Nukes and truth; more in comments.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (20)
sorted by:
Why, yes. I have one. Try one of these.
Radiation, including from the bombs dropped on Japan, does increase cancer risk but not to the extent commonly believed, and mutations in the children of atomic bomb survivors (or the creation of giant spiders, as in the movies) has not been observed so far as I know.
On the other hand, atomic fission is a reality attested to by thousands of physics experiments, by hundreds of nuclear power plants, by many atomic bomb tests, and by the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which included the deaths of roughly 200,000 people. From the article linked above:
Also:
Another point: Creating the fissile material for a nuke is incredibly difficult and expensive, and creating a bomb FROM that material is also non-trivial.
Finally, on the naming of the bikini swimsuit:
Ever hear of marketing?
Those are all good counter arguments. I agree that the atomic model is an accurate representation of reality.
There are plausible arguments positing that both Nagasaki and Hiroshima were caused by conventional weapons. I haven't done original research, but I have seen others' research and believe this is likely. Once you begin to research from a different perspective, you can find more evidence. Obviously if the nuclear bomb were false, the secret would be closely guarded. In any case, proving a negative is not possible. A person should use discernment. But nearly 80 years of conflict with very powerful people striving for power, and no nuclear explosions against people, even while we are told they are smaller and more powerful than ever before, gives room for doubt.
I agree, there's always room for doubt. That's the true foundation of science: keeping an open mind.
Many cities in Europe and Japan were leveled by saturation incendiary bombing, a truly heinous war crime (Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is based in part on Vonnegut's actual survival of the Dresden firebombing; he was a war prisoner working in an underground slaughterhouse when the air raid began).
I don't think it likely that such a raid caused the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; such raids involved multiple waves of many, many bombers. But who knows . . .
Micro-nukes are alleged to have been used (along with thermite on the upper floors) to bring down the Twin Towers; the evidence I've seen seems credible. Beyond that possibility, why haven't we had terrorist (or government, or accidental) incidents with nukes of whatever size? Just lucky? Good work by those tasked with preventing such events? Aliens helping us out?
I have no idea.
I shopped for Geiger counters a few years ago. I found the reviews interesting. In the end I didn't buy one- if they are real I don't want to be in a position to use one; if they are fake I wouldn't want to rely on it. And they're kind of expensive without a need, and incidental to my argument. I probably should've left that out.
Out of curiosity, if you use your Geiger counter regularly, do you have a way to check if it works without subjecting yourself to radiation? Genuine question.
I haven't checked the counter (a Mazur PRM-8000) for accuracy but it does indicate background radiation in my house and elsewhere. I bought it after the Fukushima disaster. So far, only normal levels. I keep it on a shelf in my office and can see the light blink, usually several times per minute.