I didn't say nuclear energy is a hoax, I said nuclear bombs are a hoax. To me these are two separate subjects.
Can you name one nuclear bomb detonation and provide authentic photo proof, or any subsequent cancer records of the area?
Nuclear energy is a real rabbit hole, but it's not as clear cut and I haven't done a shitload of research into it so don't want to go there at this point. Two things I will be asking if I do: how was Japan affected by the loss of it's nuclear power plants, and what is the cancer rate like in Tokyo now?
This concern with cancer records seems misplaced to me. There are many ways cancer is caused, not only by ionizing radiation. Some types of non ionizing radiation cause cancer, as well as chemical carcinogens, or simply genetic difficulties among others.
With the mentioned confounds alone, raw data on cancer rates wouldn't even wholly and directly correlate to the deployment of nuclear weapons. You'd need to somehow isolate from the numerous non nuclear weapon related cancer incidences and, at the very least in the case of genetic effects, it could be practically infeasible to tease out the variables in a population wide study.
The official story is that "nukes" cause cancer for more than 1000 years.
If the cancer rates in cities that have been "nuked" are lower than those in near identical cities that have not been "nuked" then that is massive evidence that the official story is utter bullshit.
This is a nice tourist attraction. Good job it's perfectly safe to go there after only 75 years!
Amazing how that building on the left was "nuke-proof" apart from the roof (Hiroshima, Japan)
I can buy that the 'official story' is just a lie, given of the propensity for lying that people have. In fact that longer paper I shared gives something of a quantitative measure of how effectively people lie with the p parameter of the equation.
Though it could also be mere ignorance about the effects of a new technology, or how those effects differ from the theoretical model's predictions.
There are always unknown unknowns. Perhaps even more than there are malicious thoughts, given the vast scale of the universe and it's impregnable mystery.
I think it's possible for a building not to be obliterated though near a large explosion. The number of factors involved is immense, and the system is chaotic as it nearly always is. Rare, unexpected, and paradoxical things do happen.
It's not some sort of law of nature that a "nuclear" bomb would have destroyed that building; it's no a priori truth. Without that status it seems to me that the notion that it's "...clear 100% proof..." is far overblown. Sure you could take it as a bit of evidence, it might even be somewhat persuasive, but it's not an open and shut case unless that building not being obliterated is a necessary and sufficient condition to prove a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped.
That this is all the 'proof' one would need seems a bit of a stretch to me, to say the least.
I have read your post, but from a theoretical standpoint if I can use the energy of nuclear fission in a reactor, I might be also able to use it in a bomb. It is not like I am a Professor on the topic though.
This would consequently mean that many physicians are complicit in the hoax and while I would not put my hand in the fire for all of them I think the physical science community has still some people who are very interested in truth and those would uncover the hoax.
I didn't say nuclear energy is a hoax, I said nuclear bombs are a hoax. To me these are two separate subjects.
Can you name one nuclear bomb detonation and provide authentic photo proof, or any subsequent cancer records of the area?
Nuclear energy is a real rabbit hole, but it's not as clear cut and I haven't done a shitload of research into it so don't want to go there at this point. Two things I will be asking if I do: how was Japan affected by the loss of it's nuclear power plants, and what is the cancer rate like in Tokyo now?
This concern with cancer records seems misplaced to me. There are many ways cancer is caused, not only by ionizing radiation. Some types of non ionizing radiation cause cancer, as well as chemical carcinogens, or simply genetic difficulties among others.
With the mentioned confounds alone, raw data on cancer rates wouldn't even wholly and directly correlate to the deployment of nuclear weapons. You'd need to somehow isolate from the numerous non nuclear weapon related cancer incidences and, at the very least in the case of genetic effects, it could be practically infeasible to tease out the variables in a population wide study.
The official story is that "nukes" cause cancer for more than 1000 years.
If the cancer rates in cities that have been "nuked" are lower than those in near identical cities that have not been "nuked" then that is massive evidence that the official story is utter bullshit.
This is a nice tourist attraction. Good job it's perfectly safe to go there after only 75 years!
Amazing how that building on the left was "nuke-proof" apart from the roof (Hiroshima, Japan)
I think I see what you're saying here.
I can buy that the 'official story' is just a lie, given of the propensity for lying that people have. In fact that longer paper I shared gives something of a quantitative measure of how effectively people lie with the p parameter of the equation.
Though it could also be mere ignorance about the effects of a new technology, or how those effects differ from the theoretical model's predictions.
There are always unknown unknowns. Perhaps even more than there are malicious thoughts, given the vast scale of the universe and it's impregnable mystery.
I'm saying that building not being obliterated is clear 100% proof that a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped on Hiroshima.
Your capacity to make simple things unintelligible is spectacular!
I think it's possible for a building not to be obliterated though near a large explosion. The number of factors involved is immense, and the system is chaotic as it nearly always is. Rare, unexpected, and paradoxical things do happen.
It's not some sort of law of nature that a "nuclear" bomb would have destroyed that building; it's no a priori truth. Without that status it seems to me that the notion that it's "...clear 100% proof..." is far overblown. Sure you could take it as a bit of evidence, it might even be somewhat persuasive, but it's not an open and shut case unless that building not being obliterated is a necessary and sufficient condition to prove a "nuclear" bomb was not dropped.
That this is all the 'proof' one would need seems a bit of a stretch to me, to say the least.
Also thank you for your kind words.
You are never lost for words it seems..
Facts, evidence, coherent points of view...but never words!
I have read your post, but from a theoretical standpoint if I can use the energy of nuclear fission in a reactor, I might be also able to use it in a bomb. It is not like I am a Professor on the topic though.
This would consequently mean that many physicians are complicit in the hoax and while I would not put my hand in the fire for all of them I think the physical science community has still some people who are very interested in truth and those would uncover the hoax.
I'm going to be picky here and repeat:
Can you name one nuclear bomb detonation and provide authentic photo proof, or any subsequent cancer records of the area?
OK, I can't. Therefore I am giving you a 0.5% chance of nuclear energy being a hoax. It is a rather big increase from 0%
Wow, thanks, got you wondering then!
That's an infinite percent increase, are you sure it isn't a bit over generous?
😉
I know, it might be more around 0.1 tbh, however the seed of doubt has been planted.
Did you mean to switch from nuclear bomb back to nuclear energy in that comment?
a 0.5% chance of nuclear energy being a hoax.
It's a somewhat alluring concept for sure.
A nukeless world is a safer world, and who doesn't want to live in a safer world?
Even that minute mote of bias may be considerably influential.
Much luck to you.