Enola Gay, heroism or insanity?

[Shortround6]

Long term radiation hazards were far from being understood.

My favorite example was the Davy Crockett.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Range, depending on launcher . 1.25 miles or 2.5 miles.

"would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m)"

Now which way was the Wind blowing? Final ones taken out of service in 1968.

 

[pbehn]

Long term radiation hazards were far from being understood.

My favorite example was the Davy Crockett.
View attachment 295140

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Range, depending on launcher . 1.25 miles or 2.5 miles.

"would produce an almost instantly lethal radiation dosage (in excess of 10,000 rem) within 500 feet (150 m), and a probably fatal dose (around 600 rem) within a quarter mile (400 m)"

Now which way was the Wind blowing? Final ones taken out of service in 1968.

I worked for a company in Germany, the accountant was an ex soldier in the post war BOAR, he said the life expectancy of a British soldier in the event of a Soviet invasion was 3 days maximum. The whole idea was to bring about a nuclear holocaust and by threatening it prevent it. Having trained in radiography and the compulsory radiological safety associated with it the whole idea of "tactical nuclear weapons" is a joke. The effect of the Davy Crockett would be just like chemical weapons, massive deaths close to the explosion and then horrible uncontrolled deaths sickness and disabilities in a direction decided by the wind and other effects.

 

[Koopernic]

The fear of 'long term radiation hazards' turns out to be bunk that should have been rejected two decades ago based on new understandings of both biology and radiation.

It is misinformation perpetuated by the anti nuclear movement to shut down the industry by delaying its projects so much they become unaffordable.

1 Every time you take a breath your body experiences thousands of genetic mutations. The damage is repaired by cellular mechanism. That is the way it works. The repair mechanisms are intrinsic to life and life would not exist without it.
2 If you are a Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bomb survivor your increased risk of cancer was at most 11%, a figure that is barely detectable and somewhat controversial. To put that in context; moving to my own country of Australia increases your chance of cancer by 50%. In other words living in Australia is 5 times more dangerous than living through an atomic explosion. (Don't you love the way statistics can be used)
3 There is no detectable increase in cancer rates due to Chernobyl compared to the decades prior to the Soviet Era Meltdown.
4 People living in Brazil near the health resort of Guarapari Beach receive 10 times the radiation as folks did at Fukushima but their cancer rates are no worse.
5 MIT researcher put mice in radiation 400 times background levels, that was calculated to increase DNA damage by 12 over the normal 10,000 that would occur in the day. No increase in DNA damage was detected.
6 Do take care with radioactive iodine and short lived isotopes in the immediate aftermath of a release.

 

[GregP]

All I can say to post 118 is this.

I was an electrical engineer for 33 years. One of the jobs I had took me to White Sands Missile Range for 4 months. It turned out that they opened the Trinity site for one day out of each year and it was during the time I was there. Being a curious sort, I went.

The driver who took us there made sure to tell everyoine not to pick up and rocks, dirt, etc. with our hands, and he watched everyone like a hawk. He had been driving people there for several years and his dosimeter was looking normal. When we looked, it was easy to find some small pieces of slightly-radioactive Trinitite, though it is illegal these days to take any. Before it was illegal, they sold some to collectors.

We had a geiger counter with us and it wasn't making much noise.

That was a few years back, I think in 1991. I remember laughing because the big news at the time was that Pee Wee Herman got caught playing with his Pee Wee in a movie theater. We were laughing because when we heard about it, we were having lunch at Pee Wee's Deli in Organ, New Mexico (right next to the Organ Mountains). Talk about an uinlikely coincidence.

Anyway, I'm still here.

 

[mikewint]

Koopernic - We there is data and data:
Dr. Michel Fernex
Emeritus Professor, Basel Faculty of Medecine
Former Consultant, World Health Organization

In fact, researchers have been surprised to find that genetic damage, and above all perigenetic damage, which is responsible for genomic instability, to descendants is far worse than to parents; and this risk increases from one generation to the next. R.J.Baker and his colleagues, studying the DNA of genes transmitted from mother voles to their babies, found levels of mutation, from generation to generation, reaching 100 times higher than anything we have previously encountered up to now in the animal kingdom. The area in which these rodents live has seen its level of radioactivity decrease, because Caesium 137 is carried in rainwater and infiltrates deep into the soil, where it can be recycled by plants.
One might think that in forests far away from Chernobyl that these rodents would react positively to these improved radiological conditions. But the mutations and the genome fragility have increased over 22 generations in populations of voles studied by Goncharova and Ryabokon in Belarus. These geneticists have observed the opposite of an adaptation to radioactivity: an increase in genomic instability in all populations studied, from 30 to 300 kilometres away from the stricken reactor. In the least contaminated zones, near Minsk, the genomic instability is slow, but it will persist and worsen up to 22 generations later.
The genetic effects observed in both humans and rodents has led Professor Hillis, at the University of Texas, to conclude in his editorial in the review Nature, 25th April 1996: « We know today that the mutagenic effect of a nuclear accident can be far more serious than we ever suspected, and the eucaryotic genome can present levels of mutation that, up to now, would not have been considered possible. »
At Fukushima, genomic instability needs to be followed up over generations, starting with grandparents and parents, then the children and grand children. After a year, the damage caused by the mixture of internal and external radiation to children should be measured, by comparison with data from before 2011 in the same areas, or by comparing data with communities further away, that were spared the radioactive fallout. Birthweight, incidence of stillbirth, perinatal mortality up to 28 days, birth deformities (heart problems should be investigated later), and among the genetic diseases, Down's syndrome, should all be studied. Brain damage with tumours, and developmental retardation which, like decreases in IQ, will become evident at school age.
In order to achieve its objectives, the IAEA cannot admit that these serious and common illnesses were caused by ionising radiation, because once known, it would prevent the development of the nuclear industry throughout the world.
It was almost incomprehensible that at Fukushima there was no distribution of stable iodine to the population that would soon be under threat. Such a preventive measure would have been welcomed, as Keith Baverstock showed in Poland after Chernobyl.
The first victims of a serious nuclear accident are and will be children, with an increase in allergies and an aggravation of infectious diseases, which become chronic and involve serious complications.
In equal doses, external radiation is ten to a hundred times less damaging than chronic internal radiation, which essentially results from the oral absorption of radionuclides. These concentrate in organs like the thymus, the endocrine glands, the spleen, the bone surfaces and the heart.

 

[pbehn]

Koopernic, what you post is about radiation from outside the body, background radiation. In the case that a radioactive particle rather than the emitted radiation is absorbed into a persons body then wherever it rests the local cells receive massive local doses which are eventually fatal.

In a documentary on workers on the Chernobyl reactor monitoring the sarcophagus suffered a large number of deaths due to heart failure which seems to be an unexplained effect of working in areas of high background radiation.

 

[GrauGeist]

The fate of the Chernobyl firefighters is almost unspeakable...same for the helicopter pilots who worked to drop sand, clay and lead on the smoldering reactor.

To this day, the equipment (helicopters, firetrucks, work vehicles) are still highly radioactive...

 

[mikewint]

CANCER RISK TO CHILDREN OF EXPOSED PARENTS
July 20, 1999 By Dick Ahlstrom, Science Editor
The children of a person who is exposed to radiation could be susceptible to cancer as a result, according to research carried out in Britain. Even low levels of radiation could cause mutations that cross the generational divide and could be detected in offspring.
"We did not expect these results," said Dr Yuri Dubrova, Wellcome Trust Senior Lecturer in the Department of Genetics at the University of Leicester, who yesterday presented his research at the 11th International Congress on Radiation Research under way in Dublin. "We finalised them two weeks ago and we checked them twice."
Dr Dubrova and colleagues were looking at mice exposed to nuclear radiation and watching for signs of cell mutations in their offspring. They were looking in particular at small segments of the genetic blueprint known as "microsatellites" which are very susceptible to mutation.
The researchers found the offspring of exposed male mice had six times the rate of mutation compared to mice that had not been irradiated. "We are dealing with an enormous increase in the mutation rate," he told a conference session at University College Dublin yesterday.
The radiation causes a phenomenon known as "genomic instability", a tendency for genetic material in the cells to recombine to cause unpredictable mutations that in turn could cause cancers. This subject is under intense study at the Radiation Science Centre of the Dublin Institute of Technology, organisers of the week-long conference which has brought 1,200 delegates to Dublin.
Exposure to radiation caused an increased probability of blood disorders such as leukaemia in subsequent generations, according to research by Dr Brian Lord and colleagues of the Paterson Institute for Cancer Research at the Christie Hospital, Manchester. There was a considerable increase in incidence of the disease in these offspring compared to unirradiated control groups, he said.
The data suggested it was not caused by direct inheritance but by an increased likelihood of genomic variability passed on to the next generation.
Earlier, a number of researchers presented data which tried to demonstrate the effects of genomic instability and the changes it caused in test mice. Dr Bob Ullrich, of the University of Texas in Galveston, described his work which attempted to answer the question "What does radiation do to ultimately lead to cancer?"
Their test results were able to separate the damage caused directly by the radiation exposure and the changes brought about due to genomic instability. They cultured cells that were changed because of it. They then studied what genes might be involved and whether there was a genetic component to this instability.
Dr Anders Wennborg and colleagues of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden and the Bo Lambert company described studies of chromosomal damage that arose many days after exposure to radiation. These changes were linked to instability and not to direct mutations caused by the radiation. The data he said were "strongly indicative of a progressive aberration" in the genome.
Source:

 

[GregP]

This is getting pretty far off-topic and it doesn't address B-29's or the Enola Gay.

Maybe a thread about the evils of radiation?

 

[GrauGeist]

This is getting pretty far off-topic and it doesn't address B-29's or the Enola Gay.

Maybe a thread about the evils of radiation?

Well...there is a common factor, the end result of Enola Gay's mission.

 

[GregP]

Yeah, but if you were looking for this discussion a year from now, how would you find it?

I wouldn't mind if we wandered all over the place all the time, but it makes finding it later somewhat of an issue. After reading a thousand threads, it's hard to locate a specific one unless you can remember the thread title.

 

[David N]

Dave, I stand corrected and was not aware of that. During WWI my paternal great grandfather removed the "von" from our last name due to anti-German feelings while in Wisconsin the family was in an almost totally German town where German was the spoken language. As staunch Lutherans church services were in German and there was great pressure to remain German, though Lutherans were anti-Kaiser

For an excellent book on the subject of the internment of Germans, see "Undue Process: The Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees," by Arnold Krammer.

This has been forgotten, probably on purpose. If anything, the U.S. government had more animus toward German aliens than Japanese. The reason more weren't interned was there were just too many of them.

 

[GregP]

It might be worth remembering that whoever was in office in WWI and WWII are no longer there.

I have frineds whose parents were extremely anti-Japanese and anti-German. Their children pretty much aren't and THEIR children harbor NO animosity against either nationality. Unless there is a very good reason to continue hatred, it is hard to sustain it from generation to generation. These days there isn't much of a reason except parental prejudice and that usually doesn't suffice for reasonable people, even if they ARE kids.

Not everyone is reasonable, but a lot are. I won't debate how many are unreasonable because it depends almost entirely on who you know, and we are diverse group with but a very small percentage of common acquaintences.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

It might be worth remembering that whoever was in office in WWI and WWII are no longer there.

I have frineds whose parents were extremely anti-Japanese and anti-German. Their children pretty much aren't and THEIR children harbor NO animosity against either nationality. Unless there is a very good reason to continue hatred, it is hard to sustain it from generation to generation. These days there isn't much of a reason except parental prejudice and that usually doesn't suffice for reasonable people, even if they ARE kids.

Not everyone is reasonable, but a lot are. I won't debate how many are unreasonable because it depends almost entirely on who you know, and we are diverse group with but a very small percentage of common acquaintences.

Good luck with that...

I don't know how many times my wife has been told by people here in the US that she should be ashamed and feel guilt for what the Germans did in WW2. Hell I read that ignorance from a few people here in the forum from time to time...

She was born 30+ years after the war. She had nothing to do with it, has no fault, and therefore should have no guilt or shame.

 

[GregP]

Hi Adler,

I have run across a few, but not many. Most of the one I DO know are im my age group or older, not yonger. I am 64.

Most of the people 45 and yonger I know have little in the way of WWII holdover prejudices, but that's just the people I know. I'm not living in Mnnesota in the midst of a Lutheran town that is 95% German in heritage, so my experince might not be typical ... but it IS my experience. I have little tolerance for it when I run across it.

You two come to the Planes of Fame airshow next year, assuming the wife even likes airplanes, and you'll be treated very nicely by everyone there. We'll even cook some German food.

 

[VBF-13]

Good luck with that...

I don't know how many times my wife has been told by people here in the US that she should be ashamed and feel guilt for what the Germans did in WW2. Hell I read that ignorance from a few people here in the forum from time to time...

She was born 30+ years after the war. She had nothing to do with it, has no fault, and therefore should have no guilt or shame.

Really, it's hard to blame even that generation. These weren't a bunch of schoolyard bullies. These Nazi leaders were psychopaths, and a propaganda machine. The population was given a race to kick around for their troubles, because they were deep in the hole, just like everywhere else. Think of the kind who go along with that, and who relish it. There were a few. But the vast majority were simply scared to rock the boat.

It happened in Germany, it happened in the Deep South, it can happen anywhere.

 

[pbehn]

Good luck with that...

I don't know how many times my wife has been told by people here in the US that she should be ashamed and feel guilt for what the Germans did in WW2. Hell I read that ignorance from a few people here in the forum from time to time...

She was born 30+ years after the war. She had nothing to do with it, has no fault, and therefore should have no guilt or shame.

Well Adler there is only a few generations of separation. I have been berated about what "my people" did during the Crusades, the occupation of India and even not giving first aid after the battle of Culloden.
Some of it so far of the mark it is laughable. From my experience there is a substantial number of young people who believe that Dresden was bombed after Germany surrendered. In my opinion Germanys problem is the invention of the camera, there is no film record of the action of previous despots and modern despots are careful not to repeat others mistakes. If cameras were available in 1750 there wouldnt be a statue of Napoleon in Place Vendome.

 

[Token]

This has been forgotten, probably on purpose. If anything, the U.S. government had more animus toward German aliens than Japanese. The reason more weren't interned was there were just too many of them.

That does not seem to be supported by historically recorded activities. You would think that regardless of the total number if the government wanted to they could have interned at least as many (by number, if not percentage) Germans as Japanese, but the numbers are not even close.

During WW II roughly 120,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans were interned or forcibly relocated (over 60% of those were US citizens, and because of the Immigration Act of 1924 that meant most were born in the US), out of the roughly 300,000 Japanese and Japanese-Americans population between Hawaii and the Mainland. This directly affected almost one third of all people of Japanese descent in the US.

And yet only about 11,500 Germans or German-Americans were interned (overwhelmingly German born), out of almost 6 million German, German-American, and German descended people in the US at the start of WW II. There were over 1.2 million German born people in the US in 1940. There were another roughly 5,000 Germans interned who were expelled from South America to the US after the start of WW II, so one might claim roughly 17,000 total. This 17,000 internees would have fit in just 1 of the 10 camps that held Japanese nationals and US citizen Japanese-Americans.

Remember that in the mid 1930's the American Nazi Party (organizations like Friends of New Germany and the German American Bund) had more than 10,000 members. In Feb 1939 the Nazi rally at Madison Square Garden was attended by about 20,000 people, and Hitlers activities were openly praised.

In other words, there were far more demonstrated supporters of Nazi Germany in the US than demonstrated supporters of Japanese aggression. And yet the Japanese were interned 10:1 compared to the Germans.

American military personnel of German descent were allowed to fight in Europe without general restriction, while American military persons of Japanese descent were generally not allowed to fight in the Pacific (there are a few exceptions, such as in certain military intelligence units). Japanese-Americans certainly did fight in WW II, but mostly in Europe.

T!

 

[GrauGeist]

American military personnel of German descent were allowed to fight in Europe without general restriction, while American military persons of Japanese descent were generally not allowed to fight in the Pacific (there are a few exceptions, such as in certain military intelligence units). Japanese-Americans certainly did fight in WW II, but mostly in Europe.

T!

On the contrary...Americans with German or Italian heritage were assigned to the PTO early in the war.

And a driving factor in Japanese relocation, was the Niihau incident following the Pearl Harbor attack.

And if you think that all Japanese that were interred were docile, innocent people, guess again. Tule Lake was not so much an internment camp as it was a detention facility for incorrigables and Imperial loyalists. There were many instances where a person was interred there and the Japanese prisoners suspected them of being a U.S. collaborator or anti-Emperor and murdered them.

 

[planb]

We are looking at 1940's emotions with 2015's morals. Big difference.

Well said,pretty much sums it up,doesn't it