you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (17 children)

In short, yes. While I don’t know, the specifics about the fallout from the bombs dropped on Japan, but I do know that the fallout from the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine created a nuclear fallout cloud that drifted all the way to Germany and affected everyone in between. There was acid rain and elevated radiation levels for months.

And although it did not create a cloud of radioactive waste, the Fukushima disaster in 2011 released an enormous amount of contaminated water into the ocean around the plant that can still be traced.

Edit: the amount of people going out of their way to be combative, rude, and to try to start an argument is quite disappointing. If you don’t like my answer, just downvote and move on.

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Pretty sure the fallout from Chernobyl was all the radioactive particles dispersed into the atmosphere by the initial explosion of reactor 4, and the subsequent fires of radioactive and contaminated materials.
    Literally a "dirty bomb" dispersing radioactive material, instead of the radioactive material being converted directly to energy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    That’s precisely what I said, with slightly different wording. But thanks for the additional detail.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    I mean, I guess? Kinda?

    You said you didn't know the specific on the bombs dropped.
    Ok, so 0 information on the bomb dropped.

    But that Chernobyl created a massive cloud of fallout that impacted neighbouring countries and caused acid rain.
    Well, that's true. But that wasn't a fusion explosion.

    So, it felt like you were trying to relate 2 unrelated things. Like an apples-to-oranges situation.

    I feel that I clarified that the bombs dropped were designed to converted all fusable material to energy. They were literally designed to weaponise fusion.
    And that the fallout from Chernobyl wasn't caused by material turning into energy (ie fusion), but from particle dispersion.

    So, I guess.
    In that you said you had 0 knowledge of Thing A, and stated an unrelated fact about Thing B. Where both things are true, and are related by the fact that nuclear fuel is involved. But that's as far as the relationships go

    But everything you said after "yes" does nothing to support the "yes"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    That’s a really long way to admit that I was right, and you just didn’t like my answer anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    With all respect no you were not correct.

    It's two completely different scenarios with different transmission vectors and risks

    To put this in other terms you are conflating and misrepresenting facts either intentionally or unintentionally and it comes across as fear-mongering misinformation to those who have a more in depth grasp on radiology.

    You're more likely to be exposed to cancer-causing levels of radiation from a coa firedl power plant than any detonated nuclear device.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    With all respect

    You do not speak with respect. And, with all due respect, I’m not interested in having an argument. Have a nice day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago*

    Read a book or two on the subject matter please. There's nothing to argue about. You are factually incorrect. I'm not being mean just explaining why you are incorrect and suggesting you enrich yourself.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    Respectfully, I would ask you to read much further into this topic before dispersing your own opinions.

    The Continental United States is far more radioactive than Japan is.

    Imagine that you have a bathtub full of water and I dump a 5 lb bag of salt in it. The volume of salt in that tub has gone up by millions of percentage points. But if you take that same tub and dump it in a lake, the average salinity in the lake has gone up by less than 0.001%. . Tub is the Sea of Japan. The lake is the planetary ocean system. Given enough time as the two are connected, the "salinity" will equal out.

    Keep in mind just because something is elevated does not mean that it is deadly. Depending on where you live in the world, you probably experience something between 2 to 3 mSv a year. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Nothing I said was a “opinion“, and unless you can actually point to something I said that was incorrect, I don’t really see the point of contention here. And whataboutism isn’t a really great argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Your first sentence "In short, yes." is wrong. The start of your second sentence "While I don’t know" is correct reading the rest of the comment. You're talking apples and oranges when you campare Chernobyl with the bombs on Japan. Also the part of acid rain and elevated radiation levels don't make sense to me, as far as I know these are different phenomena with different causes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 1 point 11 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    If people like me didn’t comment, how could you possibly justify your pedantry?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    He's not a pendant, he didn't correct you or comment other than gentle advice, he's a random observer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)