Atomic Testing
By wildguy2
@wildguy2 (1349)
Canada
December 14, 2006 8:30am CST
Last night I watched a documentary that took place in the 50's and 60' about the atomic bomb testings, and it was unbelievable how many nuclear tests there were in those years, my question is this, did we need to perform this many tests, and do you think that we as a people are now still feeling the effects of this testing, in the form of the enviroment, health, and comtamination of our food and water supplies.
1 person likes this
8 responses
@ossie16d (11821)
• Australia
19 Dec 06
During that time there was the Cold War going on, the war in Korea, fights against communism and the real fear that they would try to take over the world. This is why many countries had the atomic testing during that time. The UK did some of their testing here in Australia and those areas are still contaminated. Unfortunately the poms are not at all interested in cleaning it up or providing any sort of assistance for this.
We have some friends who were actually in the military and posted to a couple of the areas where the tested. They all have problems, ranging from skin cancers to other serious health issues. Luckily the Australian government looks after them, because nobody else will. As yet it has still to be determined if there is any effect on the younger generation, born many years after the testing and to those people who were at or near the atomic testing sites when the bombs were exploded.
The fact that these areas are still contaminated some 50+ years after the testing took place, indicated that this sort of activity is not good for the world. Everyone knows this and yet some countries still insist on doing their stupid nuclear tests. This land will be unusable for many years to come, and it will certainly be that way for my entire lifetime.
2 people like this
@wildguy2 (1349)
• Canada
19 Dec 06
I know that fear can drive a nation to do crazy things...but I don't understand why in the world would you bomb a country with the likes of a nuclear device...yes you would possibly eliminate the threst, but if you had any hopes of maybe using that country for your own resources then that would be impossible as it would be so contaminated...the only use I could see for a nuke would be that of 1. complete annilation of a country. or 2. to drive home the fact that the country delivering the bomb is the supreme power and not to be triffled with, I think that was the case in Hiroshima...what a way to show a countries power...by killing every living thing, including civilians, and others not even involved in the power struggle, by polluting the air and water for miles around and years to come...
1 person likes this
@wildguy2 (1349)
• Canada
14 Dec 06
The Russians had a nuke that was 100 megatonnes, they never detonaited it, luckly as they had no means to get it out and high enough as it was to big...and yes it was a nuclear testing race, to see who could make the biggest baddest nuke, more or less to try and scare each other I think....what a way for a Country to show its power...
Thanks for the respons
@wyykidd (1459)
• Singapore
15 Dec 06
Ah, I think this is all so evil... The effects of nuclear bombs are defintely causing a lot of harm to the living community. I feel sorry for those affected by all these nuke tests.
I'm sure the adverse effects gets passed on down many generations
@GardenGerty (160978)
• United States
16 Dec 06
I know for a fact that certain people are paying the price with increased cancer occurances. I have a friend who has had endless thyroid surgeries, etc and fertility problems. She says that this is a very common cause of thyroid disease in people from New Mexico. Probably we did not need this many tests, and I am not sure if we have contaminated food supplies, but yes the residue lingers in the environment.
1 person likes this
@wildguy2 (1349)
• Canada
16 Dec 06
Problem is that is does lingerr in the foord and water supply, 90% of theworld eats meat that has feed on contaminated vegetation, we drink water the was and is contaminated from the fallout, we eat fish from the sea where hug contamination was and is today. It takes up to 100 to 1000 years for soil to de-contaminate after being exposed to the slightest radio-activity, the tests took place only 50 years ago and are still taking place today...it can't be neutrilized only contained. Health safety committees that test food for deseases wouldn't even have the technology to test for radiation contamination, the livestock wouldn't show any signs of contamination as they are slaughtered long before it would show, and depending on the amount my not show at all, but someone with a weak immune system would feel the effects four times fold. Could explain the Cancer fatality increase to staggering heights over the last 30 years or so. Not to mention all the birth defects, etc....even with all the testing that had been done, we as humans still really do not know that outcome to slow doses of radiation...
@lisa_adms (19)
• Indonesia
19 Dec 06
maybe at that time they didn't see the disadvantage...but only the advantages for them
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
4 Feb 07
I remember all the testing craze in the 60s and could never understand the need for it. The idea of testing made sense, but after testing 7 or 8 nuclear bombs I cannot see any reason or need to test again.
As for after effects, it is almost impossible to arrive at a conclusive opinion because we do not have an example of life and atmosphere without those events in order to compare the two.
@oldboy46 (2129)
• Australia
4 Feb 07
The worst thing is that this is still going on even now after all those years .... nuclear testing by some stupid countries flexing their muscles but not feeding the people. I do not know why it is happening still after all everyone with half a brain knows what it does to the environment.
Too many people have suffered over the past 60 years as a result of atomic or nuclear if you prefer bombs and if these countries continue in the same way heaven help us because they will destroy the world.
