable claims... getting called on them... and then trying to spin their way out of admitting they were bullshit in the first place.

I have posted citations as has Kallaend, but all you guys on that side have yet to take any of these assertions and attemot to disprove them, not to mention you admitted you were wrong to Kallend.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Perhaps a history class next semester might help you understand that we did not have the capability to bomb the Japanese homeland until very late in the war.

We did a moral booster with the Doolittle raid with B-25's in 1942.. it was not until June of 1944 that a FEW raids were launced against Japan from China. The logistics of supplying a bomb wing where everything had to be flown over the Himalaya's were just too ineffective.
It was not until Nov of 1944 that raids started from the bases of Guam and Saipan and Tinian after they had been taken from the Japanese holding them.

Hiroshima had been SELECTED months before..hence it was left untouched after Groves SELECTED it as one of the four cities on which to demonstrate to the Japanese the power of the new weapons.

Quote

"SELECTED months before" when? The target list was reduced to four targets during a meeting held 10-11 May, 1945. After that meeting the head of the target committee had to request that the Air Force not bomb those four cities. Thus Hiroshima (and three other cities) was SELECTED and left untouched for about three months before the bomb was dropped.

Is that what you meant?

Quote

Follow along here.....

The fist raids...ineffectual had been in June thru NOV of 1944 from China.

The meeting to select the targets was held in MAY which if when I look at a calendar.... the B-29 raids started in earnest in NOV of 1944 from the Marianas bases...
Saipan was in June of 1944
Guam was July of 1944
Tinian was in July of 1944

The Target Committee had its second meeting 10-11 May, 1945.

http://www.dannen.com/decision/targets.html#E


EDITED to show previous posts from Amazon which I had left out. But since Amazon insists on making childish comments like "Follow along here...." and "....which if when I look at a calendar...." in response to polite replies by me, they might be best left in.




.

I see Amazon makes sarcastic remarks to let those who wish to run, run. I guess she is like me, allows for an exit strategy for her opposition.

So you are posed with a great post like Amazon's, find yourself unable to answer it and so you defer to being hurt by sarcasm once again..... sad

I have an idea, answer her points.

[Lucky... 0]

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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I am well aware of the timeline of the bomber raids over Japan.
Maybe you...and others...should indulge in a history lesson yourselves and learn the real reason why some of these cities were not bombed until the end of the war. No, I'm not going to give you that information. You can do a bit of digging and find out for yourself. I will steer you clear of the wrong direction, however, and tell you it had nothing to do with nukes or the ability to reach them with bombers

AFAIK we couldn't conduct major bombing raids until about 1944 because we didn't have the necessary aircraft. It was not (and I'm getting sick of saying this over and over and over again) until after the 10-11 May, 1945 (3 months before dropping the bomb) Target Commission Meeting that a request was sent to the Air Force asking that the four cities selected during the meeting not be bombed.

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, which would indicate that the US was just itching to incinerate a few hundred thousand non-whites just to see if their new macho toy would work. You can bet that if they could, they would assert/imply that the US intentionlly went to war with Japan for that purpose.




double header time

>>>>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, which would indicate that the US was just itching to incinerate a few hundred thousand non-whites just to see if their new macho toy would work.

At the very least, the US was itching to smoke 200-300k innocent civilans within 3 months of doing so; doesn't that awake you even a little bit?

Isn't it semantic to wonder if it was 3 months or 3 years when the objective wa sthe same; TO INCINERATE 2 LARGE CITIES AND CHECK THE RESULTS OF THEIR DIRTY WORK.

>>>>>>You can bet that if they could, they would assert/imply that the US intentionlly went to war with Japan for that purpose.

Ridiculous and desperate.

[Lucky... 0]

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?

[ExAFO 0]

Boobs!

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Boobs!

Most intelligent thing you've written yet...

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Quote

Boobs!

Most intelligent thing you've written yet...

GFY.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[willard 0]

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.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Boobs!

Most intelligent thing you've written yet...

GFY.

GFY = go fuck yourself I presume. Ahhh, that as opposed to explaining how the US didn't sneak up on a city of 200k+ and drop living hell on them? OK, I guess I'll take that. I'd rather have an argument tho.

[champu 1]

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.

[kallend 2,112]

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.

...

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

[champu 1]

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.

[kallend 2,112]

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.

I bet you're proud of this too:

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1421

DELIBERATE radiation exposure experiments on humans carried out by the US government.

"The recent settlement follows the recommendations of the Presidential Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments established by US President Bill Clinton in 1994. The advisory committee found that between 1944 and 1974 the US conducted or sponsored about 4000 experiments involving up to 20 000 people."

Here are some of the findings of the President's Advisory Committee:

Finding 17
The Committee finds that since the end of the Manhattan Project in 1946 human radiation experiments (even where expressly conducted for military purposes) have typically not been classified as secret by the government. Nonetheless, important discussions of human experimentation took place in secret, and information was kept secret out of concern for embarrassment to the government, potential legal liability, and concern that public misunderstanding would jeopardize government programs. In some cases, deception was employed. In the case of the plutonium injection experiments, government officials and government-sponsored researchers continued to keep information secret from the subjects of several human radiation experiments and their families, including the fact that they had been used as subjects of such research. Some information about the plutonium injections, including documentation showing that data on these and related human experiments were kept secret out of concern for embarrassment and legal liability, was declassified and made public only during the life of the Advisory Committee.

Human experimentation conducted during the Manhattan Project was carried out in secret. Since 1947 (when the Atomic Energy Commission began operations and the military services were unified under a secretary of defense) human radiation experiments have rarely been protected as classified secrets. However:

In 1947 AEC biomedical advisers publicly urged that biomedical research be kept secret only where required by national security. At the same time, AEC officials and advisers secretly determined that reports on human radiation experiments should not be declassified where they contained information that was potentially embarrassing or a cause of legal liability. Upon requests for declassification, research reports involving human radiation experiments and other human radiation exposures were reviewed for their effects on public relations, labor relations, and potential legal claims.

In 1947 AEC officials and advisers conducted discussions about human subject research policy; some of these discussions were conducted in secret meetings, and the statements of requirements that were articulated, while not secret, evidently were little disseminated. Similarly, 1949-1950 AEC/DOD discussions of the terms on which human radiation experiments could be conducted were either secret or the substance of the discussions was given limited public distribution. In 1952, Department of Defense biomedical advisory groups also engaged in secret or restricted discussions of policy, which led to the 1953 issuance of the Wilson memorandum, which was itself issued in Top Secret.

Government officials and experts did not squarely and publicly address the existence and scope of government-supported human radiation experimentation. For example, in the late 1940s and early 1950s the AEC denied to the press and citizens that it engaged in human experimentation, even though the AEC's highly visible radioisotope distribution program had been created to provide the means for, among other things, human experimentation.

Project Sunshine, a worldwide program of data gathering, including human data gathering to measure the effects of fallout, was kept secret from its 1953 inception until 1956, and AEC officials and researchers employed deception in the solicitation of bones of deceased babies from intermediaries with access to human remains. It appears that concern for public relations played a key role in keeping the human data gathering, and the very existence of Project Sunshine, secret.

Finding 18
All the intentional releases identified in the Advisory Committee's charter, as well as the several hundred other releases that were essentially of the same types, were conducted in secret and remained secret for many years thereafter. All involved some stated national security purpose, which may have justified some degree of secrecy. Despite continued requests from the public that stretch back well over a decade, however, some information about intentional releases was declassified and made publicly available only during the life of the Advisory Committee.

The Committee's review indicates that internal proposals that the public be informed about the existence of the radiological warfare program were rebuffed on grounds that public misunderstanding might jeopardize the program.

Citizens learned of the 1949 Green Run in 1986, and then only following close review of documents requested from the government by members of the public. Portions of a key surviving report on the Green Run were not declassified until 1994. Similarly, although 250 intentional releases near the land of the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico took place between 1944 and 1961, the Pueblo do not appear to have been informed of the full scope of the program until 1994. Documentation on these midcentury tests is only now being declassified.

Finding 19
The Advisory Committee finds that the government did not routinely undertake to create records needed to ensure that secret programs could be understood and accounted for in later years and that it did not adequately maintain such records where they were created. The Committee further finds that many important record collections (including records that were not initially classified) have been maintained in a manner that renders them practically inaccessible to those who need them, thereby limiting the utility of the records to the government itself, as well as the public's rights under the Freedom of Information Act.

Where citizens are exposed to potential hazards for collective benefit, the government bears a burden of collecting data needed to measure risk, of maintaining records, and of providing the information to affected citizens and the public on a timely basis. The need to provide for ultimate public accounting, as was recognized by early AEC leadership, is particularly great where risk taking occurs in agencies that do much of their work in secret. The government did not routinely or adequately create and maintain such records for relevant human radiation experiments, intentional releases, and service personnel exposed in conjunction with atomic bomb tests.

Where records were initially created, important collections have been lost or destroyed over the years. These include the classified records of the Atomic Energy Commission's Intelligence Division; secret records that were kept in anticipation of potential liability claims from service personnel exposed to radiation;[2] records relating to the secret program of experimentation conducted by the CIA (MKULTRA); nonclassified records of VA hospitals regarding the thousands of experiments that, the VA told the Advisory Committee, were conducted there; and nonclassified files of the AEC's Isotope Distribution Program relating to the many licenses for "human use" it granted in the period 1947 to 1955. The Committee notes that laws governing government records provide for routine destruction of older records; however, we also found that some records documenting the destruction of records had been lost or destroyed.

Public witnesses and others repeatedly expressed doubt to the Advisory Committee about the credibility of the government's efforts to respond to requests for documents. The Advisory Committee's experience indicates that shortcomings in government response to Freedom of Information Act requests, which may be interpreted by citizens as deliberate nondisclosure, may often occur because the agencies themselves lack adequate road maps to the records that still exist and lack records needed to determine whether collections of importance to the public have been lost or destroyed. In the absence of the efforts put forth by the Human Radiation Interagency Working Group, thousands of documents that have now been made public would not have been located.
-------------------------



OK, Anyone still want to argue that the US Government did not deliberately expose civilians and service personnel to radiation?

...

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

[Amazon 7]

Quote

OK, Anyone still want to argue that the US Government did not deliberately expose civilians and service personnel to radiation?

My Uncle was just one of these guys...a very young very low ranking sailor.... and he has had health problems all of his life.. but somehow.. is still alive.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq76-1.htm

The inability to complete inspections on much of the target fleet threatened the success of the operation after BAKER. A program of target vessel decontamination was begun in earnest about 1 August. This involved washing the ships' exteriors using work crews drawn from the target ships' companies under radiological supervision of monitors equipped with radiation detection and measurement devices. Initially, decontamination was slow as the safe time aboard the target ships was measured only in minutes. As time progressed, the support fleet itself had become contaminated by the low-level radioactivity in marine growth on the ships' hulls and seawater piping systems.

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.

Lacking complete radiation exposure data, reconstructions have been made of all personnel exposures for unbadged crewmembers of the ships involved. These calculations have considered the several sources of radiation at work in Bikini, such as the low-level contamination in the lagoon water, living aboard support ships, and boarding the contaminated target ships. The calculations relied upon radiation measurements recorded by radiation safety personnel in 1946. This data was used in a computer model that includes such factors as the radiation-shielding properties of ships' hulls and realistic patterns of daily personnel activity on weather decks and below. The actual movements of each ship were then used to reconstruct a dose for the crew. Calculated exposures range from 0 to 2.5 rem (gamma) for support ships. Exposures for target ship crews that reboarded their ships after BAKER were higher than those for support ship crews. A summary of film badge readings (in roentgens) for July and August, when the largest number of personnel was involved, is listed below:

[Amazon 7]

More of the same....

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5686694,00.html

Some were contaminated through accident or ignorance. But government documents have revealed that officials at times risked the health of civilians, soldiers and workers because they believed national security demanded it.

One early Atomic Energy Commission director, Lewis Strauss, wrote to a civilian who had been downwind of atomic test fallout that the danger of fallout was "a small sacrifice compared to the infinite greater evil of the use of nuclear bombs in war."

Well into the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of American troops were placed within a few miles of nuclear tests to determine their ability to march and fight shortly after a blast. The Atomic Energy Commission barred them from being closer than 7 miles, but the military cut that by more than half.

"In those days, we were training military personnel to fight a nuclear war. The Department of Defense had to know the effect on soldiers, sailors and airmen who moved within hours into a hot zone," said R.J. Ritter, who now runs the National Atomic Veterans Association and lobbies for aid to those contaminated troops. "Nobody had a clue what would happen years later from inhaling those particles."

[1969912 0]

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?
-------------------------

"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]

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?

"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

[mnealtx 0]

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.

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

[Amazon 7]

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.