Makes you wonder, if the impact sites of nukes are so radioactive, why are Hiroshima and Nagasaki huge, modern cities? But Chernobyl is still a no-go zone, and the sites of "nuke tests" are hazardous?
Many of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings suffered (and some died) of radiation sickness, but a single ~20k bomb contains a LOT less radioactive material than a nuclear power plant.
Yes, actual atomic bombs were used on those two cities.
Also: If atomic bombs aren't real, why do nuclear power plants work?
Is there any real evidence that nuclear fission isn't real? A LOT of scientific theory AND real-world data, "scientific" and otherwise, support the facts of nuclear fission and of actual, functioning atomic fission bombs.
Draws false equivalencies, absolutely certain of things he can't be certain about, relies on appealing to authority of "science" in place of individual thinking.
That is because your exercise in thought theory here is as relevant as wondering if a cow is a horse and horse is a cow because they have 4 legs and stand on them. These examples used to form the basis of questioning are in no way similar in conditions and there fore extent of impact based on the actual conditions of the events.
Makes you wonder, if the impact sites of nukes are so radioactive, why are Hiroshima and Nagasaki huge, modern cities? But Chernobyl is still a no-go zone, and the sites of "nuke tests" are hazardous?
Just how much is a lie?
Many of the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings suffered (and some died) of radiation sickness, but a single ~20k bomb contains a LOT less radioactive material than a nuclear power plant.
Yes, actual atomic bombs were used on those two cities.
How do you know? Were you high ranking military at the time? Research and development?
Did you see it with your own eyes?
Or are you believing what you've been told
I could ask you the same thing.
Also: If atomic bombs aren't real, why do nuclear power plants work?
Is there any real evidence that nuclear fission isn't real? A LOT of scientific theory AND real-world data, "scientific" and otherwise, support the facts of nuclear fission and of actual, functioning atomic fission bombs.
Draws false equivalencies, absolutely certain of things he can't be certain about, relies on appealing to authority of "science" in place of individual thinking.
NGMI
That is because your exercise in thought theory here is as relevant as wondering if a cow is a horse and horse is a cow because they have 4 legs and stand on them. These examples used to form the basis of questioning are in no way similar in conditions and there fore extent of impact based on the actual conditions of the events.