Sign in to follow this  
deicer

Are You This Brave?

Recommended Posts

wow. One of my Dad's best friends died from leukemia in the early 1980's. He was a drone that was told (not asked) to be within 5 nm of a surface based nuclear "test" in the same area. "Stand up and tell us what you see after the bright light." They were awash in gamma radiation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of our AC pilots from the sixties hiring died far too early from some form of cancer.  During his time in the RCAF he flew CF-100s through  the clouds from nuclear tests in the US deserts, sampling the by-products. Of course there is no direct proof that those activities were the  cause of his demise but knowing now what was probably not known then could be cause for Hmmmmmmm.

I'm guessing that the "missile" from the F-89, (Scorpion), was an MB-1 Genie which was the nuclear armament of the Scorpion at the time. I would not be too surprised if the launch crew were not closer to the detonation than the brave gents on the ground in spite of their escape maneuver after firing.

The MB-1 was the primary armament on the Voodoo although it was never on board unless it was expected to be used. Your escape maneuver at launch was part of the attack profile if you did not want to join your target in the ensuing blast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they are/were many more "downwinders" on the receiving end than officially mentioned in the article. And what about all the contaminated soil, farmlands and crops grown in that area over the years since? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, blues deville said:

I'm sure they are/were many more "downwinders" on the receiving end than officially mentioned in the article. And what about all the contaminated soil, farmlands and crops grown in that area over the years since? 

Yabut when one considers  http://www.logtv.com/films/chelyabinsk/ and http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx and the "moderate" increases in genetic affectations, it does make one wonder....

Edited by Moon The Loon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, DEFCON said:

1525617_672054929538813_750430805_n.jpg

Worthwhile to watch for those concerned about nuclear power:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Innuendo said:

One of our AC pilots from the sixties hiring died far too early from some form of cancer.  During his time in the RCAF he flew CF-100s through  the clouds from nuclear tests in the US deserts, sampling the by-products. Of course there is no direct proof that those activities were the  cause of his demise but knowing now what was probably not known then could be cause for Hmmmmmmm.

I'm guessing that the "missile" from the F-89, (Scorpion), was an MB-1 Genie which was the nuclear armament of the Scorpion at the time. I would not be too surprised if the launch crew were not closer to the detonation than the brave gents on the ground in spite of their escape maneuver after firing.

The MB-1 was the primary armament on the Voodoo although it was never on board unless it was expected to be used. Your escape maneuver at launch was part of the attack profile if you did not want to join your target in the ensuing blast.

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-2.html

The MB-1 was known in the RCAF as the AIR-2A Genie and was the primary armament on the CF-101 Voodoo which was capable of carrying 2 Genies. To the best of my knowledge, a Canadian Voodoo never went airborne with a Genie but all Voodoo squadrons and crews were required to demonstrate on a regular basis the ability to arm the aircraft and make it ready for combat. When these exercises, known as "mass loads" were conducted and completed, the aircraft and crews were on the flight line, armed with the AIR-2A and AIM 4-D and ready for combat. Needless to say, security was extremely tight, the aircraft and surrounding area were a "no-lone zone" and armed guards with shoot-to-kill authority were ever-present. To the best of my recollection, these nuclear-tipped rockets, while physically on Canadian soil, remained the property of the USAF who guarded and maintained them.

The escape manoeuvres were indeed challenging, particularly at night, in cloud and on instruments, from a "snap-up" type attack which might find you at 30,000+ feet, 30+ degrees of pitch which then required you to roll on your back and pull maximum "G" to head back earthwards ... ah, those were the days ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, av8tor said:

 

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/r-2.html

The MB-1 was known in the RCAF as the AIR-2A Genie and was the primary armament on the CF-101 Voodoo which was capable of carrying 2 Genies

Then there were the Bomarcs:

http://www.usask.ca/diefenbaker/galleries/virtual_exhibit/nuclear_question_in_canada/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bomarcs...?

200.gif

Edited by seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing a Bomark ever killed was the Avro Arrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the Bomarc did shoot something down.  The  RCAF got to launch one from Eglin AFB, ( I think it was Eglin but in Florida anyway).

It hit the Q-F104 target and wiped it out.  It was supposed to be a near miss but somehow it hit dead on. Some embarassment over that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was told the Canadian crew who armed it won the competition on 'time' or whatever the points criteria were.  The local minders did not think the Canucks were capable of doing the job properly and did not bother to put in the slewing factor to create the miss.  When the thing was fired the Canadians proved they were sharper than had been thought. Touche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.

Are we too scared of radiation?

Mon Jul 11, 2016 - BBC News
By Helen Briggs  - Environment Correspondent 

It's more than five years since the earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Japan caused a huge leak of radioactive material into the world's oceans.

Workers battled to prevent the Fukushima nuclear plant going into complete meltdown and radiation levels rose by a factor of tens of millions.

However, a new report by Australian scientists has revealed that radiation in the Pacific Ocean is rapidly returning to normal and should be at its previous level by 2020. So what does this say about radiation and us?

Time has stood still around the Fukushima nuclear plant, with homes and possessions abandoned - perhaps forever.

Efforts to curb further leaks of radioactive water are ongoing: an underground frozen wall of soil is being constructed to try to minimise the amount of radioactive material that seeps out into the sea.

Huge challenges remain in the future as decontamination efforts continue and it's going to take several decades before the plant is fully decommissioned.

The seafloor and harbour near Fukushima are still highly contaminated, meaning monitoring of radioactivity levels and sea life in that area must continue for years to come.

But some sort of normal is returning to the wider ocean.

Nuclear energy is an emotive issue - besides the political, environmental and economic arguments, some believe radioactivity has a psychological dimension that prods at our inner fears.

In terms of human evolution, it's not that long ago since we were hunter gatherers facing dangers all around us - from poisonous plants to predators.

Because we're hardwired to react to the dangers we can see, smell or taste, radioactivity - which is an invisible threat - perhaps has a particular resonance.

'Many died as a result of the earthquake and tsunami, but, according to the World Nuclear Association, nobody died or suffered radiation sickness from the radiation itself.'

.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lakelad, did you watch the video above - Pandora's Promise?  Very interesting and talks about this specific topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the various elements being released at Fukushima are mutagens and not the kind of stuff you want in, or influencing the growth of your sushi.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New York Times

When Radiation Isn’t the Real Risk

George Johnson, September 21, 2015

"This spring, four years after the nuclear accident at Fukushima, a small group of scientists met in Tokyo to evaluate the deadly aftermath.

"No one has been killed or sickened by the radiation — a point confirmed last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Even among Fukushima workers, the number of additional cancer cases in coming years is expected to be so low as to be undetectable, a blip impossible to discern against the statistical background noise.

"But about 1,600 people died from the stress of the evacuation — one that some scientists believe was not justified by the relatively moderate radiation levels at the Japanese nuclear plant."

cont'd:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/22/science/when-radiation-isnt-the-real-risk.html?smid=tw-nytimesscience&smtyp=cur&_r=1&referer=

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A feel good story of this sort is probably the prelude to an industry announcement involving an increase in the amount of juice being provided by nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this