The 10 countries with NO Covid infections are also past Nuclear Test Sites.

a reply to: muzzleflash

Radiation levels at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are back to normal background levels and have been for years. There's another reason why they stayed low beyond radiation.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: muzzleflash

Radiation levels at Hiroshima and Nagasaki are back to normal background levels and have been for years. There's another reason why they stayed low beyond radiation.

Yeah nuclear bombs have a very short lived fallout period and residual rads on the ground also decay very quickly. Most of it not all.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That's why I think diet could be a major contributor to their good health.

It is widely known the Japanese eat very well and this translates to health and longevity.

I need to know way more tho to even see if this could be a plausible factor.

a reply to: charlyv

So what are you saying? Since they were close to the nuclear tests they dont get the virus.


I would think the reason for that is nobody goes to those places.

Here's your direct correlation. Nuclear testing in the Pacific was performed on the most isolated islands found. They are STILL isolated and easily quarantined, ergo, no cases.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Fallingdown

The Original Post is about United States nuclear testing, try reading it.

Wrong

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Wrong

Are you the Original Poster? No? What did he say?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Can you read the OP ?

Did it say he was exclusively talking about the US ?

You were wrong .

Again

originally posted by: Fallingdown
Did it say he was exclusively talking about the US ?

And who else would he be talking about since no one else tested anything closer than the devices used by the United States.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Original Post is about United States nuclear testing, try reading it.

Wrong

no one else tested anything closer than the devices used by the United States.

Wrong

I guess I'll add that one to the growing list .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Posting a cute little map is cute.

Which test sites were closer to the islands he listed than the United States test sites? List them with the distances like I did.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You were wrong can you admit it ?

a reply to: Fallingdown

The Original Post claimed that each of the islands listed either had testing done there or were subjected to fallout. I showed otherwise, there is noting wrong about that at all.

If you think French and British testing in Polynesia or Australia took place on those islands or contributed to fallout I'll wait for your source.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

All you did was rule out testing on several islands . You didn't address the fall out because as usual you jumped in attempting to kill the thread without fully reading the OP .

Now watch what I'm gonna do here. Watch very closely I'm gonna be honest. It's something you should try from time to time .

Your data about the testing is accurate.

But that is where you're brief look at nuclear contamination ends .

I could look into the atmospheric test some more but I don't need to .

Your argument neglected to include contamination of seawater . Some of which is a direct result of atmospheric testing. They call it fall out because gravity causes it to fall.

Not to mention underground testing and it's contamination of the ocean.

That was why I pointed out the tide charts earlier.

If you think French and British testing in Polynesia or Australia took place on those islands or contributed to fallout I'll wait for your source.

First of all I never said or implied testing took place on those islands. That's another strawman you're trying to insert.

But

No I don't think they contributed to nuclear contamination of some of 0P's islands........I know.

There's this even if the French deny it .

The Cook Islands are about 1500 kilometres west of Mururoa. In July, 14 doctors from the islands signed an open letter claiming that leukaemias, cancers and fish poisoning had increased among the 18 000 residents as a result of nuclear contamination. Many islanders are suffering from stress. “Our people are scared,” says Vaine Tairea, the Cook Islands’ agricultural and conservation minister. Elderly people, he says, are refusing to eat fish caught on the eastern side of the islands – the side facing Mururoa.

Tairea admits that the evidence of contamination is anecdotal and that there are no data to prove the two are connected. But the report plays down any risk to the health of the islanders. It says that the total radioactivity produced by underground testing at the two atolls is only about 1 per cent of that produced by all atmospheric tests carried out around the world since 1945. Also, any radioactivity that does leak into the ocean will be substantially diluted before it reaches any inhabited islands. “The effects [on health] are likely to be small and limited to Mururoa and nearby island ecosystems,” it says.

However, ministers from the Cook Islands, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Nauru and Western Samoa say they do not accept that there is no health risk.

Do any of these islands sound familiar?

From 1966 to 1970 the French conducted 22 above ground test many of which were from the same area.

Here's the area.



Here's the tidal current heading in the direction of most islands on your list.



Here's the tradewinds





So no you haven't killed the thread. With your imposing argument of......

"which way does the wind blow can you prove it"?

Paraphrased

P.S

I almost forgot my honesty test .

Were you right when you said the OP dealt only with the US testing ?

originally posted by: Fallingdown
All you did was rule out testing on several islands . You didn't address the fall out because as usual you jumped in attempting to kill the thread without fully reading the OP .

No fallout made it there unless you have evidence otherwise, the distances were too far. As has already been pointed out the test sites were further away from the islands that I excluded than the Nevada proving grounds were from the rest of the Continental United States.

Thanks for also adding a source that says no contamination reached the islands he listed and that I excluded. Bigly winning, that.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

No fallout made it there unless you have evidence otherwise, the distances were too far.

Too far ?

It's not on Jupiter . 😂

Whatever let's you sleep at night . LOL

After the detonation of a weapon at or above the fallout-free altitude (an air burst), fission products, un-fissioned nuclear material, and weapon residues vaporized by the heat of the fireball condense into a suspension of particles 10 nm to 20 µm in diameter. This size of particulate matter, lifted to the stratosphere, may take months or years to settle, and may do so anywhere in the world.[4] Its radioactive characteristics increase the statistical cancer risk. Elevated atmospheric radioactivity remains measurable after the widespread nuclear testing of the 1950s.[5]

To far lolz

Once again here's an honesty test .

Were you correct when you said the OP only dealt with the US .

Go ahead Augustus move some goldposts and avoid being truthful .

a reply to: Fallingdown

Using your poor logic any nuclear test should have had the same results and completely shoots down the Original Post.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

What about through the ocean ? You do realize nuclear fallout falls into it don't you ?


Do you mean the original post dealing exclusively with the US ? 🙄

originally posted by: Fallingdown
What about through the ocean ?

What about it? Prove that it got there. That's the premise of the Original Post, otherwise you're wrong just like the Original Poster was.