An Update to the Previous Nuke Effects Post

I was a little bothered by something after posting that huge study recently. The Helfman video source … was it the article I found late in my digging around, or was it something else?

I searched on key phrases from that article and discovered two things in about 5 minutes. The first is that there are only a few word-for-word copies of that article on other sites. The second, was a reference to that article as having been created in 1962. (Text of the reference at the end of this article.)  If you’ll remember, the Tsar Bomba test was in late 1961, and the PSR group was founded on the heels of it. It appears that the “study” was built on data from the AN602 test and promoted in pamphlet form as a protest to the nuclear arms race. But the data was misrepresented all those years ago, and poisons understanding even today.

1962…. And my “challenger” got all worked-up over me calling him out for inaccurate data – which he himself could not source on his own. Not only was the article wrong – in that it claimed the described effects were from a 20Mt bomb, but the most recent version of it is almost 10 years old.

Funny how things found on the internet are taken for gospel without even 5 minutes study to source and verify. Was it any different in 1962? A group of medical doctors, without a physicist to correct them, made some claims that, even today, get people’s attention.

Folks, when you hear something on the net, something that gets you concerned for obviously serious reasons, please, do a little homework. It helps settle the facts, and the soul. Yes, a 5Mt monster spitting in your face will ruin your week, but I’d rather have the responsibility for mitigating that beast rather than its old retired cousin. The truth does set you free – free to think and plan without wasted effort.

The other thing is this. The gentleman who set this whole thing off has blocked me on Twitter for being a “troll”. He understandably has harsh feelings toward me, because I called him out and wouldn’t let him go unanswered. He jumped down my throat and called me a few names.  He even told two flat out lies to his followers. But, he has a following built upon his efforts at sharing information of other types that actually are fairly well done. I felt like blowing the whole personal thing to hades and back with evidence of this and that, but chose not to. The reason is because he’s not done yet. The man lives, cares for his family, shares some good info and generally gets along with people. He has a life to live, and time to play out. There is time to learn and get things right. I don’t really want to go whole hog on him. Call me soft. I’ve been called lots of things. But you can’t call me vicious – not without good reason. It is possible, however unlikely, that things might get patched up. I’ve pretty much had my say. Who knows how things will play out? We’ll see.

So, if you don’t want to show the man up for the personal stuff, why did you post the article?”  I did so because, no matter what I think of him and what he said about me, the more important thing is the misinformation. I honestly believe in what I’ve studied and know. I can’t tell you about some of my personal background and relations with people that had hands in this stuff, not names, anyway. I keep personal info a tightly held thing for reasons completely obvious to even beginning preppers. But I know that the concerns he had in his video can lead people to lose hope – and THAT is just unacceptable. Someone on the cusp of getting a handle on things, while providing for his family, and balancing the usual concerns of life, doesn’t need to be tossed a poison bone needlessly. There needed to be a balance to the misinformation. Hopefully he will see that at some point in time.

But if not? Well. I did my part.

Study it out, folks. Do your due diligence. Walk away smarter, and able to look at questionable claims and shrug them off. Not only will you be unaffected by the FUD, you’ll be able to settle the concerns in others’ minds, too.

Be safe, all.

Source Attribution:

“Source The New England Journal of Medicine, Volume 266, Number 22, May31, 1962, pages 1127-1155: Frank R. Ervin, John B Glazier, Saul Aronow, David Nathan, Robert Coleman, Nicholas Avery, Stephen Shohet, Cavin Leeman, Vic Sidel, Jack Geiger, Bernard Lown, Herbert Leiderman, and Jack H. Mendelson.”

1 comment to Update to the Previous Nuke Article – Source Identified

  • You did great. There is no reason to wonder about that. You provided information in a manner that could be verified, checked, rechecked, and analyzed by anyone wishing to do so. Unlike the articles and videos that were, to put it bluntly, debunked, your stuff was offered up as information to be used by the reader/listener/watcher to use for their own edification, not as a pedantic this is the gospel and if you don’t believe it you are an evil and stupid person.

    You have done a great service by presenting the information that can be checked and decisions made based, not on irrational fear, but on researched fact.

    Thank you.


Leave a Reply to Jerry D Young Cancel reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>




Blue Captcha Image


Monthly Archives