• Photos that Shook the World
    2,951 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;38159437]Those were just killed in the immediate aftermath, theres still people dying today, including children, because of lymph node cancer. A small dirty bomb could have similar effects, but not on the same scale.[/QUOTE] Most of Chernobyls casualties are from the reactors noble gas payload (a decay product in the reactor), a dirty bob wouldn't have that, further lowing causalities. Ignoring that, any reasonably sized dirty bomb of any threat would be picked up a mile away and would be extremely bulky
[QUOTE=download;38159391]Lets put it this way. Imagine Chernobyl as a dirty bomb. That's a dirty bomb with 20 TONNES of radioactive material. How may people were killed by the radiation? 100 tops? Any significant dirty bomb threat would require an enormous bomb[/QUOTE] You do realize that the long-term casualties were in the six figures, some estimating even seven, right? You are slightly off-base. Google "The Bridge of Death Chernobyl" and you'll understand why you're wrong, considering the fact that the large crowd of people on that bridge were exposed to over 500 roentgens. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but that's an incredibly low-balled number for an incident that killed hundreds in the immediate area in a matter of days due to the radiation poisoning, not to mention the [b]massive[/b] radiation cloud it spewed. A dirty bomb could have the potential to kill thousands, and render an area untouchable for decades at the least. Let's not belittle something because of it's simplicity.
[QUOTE=tommyc225;35609320][img]http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vDhuCDsIMc0/S6qyN_O5ngI/AAAAAAAAAHY/fXaIi6w_3ck/s1600/911wtc.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This is fairly literal. The bombs we showered upon the middle east because of these attacks, really did, shake the world. Was well deserved (not for the innocents that died though, I mourn for them). Anyway.. I don't give a FUCK what ANYBODY says. The most important image EVER taken in the history of mankind, is the Hubble Ultra-Deep Field.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;38160721]You do realize that the long-term casualties were in the six figures, some estimating even seven, right? You are slightly off-base. Google "The Bridge of Death Chernobyl" and you'll understand why you're wrong, considering the fact that the large crowd of people on that bridge were exposed to over 500 roentgens. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, but that's an incredibly low-balled number for an incident that killed hundreds in the immediate area in a matter of days due to the radiation poisoning, not to mention the [b]massive[/b] radiation cloud it spewed. A dirty bomb could have the potential to kill thousands, and render an area untouchable for decades at the least. Let's not belittle something because of it's simplicity.[/QUOTE] There are only 250 or so DIRECT casualties of Chernobyl, many dying 12 months or more later. Any indirect death toll will be speculation. If I remember correctly, even Greenpeace, the most nutty anti-nuclear group around doesn't even think its that high. The qualified scientists put it at about 50,000 cancer cases caused by it (that's not deaths)
[QUOTE=download;38160973]Any indirect death toll will be speculation.[/QUOTE] That's a pretty [B][I]bold[/I][/B] statement, considering we know radiation kills people, if not, causes cancer in relatively high doses, and considering the residents of Chernobyl received a pretty nice dose of it.
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38160984]That's a pretty [B][I]bold[/I][/B] statement, considering we know radiation kills people, if not, causes cancer in relatively high doses, and considering the residents of Chernobyl received a pretty nice dose of it.[/QUOTE] Well, seeing as most predictions are made using the Linear No Threshold model with has only recently been proven to be wrong, I don't think so [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model[/url] [url]http://radiology.rsna.org/content/251/1/13.full[/url]
[QUOTE=download;38161055]Well, seeing as most predictions are made using the Linear No Threshold model with has only recently been proven to be wrong, I don't think so[/QUOTE] Not arguing here. All in all, we'll never be 100% sure [I]why [/I]these certain individuals died from cancer, but when you consider they were either living within sight, or in a nearby country, I feel that it's really really hard to believe they died from other complications/reasons. ETA: I've never heard of the "Linear no-threshold model". I'll read up on it now and hopefully I'll better understand your opinion.
In short, it says that no amount of radiations is safe, and that the hazards from exposure are linear. One of the biggest controversy's is that it says for ever 2000 or something medical x-rays, someone will get cancer from it which causes quite a stir with radiologists
[QUOTE=download;38161100]In short, it says that no amount of radiations is safe, and that the hazards from exposure are linear. One of the biggest controversy's is that it says for ever 2000 or something medical x-rays, someone will get cancer from it which causes quite a stir with radiologists[/QUOTE] My current (biological) understanding is; all it takes is one charged/ionized particle to modify just 1 cell in such a way that it replicates itself uncontrollably (aka cancer).
I don't think this has been posted: [img]http://i.i.com.com/cnwk.1d/i/ne/p/2008/corona01_468x600.jpg[/img] Can you tell what it is? [sp]Mys Shmidta Air Field in the USSR, taken from the Discoverer 14 satellite in 1960. As far as I can make out, this is the first successfully retreived satellite image of an enemy territory.[/sp]
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38161158]My current (biological) understanding is; all it takes is one charged/ionized particle to modify just 1 cell in such a way that it replicates itself uncontrollably (aka cancer).[/QUOTE] But that ionising particle needs to hit the the DNA strand to do so
[QUOTE=download;38161181]But that ionising particle needs to hit the the DNA strand to do so[/QUOTE] Well, yeah. Even though Iron is a heavy element, it's atoms are very far away from eachother. This is why its so fucking hard for something such as an x-ray or gamma ray to actually strike the DNA's double-helix, let alone in such away that will have dire consequences. Glad we're both actually interested in science.
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38161210]Well, yeah. Even though Iron is a heavy element, it's atoms are very far away from eachother. This is why its so fucking hard for something such as an x-ray or gamma ray to actually strike the DNA's double-helix, let alone in such away that will have dire consequences. Glad we're both actually interested in science.[/QUOTE] Pretty much. Which is why a small amount of radiation is unlikely to give you cancer. Anyway, my understanding is that many things that could potentially become cancer are killed off by the body. So even if it does hit the helix, it won't guarantee cancer
[QUOTE=download;38161224]Pretty much. Which is why a small amount of radiation is unlikely to give you cancer. Anyway, my understanding is that many things that could potentially become cancer are killed off by the body. So even if it does hit the helix, it won't guarantee cancer[/QUOTE] Btw just out of curiosity; Did you teach yourself this out of your own, out of genuine interest, or did you take some decent classes and actually pay attention?
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38161332]Btw just out of curiosity; Did you teach yourself this out of your own, out of genuine interest, or did you take some decent classes and actually pay attention?[/QUOTE] I learnt it myself. I've been interested in Nuclear power and its risks so I decided to cut the crap that is floating about and check it out for myself. I'm thinking I might do Nuclear Engineering after I've finished Mechanical now
[QUOTE=download;38161347]I learnt it myself. I've been interested in Nuclear power and its risks so I decided to cut the crap that is floating about and check it out for myself. I'm thinking I might do Nuclear Engineering after I've finished Mechanical now[/QUOTE] Good for you man. That shit is pretty rare, self teaching ANYTHING related to any of the modern sciences. Really, props. I hope everybody out there reading this gets inspired to do the same. Don't be some ignorant fuck accepts everything he hears & has no educational ambition. [QUOTE] “One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear on the grapevine, just because it suits their worldview—not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases… but people prefer reassurance to research.” ― [I]Neil deGrasse Tyson[/I][/QUOTE]
[img]http://greatwar.nl/weekpictures/voorpagina92.jpg[/img] German child soldier surrendering.
[img]http://www.culturecompass.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Armadillo-Movie-Poster.jpg[/img] Pretty strong picture of a Danish soldier in Afghanistan. From the documentary "Armadillo".
damn hes got the stare kinda like Marlboro Marine [IMG]http://www.carolforpeace.com/uploaded_images/iraq-war-marlboro-man-786950.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;38165930]damn hes got the stare kinda like Marlboro Marine [IMG]http://www.carolforpeace.com/uploaded_images/iraq-war-marlboro-man-786950.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE] That just looks like something that should be out of a movie, it's so emotional. That's like [b]beyond[/b] the thousand-yard stare. That's the infinity stare.
[QUOTE=Ralle;38165867][img]http://www.culturecompass.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Armadillo-Movie-Poster.jpg[/img] Pretty strong picture of a Danish soldier in Afghanistan. From the documentary "Armadillo".[/QUOTE] Really good documentary too, it's on Netflix, really worth the watch.
I remember watching armadillo a few years ago, was on NRK. I forget what happened to him, was he shot in the arm?
I saw this one photo of a soldier with PTSD on reddit. It was a World War 2 era soldier with the damned creepiest face. wait found it [IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbdw86XAhK1qjcvcno1_1280.jpg[/IMG] it's the first world war though.
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38161383]Good for you man. That shit is pretty rare, self teaching ANYTHING related to any of the modern sciences. Really, props. I hope everybody out there reading this gets inspired to do the same. Don't be some ignorant fuck accepts everything he hears & has no educational ambition. [quote] “One of the biggest problems with the world today is that we have large groups of people who will accept whatever they hear on the grapevine, just because it suits their worldview—not because it is actually true or because they have evidence to support it. The really striking thing is that it would not take much effort to establish validity in most of these cases… but people prefer reassurance to research.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson[/quote] [/QUOTE] Ahahahahahah the irony. [URL]http://mashable.com/2012/10/23/fake-neil-degrasse-tyson-quote/[/URL]
[QUOTE=Griffster26;38167307]I saw this one photo of a soldier with PTSD on reddit. It was a World War 2 era soldier with the damned creepiest face. wait found it [IMG]http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbdw86XAhK1qjcvcno1_1280.jpg[/IMG] it's the first world war though.[/QUOTE] I'm not 100% convinced that this is someone who actually has PTSD (for all we know it's just someone who has a weird smile), but damn if he does I can't imagine what he is thinking.
what doesn't kill you only makes you stranger
[QUOTE=brainmaster;38166375]I remember watching armadillo a few years ago, was on NRK. I forget what happened to him, was he shot in the arm?[/QUOTE] shot in the arm during the 10meter firefight
[QUOTE=W0w00t;38169756]shot in the arm during the 10meter firefight[/QUOTE] I might have to rewatch it, such a good documentary. I wonder if it's still on NRK..
[QUOTE=Thrilled;38161158]My current (biological) understanding is; all it takes is one charged/ionized particle to modify just 1 cell in such a way that it replicates itself uncontrollably (aka cancer).[/QUOTE] Basically completely false. It takes a multitude of mutations for cancer to develop. Cells have mechanisms to make sure they're healthy and for cancer to develop, a lot of them need to be compromised.
[QUOTE=Jabberwocky;38175595]Basically completely false. It takes a multitude of mutations for cancer to develop. Cells have mechanisms to make sure they're healthy and for cancer to develop, a lot of them need to be compromised.[/QUOTE] Proof?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.