February 16, 2011

Got Nukes?



Oddly compelling viewing, this.

While you are watching, I want you to picture an incalculable number of radiated particles floating around in our atmosphere. Then I want you to ponder the explosion of cancers in the last 60 years.

But whatever you do, don't link the two.

It was something else what caused them.

Got it?

The vast majority of these explosions will have been subterranean, but a significant number were airborne detonations. I read somewhere that there are enough radiated dust particles, if inhaled,  to kill us all 15 times over.

Have a lovely day.

CR.

20 comments:

Sue said...

and they have the audacity to lecture us on smoking!

nisakiman said...

Yes, I followed a link to that a while ago. It is, as you say, compelling. I really had no idea that even a fraction of that number of nuclear devices had been set off.

As for the cancers, there is obviously no connection at all. We know because we've been told (by experts) that cancers are caused by secondhand smoke. We'll all be ok now that we have the smoking ban.

mescalito said...

http://www.onegoodcut.org/

nice videos about cutting benefits to the bankers!

Anthony said...

That is truly jaw-dropping.

I sometimes wish I had the money to show stuff like this on a big billboard in places like Trafalgar Square and Times Square. Show the masses what goes on behind the scenes as they gorge on quarter-pounders.

The Wasp said...

There is a nice world map at the link below showing all the tests, sizes, dates and countries responsible if you want to see which holiday destinations to avoid (click the small image in the post to get the full view) :

http://www.waspsnest.com/2010/06/20/how-many-nukes-have-been-detonated-on-earth-already

Also worth noting is that a little over one fifth of all known tests were atmospheric blasts.

Woodsy42 said...

Much easier to blame smokers though.

William said...

More money in blaming smokers!!

Captain Ranty said...

I didn't just mean smokey related cancers though....

will said...

@Anthony - get on ebay and pick up a video projector. i bought one before flat screen tellies were common. less than 200 quid and i had a 12 foot tv in my living room! ive been contemplating doing some guerrilla projections myself to try and wake up the sheep. it can take a laptop feed amongst many others. only really works at night but could have quite an impact down tescos at rush hour!

James Higham said...

My trilogy is based on this theme. It's appalling that we have no power to stop these things. We have the right but not the power.

Anonymous said...

Wow that's a whole lot o nukiness those clusters in the 60s & 70s are mind blowing when viewed like that.

Oppenhemer did lament that he'd become the destroyer of worlds.

Anonymous said...

"Oppenhemer did lament that he'd become the destroyer of worlds."


Yes, and so Oppenheimer has. Because if it wasn't for him and then all the tests and then all the radiation spilled into the atmosphere and then the need for governments to hide us from the cancer increases being their fault, then we'd have no need for the smoking ban and SHS propaganda to distract everyone from the truth in the first place.

So when you see your next shuddered pub, lost economies, liberties stolen and outcast rebel smokers being harassed as "the cause" you'll know that Mr. Oppenheimer was by the domino effect, the cause of the destruction we are now witnessing as governments are weaving a wicked web of what they have done and forever spinning it deeper until it's one day out of control.

Bill Sticker said...

Ranty and readers;

Please read this about food radiation levels over at Wattsupwiththat.com. Kind of puts the whole radiation thing in perspective.

Although you may never want to eat a Banana or Brazil Nut again.

Captain Ranty said...

Damn, Bill!

I've only just started eating sausages again.

Mind you, I can do without bananas and Brazil nuts.

I'm off to have a look.

CR.

.243 Win said...

Ranty,

Apologies for being a shade late into the game and O/T on this issue but regarding the "In Defence of Freemen" piece and the ramifications regarding contracts, here's a take on the subject :

There's nothing to stop you using your legal fiction as a conduit to enact and facilitate contracts with Government (or anyone else) as a Corporate Entity - it's the Arms Length Principal at work providing that both parties are fully informed.

Translate that to the Freeman situation : You've supplied affidavits, updated as necessary. Part of your affidavit, or supporting documentation will constitute a NUICOR (I'm assuming that we're all familiar with what that is). You should have made it clear that you're prepared to contract with the State for certain services (Licences and passports among other things) to enable you to follow your lawful path unhindered. The conditions of such a contract may well be enshrined as Statues by the State but your conditional acceptance of certain Statues as a condition of contract doesn't imply your acceptance of rule by Statue in its entirety.

Back to the Person : Your only viable mechanism to contract with the State is via the use of your Person. It's not a choice, it's a lack of options. Your various contracts with the State come complete with with certain liabilities. That's contracts for you. That you chose to use your Person as a Corporate Entity, equal in (statue) law to that of the Corporate Entity of the State is perfectly usual and acceptable.

The whole issue of land, that's another thing entirely, and somewhat of a non-argument. There's no such thing as allodial title in England - the Crown owns everything land-wise so "land" per se can't be free of charges, liens, taxes etc. But you aren't "land". TPTB can't put a charge on "land" - it's all done on property (not the same thing), as contracted via (you guessed it) a Person.

As a Freeman, if you own your property outright (without any residual contractual obligation such as a mortgage), then it can only be distrained from you by a properly enacted court order.

I'm sure this will kick off more discussion. Go to it...

Maddie said...

this site has disappeared now so the link is from the wayback machine an interesting theory on the testing/cancer connection

http://replay.waybackmachine.org/20070703080306/http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

Angry Exile said...

Seems to me that if you live long enough your chance of getting some type of cancer is roughly one in one, and if so the ageing population in industrialised nations would explain a lot of the increase in cancer. A fair test would be whether third world nations whose life expectancies haven't changed much since before Trinity have had similar increases. If they haven't that deals a nasty knock to the nukes-cancer link.

A thought about the video. It's just counting numbers of detonations, not how big they are. The Soviets set off a monster 50 megaton bomb once, but only once. Assuming that all tests were included in that clip, including the failures that were nuclear explosions but very, very weak ones (one was so weak the tower that they put the bomb on was left almost intact). The smallest explosion was about 1/250000th the size of the biggest, but we're probably seeing them all as a uniform size. Might be true about the radioactive particles if inhaled all at once, but I've heard the same said of all the nicotine in a pack of cigarettes. Since you never do take it in all in one go it's meaningless. Even oxygen is poisonous in certain situations, but how often do you worry about it? Most people who don't go diving or work around cylinders of it probably don't even know.

I was going to tell you about bananas too but Bill Sticker is already there. Instead I'll add that there's also some evidence to suggest that received wisdom WRT radiation exposure, i.e. that the chance of getting radiation harming you is directly proportional to the dose, may not be correct and that in fact there's a threshold below which there's no significant additional risk. BBC's Horizon did a doco on it a few years ago. One of the areas of debate is how well all the wildlife is doing around Prypiat despite the Chernobyl disaster, and that there are areas that are naturally more radioactive than the exclusion zone there and which aren't noted for any health effects expected from radiation. The doco is on YouTube here (part 1 of 5). Worth a watch, I'd say. I'm downloading it for later.

Angry Exile said...

PS - Part 5 of that doco seems to be missing the last few minutes. Looks like who ever did it used too big an overlap between each part. There's another version of the doco up which seems to have the lot, and certainly has the end of the show. Part 1 of it is here here.

econyonium said...

"Then I want you to ponder the explosion of cancers in the last 60 years.

But whatever you do, don't link the two."

And ponder the increase in global warming or mobile phones - but don't link the two.

will said...

i had heard that almost 2 thousand nukes had been set off but then im a boring history nerd. im sure the population at large probably only have the vague idea that just one has ever gone off and that was in japan.
on the subject of banana radiation i seem to remember reading that germany is the worlds largest consumer of bananas. they eat more than the rest of the world combined. so there should be some kind of higher levels of intestinal cancer? who knows? we're all gonna die of something