Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

65 years with Nukes...

page: 1
2

log in

join

posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
On July 16 1945, about 35 miles south-east of Socorro, New Mexico at the White Sands proving ground the world was introduced to "The Gadget." Code name "trinity," The Gadget was the first nuclear weapon ever tested and the event is concidered to be the begining of the Nuclear age...

Trinity:



I'm not writing this to provide a history of nuclear weapons, instead I'm just pointing out a little something I've noticed. In 65 years we've watched the worlds stockpile of nukes grow to the point where we can now, quite successfully, destroy the planet.

Now we know that nukes cause fall-out and that fall-out causes cancer. When a nuke goes off, it can eject matterial up into orbit, so each nuke tested threw radioactive fall-out up into the sky. Between 1945 and 1998, there were 2053 nuclear weapons tests done within our atmosphere...

Heres a time-lapse video I found showing all the tests from 1945-1998...

www.youtube.com...

So now I'm thinking to myself, "2053 nukes tested, each one spewing radioactive fallout all across the planet... I wonder why cancer is an epidemic..."

I just read an article suggesting that nuclear weapons testing still affects the ionosphere today by interfering with GPS signals. Here it is, this is where I found the video...

www.extremetech.com...

I just want to know what everyone thinks about this. 2000 nukes going off on our planet MUST have had a terrible impact on our ecosystem. I've been trying to find death rates for cancer prior to 1945, but I cannot find any listing. I'm assuming that cancer was not the problem it is today prior to 1945 because of nuclear weapons testing. This is just a theory I have, but I'm willing to bet that we all get to die from cancer because the goverments of the world just had to have the ultimate dooms-day device. Personally, I think we should all be compensated because if nuke tests are the reason cancer is an epidemic, then it means the worlds governments have commited genocide... Does it not?

Just a thought.



Robb
edit on 6-12-2012 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-12-2012 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-12-2012 by PollyPeptide because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PollyPeptide
 


Ehh ... low dose ionizing radiation probably isn't harmful.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PollyPeptide
 



On July 16 1947,


correction

16th JULY 1945



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by PollyPeptide
 





On July 16 1947


Edit your OP.

On topic. I too, worry about the amount of fall out that has been pumped into the atmoshere as a result of these tests.

I bet cancer was very rare before the industrial age and then the nuclear age.

I'm sure cancer is a 100% by-product of industrialisation.



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Oh yeah.. thanks, I'll edit that now..



posted on Dec, 6 2012 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by PollyPeptide
 



... I wonder why cancer is an epidemic..."


cancers only SEEM to be an " epedemic "

yellow fever , small pox , malaria , polio , TB etc etc are now virtually erradicated in 1st world western nation

but in the 19th century - half the congregatrion of a single church in america [ 308 people ] died in a single yellow fever outbreak

how many americans died of yellow fever in 2012 ?

people now live long enough [ higher av life expectency ] and treatments for other desieses are so advanced - that cancer is now a major killer - not because of increases in cance - but because detection and treatments of cances are still sporadic and of limited effectiveness






top topics
 
2

log in

join