On 16/02/2021 22:12, newshound wrote:
There's quite a lot of data out there if you look for it, e.g.
https://www.ctbto.org/nuclear-testin...clear-testing/
I have seen comparisons with Chernobyl but can't for the moment remember
the numbers. I think you are right, though.
In my research days in the 1970's our library had a lot of books
containing what I believe to be reasonably authoritative data, including
the contours of fallout dose rates from ground and air burst weapons of
various sizes, under different weather conditions.
Yes. that could be measured.
I don't recall the exact fallout figures for weapons testing, but my
recollection is that they were heading towards having a readily
detectable effect on cancer rates.
That however is where facts left the building and modelling based on LNT
entered it.
Everyone has a *recollection*, but when you actually go looking for
data, there isn't any. There were no cancer spikes I can find. There
were however *predictions* every day in the papers and the new scientist
etc etc
It has always been my suspicion that
scientists on both sides of the iron curtain were lobbying their leaders
and maybe even threatening to blow whistles. The 1963 atmospheric test
ban treaty was signed off remarkably quickly after years of abortive
discussions.
I think the reverse was true.
Both sides in the cold war realised that the military advantages of
nuclear weapons were being eroded by smarter and more accurate delivery
systems and the collateral damage to civilians and valuable
infrastructure was too high.
They were wonderful things to frighten populations with, but not that
useful in a war.
Once a smart bomb could take out a dictator, who needed a nuke?
We have far better tactical weapons now than a cold war 5 kiloton
nuclear shell
If you want to destroy populations its far better to spread diseases
(COVID19) and lies (Climate Change) than radiation
Everyone knew how to make big bombs, and it was an expensive and
pointless exercise. So why not get brownie points for virtue signalling
a test ban?
https://www.jfklibrary.org/learn/abo...est-ban-treaty
Written presumably by someone with an axe to grind
--
it should be clear by now to everyone that activist environmentalism
(or environmental activism) is becoming a general ideology about humans,
about their freedom, about the relationship between the individual and
the state, and about the manipulation of people under the guise of a
'noble' idea. It is not an honest pursuit of 'sustainable development,'
a matter of elementary environmental protection, or a search for
rational mechanisms designed to achieve a healthy environment. Yet
things do occur that make you shake your head and remind yourself that
you live neither in Joseph Stalins Communist era, nor in the Orwellian
utopia of 1984.
Vaclav Klaus