Although the major tests had been carried out with some publicity, the minor tests were carried out in absolute secrecy.[18] These minor tests left a dangerous legacy of radioactive contamination at Maralinga.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_nu ... _Maralinga" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
See It To Believe It
Forum rules
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. Random guest posting.
It's such a fine line between stupid and clever. Random guest posting.
- mantra
- Posts: 9132
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:45 am
Re: See It To Believe It
Is there any point being polite to you Aussie? You are not entirely right, nor am I entirely wrong. There were still aborigines at Marilinga and ......wiki also confirms that the smaller tests were carried out in secrecy.
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: See It To Believe It
The blast shown in the opening post was an air burst, and obviously a very high one, and probably a small yield, as evidenced by the fact that they survived with no immediate ill effects, despite being directly under it. I think most people overestimate the danger of nuclear weapons. Just because it's nuclear, doesn't mean it's going to automatically give you cancer.
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
- AnimalMother
- Posts: 629
- Joined: Mon May 21, 2012 2:48 pm
Re: See It To Believe It
Thank you for that sensible comment, boxy.
The introduction to the video states that the bomb in that test was only two kilotons in yield. In nuclear terms, this is tiny. The people on the ground below would have received some radiation, but probably not very much.
Of course, nuclear radiation is harmful. But we should remember that it's also ubiquitous - everything around us is radioactive, and has been since long before we were born. Atomic bombs just produce a lot more of it, in a short time, than our natural environment does.
The introduction to the video states that the bomb in that test was only two kilotons in yield. In nuclear terms, this is tiny. The people on the ground below would have received some radiation, but probably not very much.
Of course, nuclear radiation is harmful. But we should remember that it's also ubiquitous - everything around us is radioactive, and has been since long before we were born. Atomic bombs just produce a lot more of it, in a short time, than our natural environment does.
Aqualung my friend -
Don't you start away uneasy
You poor old sod, you see,
It's only me
Don't you start away uneasy
You poor old sod, you see,
It's only me
Re: See It To Believe It
Col. Sidney C. Bruce — died in 2005 (age 86)
Lt. Col. Frank P. Ball — died in 2003 (age 83)
Maj. John Hughes — very common name, but I'm guessing he is Maj. John W. Hughes II (born 1919, same as the above) — died in 1990 (age 71)
Maj. Norman Bodinger — unclear (not listed in the database), he may still be alive?
Don Lutrel — I think this is a misspelling of "Luttrell." There is a Donald D. Luttrell in the DVA database, US Army CPL, born 1924, died 1987 (age 63). Seems like a possibility.
Cameraman - George Yoshitake alive aged 84.
Seems like standing under a 2KT nuclear explosion is good for your longevity
Source: NPR
Lt. Col. Frank P. Ball — died in 2003 (age 83)
Maj. John Hughes — very common name, but I'm guessing he is Maj. John W. Hughes II (born 1919, same as the above) — died in 1990 (age 71)
Maj. Norman Bodinger — unclear (not listed in the database), he may still be alive?
Don Lutrel — I think this is a misspelling of "Luttrell." There is a Donald D. Luttrell in the DVA database, US Army CPL, born 1924, died 1987 (age 63). Seems like a possibility.
Cameraman - George Yoshitake alive aged 84.
Seems like standing under a 2KT nuclear explosion is good for your longevity

Source: NPR
- Neferti
- Posts: 18113
- Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:26 pm
Re: See It To Believe It
As I said/thought. lefties trying, again, and the GreensScience wrote:Col. Sidney C. Bruce — died in 2005 (age 86)
Lt. Col. Frank P. Ball — died in 2003 (age 83)
Maj. John Hughes — very common name, but I'm guessing he is Maj. John W. Hughes II (born 1919, same as the above) — died in 1990 (age 71)
Maj. Norman Bodinger — unclear (not listed in the database), he may still be alive?
Don Lutrel — I think this is a misspelling of "Luttrell." There is a Donald D. Luttrell in the DVA database, US Army CPL, born 1924, died 1987 (age 63). Seems like a possibility.
Cameraman - George Yoshitake alive aged 84.
Seems like standing under a 2KT nuclear explosion is good for your longevity
Source: NPR

Why not present yourself Guest? What happened way back does not equate to why the Gillard Govenment is giving away, tax free, $27,000 to people with kids who are already earning $120,000.
I am sure some of the lower class peoples would wonder about that. 27 Grand is MORE than an Aged Pensioner gets.
- AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: See It To Believe It
The guy holding the camera was Japanese. Bet he wasn't a willing participant.
- AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: See It To Believe It
We've seen this before but is worth several looks. Beautifully haunting ...
- AiA in Atlanta
- Posts: 7261
- Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:44 pm
Re: See It To Believe It
After the Fukushima meltdown I saw a couple of references to research done years ago by the Soviets that indicated that lower levels of radiation did seem to give health benefits. Much like sunshine I suppose.
- mantra
- Posts: 9132
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:45 am
Re: See It To Believe It
Given a choice - I'd prefer to be bathed in sunshine rather than radiation.AiA in Atlanta wrote:After the Fukushima meltdown I saw a couple of references to research done years ago by the Soviets that indicated that lower levels of radiation did seem to give health benefits. Much like sunshine I suppose.
- Super Nova
- Posts: 11793
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:49 am
- Location: Overseas
Re: See It To Believe It
Radiation is a big spectrum and has many different particles. It depends.mantra wrote:Given a choice - I'd prefer to be bathed in sunshine rather than radiation.AiA in Atlanta wrote:After the Fukushima meltdown I saw a couple of references to research done years ago by the Soviets that indicated that lower levels of radiation did seem to give health benefits. Much like sunshine I suppose.
Sunshine from a Supernova may be uncomfortable with a short life expectancy.
Always remember what you post, send or do on the internet is not private and you are responsible.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests