Should the atomic bombs been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[Otterpoet]

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

Actually there is evidence to both ends for the atomic radiation can enter the soil and poison the water and ground and for years mutating the children in the whomb, yet those are only found in very specific instances in which the expectant mother had ingested the contaminated water....

These were airbursts. The only people who received radiation injury from the bombs, got that injury directly at the moment of the explosion (and did not pass that injury on to subsequent generations).

Before you start throwing erroneous (and frankly dangerous) statements like this around, maybe you should actually know what the hell you're talking about. There have been continued studies on this very subject since 1946. Just a few:

Risk of cancer among children exposed in utero to A-bomb radiations, 1950-84. Lancet. 1988 Sep 17;2(8612):665-9.

Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Oct 15;100(20):1482-3.

The somatic effects of exposure to atomic radiation: the Japanese experience, 1947-1997. 1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 May 12;95(10):5437-41.

The survivors got the worst of it, but I seriously doubt a 10-year old child dying of radiation-related leukemia is going to make that distinction.

Before you run around falsely accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, perhaps you should take the time to learn about the subject yourself.

Note this term in the study titles you cut-n-pasted: "exposed in utero".

Those studies refer to fetuses that were exposed to radiation coming directly from the explosion at the moment the bomb went off.

Actually, I know quite a bit about the subject. My grandfather assisted in rebuilding of Nagasaki after the war (and told me of his experiences there), I stayed in Hiroshima in 1987 and visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum as often as I could, and I have been reading medical articles and texts on the subject for the last twenty years.

My response referred to the dismissive comment you made about Shinny Explosion's reference to damage to the unborn from water contamination. The articles I cited (as well as several others) not only discuss fetuses exposed during the explosion, but also to in utero exposure to fallout. Children of pregnant women not present during either explosion also showed signs of radiation poisoning. Similar results were found in people returning to the cities. Despite what the wikipedia entry might lead readers to believe, even with the airbursts, significant fallout occurred, particularly in Nagasaki, where the fallout was more concentrated due to geography. "Fallout from the Nagasaki atomic bomb was mainly concentrated in the Nishiyama district of Nagasaki. Studies conducted in 1945 and 1946 indicated the average dose due to the external irradiation from fallout in Nishiyama to be as high as 30 to 130 R." (Journal of Radiation Research, Vol.16 , 1975: 35-41) Exposure to 100R to130R is lethal in 10% of cases and causes severe illness, temporary sterility, and immuno-suppression in most others. So, yes, Shinny Explosion is correct in that regard.

However, you are correct that there is no scientifically significant evidence that genetic mutations (sterility, deformities, retardation, etc.) occurred amongst subsequent generations. Shinny Explosions overstated his argument in this regard.

Unfortunately, the long-term ramifications of these bombings may never been known because the Japanese Government suppressed a great deal of the medical information collected around that time.

 

[oralloy]

the nuke has the lasting effect for generations. What makes it worse is that the next generation and the ones after continue to suffer from sickness and deformities.

Balderdash!

The nuke has no effect for anyone who was not physically present in the city when the bomb exploded.

Subsequent generations are just fine.

Actually there is evidence to both ends for the atomic radiation can enter the soil and poison the water and ground and for years mutating the children in the whomb, yet those are only found in very specific instances in which the expectant mother had ingested the contaminated water....

These were airbursts. The only people who received radiation injury from the bombs, got that injury directly at the moment of the explosion (and did not pass that injury on to subsequent generations).

Before you start throwing erroneous (and frankly dangerous) statements like this around, maybe you should actually know what the hell you're talking about. There have been continued studies on this very subject since 1946. Just a few:

Risk of cancer among children exposed in utero to A-bomb radiations, 1950-84. Lancet. 1988 Sep 17;2(8612):665-9.

Solid cancer incidence in atomic bomb survivors exposed in utero or as young children. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008 Oct 15;100(20):1482-3.

The somatic effects of exposure to atomic radiation: the Japanese experience, 1947-1997. 1: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1998 May 12;95(10):5437-41.

The survivors got the worst of it, but I seriously doubt a 10-year old child dying of radiation-related leukemia is going to make that distinction.

Before you run around falsely accusing people of not knowing what they are talking about, perhaps you should take the time to learn about the subject yourself.

Note this term in the study titles you cut-n-pasted: "exposed in utero".

Those studies refer to fetuses that were exposed to radiation coming directly from the explosion at the moment the bomb went off.

Actually, I know quite a bit about the subject. My grandfather assisted in rebuilding of Nagasaki after the war (and told me of his experiences there), I stayed in Hiroshima in 1987 and visited the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum as often as I could, and I have been reading medical articles and texts on the subject for the last twenty years.

My response referred to the dismissive comment you made about Shinny Explosion's reference to damage to the unborn from water contamination. The articles I cited (as well as several others) not only discuss fetuses exposed during the explosion, but also to in utero exposure to fallout. Children of pregnant women not present during either explosion also showed signs of radiation poisoning. Similar results were found in people returning to the cities. Despite what the wikipedia entry might lead readers to believe, even with the airbursts, significant fallout occurred, particularly in Nagasaki, where the fallout was more concentrated due to geography. "Fallout from the Nagasaki atomic bomb was mainly concentrated in the Nishiyama district of Nagasaki. Studies conducted in 1945 and 1946 indicated the average dose due to the external irradiation from fallout in Nishiyama to be as high as 30 to 130 R." (Journal of Radiation Research, Vol.16 , 1975: 35-41) Exposure to 100R to130R is lethal in 10% of cases and causes severe illness, temporary sterility, and immuno-suppression in most others. So, yes, Shinny Explosion is correct in that regard.

However, you are correct that there is no scientifically significant evidence that genetic mutations (sterility, deformities, retardation, etc.) occurred amongst subsequent generations. Shinny Explosions overstated his argument in this regard.

Unfortunately, the long-term ramifications of these bombings may never been known because the Japanese Government suppressed a great deal of the medical information collected around that time.

"The maximum estimates of dose due to fallout are 0.01-0.03 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at the hypocenters are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values."

http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa12.html
.

0.4 Gray would equal 40 Rads. I'm not quite sure how many Roentgens that would be -- probably something around 45.

That's high enough a dose to warrant medical monitoring "just in case" for a few months, but I wouldn't expect 40 Rads to cause any deaths or permanent injury.

 

[oralloy]

We didn't have today's precision conventional weapons back then.

But even if we could have achieved the same destruction with conventional weapons back then, that wouldn't change the fact that the A-bombs were being aimed at targets with military value.

If Russians attacked your homeland, what would you like more:

1. Russians aim specific military targets and military harbours, so you can hide somewhere with your family and wait until it's over (examples: NATO bombing of Belgrade, bombing of Baghdad), or

2. Russians launch three atomic bombs on your city to "save" an abstract number of civilians, most people die, the rest are mutated and disfigured, your home ruined, family and friends dead (examples: bombing of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, bombing of Dresden, bombing of London)?

Don't be a fool. You can't advocate mass destruction and sound sane.

I'd prefer the one with less collateral damage.

But that wouldn't change the fact that both attacks were aimed at military targets.

 

[oralloy]

Yeah ofc 80000 civilian lifes is nothing, lets drop some more... I still find it ironic that the US invaded iraq because they supposedly had weapons of mass destruction, and worry about other countries getting ´nukes when they're the country with most nukes and the only country to ever use them.

Bombs that kills civilians are evil and only evil people would ever use them.

There is no such thing as a weapon which doesn't kill civilians.

True, but if you drop the nuke you know thousinds and thousinds of civilians will die, if a trained soldier shoots a gun he hopefully hit what he's aiming for, which should be an enemy combatant.

Weapons of mass destruction is for psychoes who doesn't give a shit about civilian lifes

Bombs do cause a lot of collateral damage -- especially strategic nukes.

 

[Anezay]

Yes.

...but consider this: would USA have dropped the Atom bomb on Germany if the war in Europe had lasted longer than the war in Japan? Because Germans are white, and Japanese are not, and considering the racism in '40s America, I think using it against white people highly unlikely.

4

The Atom bomb was designed with Germany in mind. Once it was finished and the Germans were out of the way, America was like "Oh, well, at least we still have Japan." And yes, I believe that it was justified. In the case of the nukes, it really was the few for the many.