Why do you think there were atom bomb tests?
....
None of your, "They thought THIS then but now say THIS!" ranting is of any import. That's how things always work out here in the real world.
Quoting: nomuse (not logged in) 2380183 In the real world people just got on with lives in Japan and the trees budded up ... that is the real world.
At Chernobyl, a forest grew back around the plant and the domestic cats carried on having their babies in peace and a whole eco system blossomed ... that is the real world.
What world are you talking about?
The fake propaganda world were bullshit is spun to scare people shit-less?
As for why were they testing the supposed Atom bomb. They were testing there big fake Atom bomb to prefect the side show and to make propaganda films so they could rob the public blind and hold then in fear.
Did you notice at the beginning of that video clip they showed their accommodations were tents?
It's nothing but a joke, wake up already.
.
No.
The general public feared (and fears) radiation. It became the boogyman for more than one generation.
(And yet, an older generation embraced it, sitting in pools of radium-laced water and even drinking the stuff).
And scientists are cautious. They aren't going to go around saying, "This is 100% safe." Instead they will say, "There could be dangers. We need to do more tests."
Also, you do need to understand that not all bursts are equal. Ground bursts are the most dangerous, as that puts lots of material close to the neutron source. An air burst -- such as suffered twice by Japan -- has mostly atmosphere and the bomb casing to work on and thus fallout is less of an issue.
Most of what a bomb does is just energy; the blast looks the same if you are using large conventional explosives, nuclear weapons, or some sort of exotic energy source. What does most of the damage is radiant heat, compression wave/shock wave, and the fireball expansion of superheated air.
And these interact with surroundings. This is why we have bunkers, after all. If it wasn't possible to ameliorate the effects of an explosion with passive measures, there would never have been castles and foxholes and body armor and all the rest of that.
Some people close to ground zero survived. Many did not. Same for buildings...much depends on material, construction, angle. There's a famous picture of a woman in a kimono who was burned only where the stripes were in the fabric; the white portions reflected most of the flash.
In an even ghastlier example, there are patches of unburned paint that survived because a human was between bomb and building in that instant.
The problem is, like most conspiracy theorists, you want to make sweeping absolutes. ALL of this or NONE of those or ALWAYS too big.
To understand the exceptions, you have to go into detail. Each survival within the killzone of the bomb is a special case, and needs to be understood on its specifics. You can not generalize a graph by picking and choosing only outliers.
