Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

2011 most deadly for tornadoes since 1953. Radiation to blame?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:35 PM
Original message
2011 most deadly for tornadoes since 1953. Radiation to blame?
Edited on Sat Jun-11-11 03:17 PM by PhillySane
The other day I posted a link to a blogger who has hypothesized that the deadly tornadoes of 2011 could be linked to radiation fallout from the Fukushima nuclear plant.
I found this intriguing since he noted that California has been having an inordinate number of tornadoes ever since March 18, the day that the radiation cloud from Japan first reached their shores.
Massachusetts has had its most powerful tornado since 1953, and they are not necessarily considered tornado alley either.

So this idea has been itching me ever since and I've been on the Google all day. 1953 was the last most deadly year for tornadoes prior to 2011. What could these two years have in common?

As it turns out, in 1953 the US military began above ground atmospheric nuclear tests in Nevada:

"For the Encore test of May 8, 1953, 145 ponderosa pines were brought from Kyle Canyon to the NTS and placed in concrete bases. They were subjected to the blast as an experiment to determine the effects of an atomic attack on a forest. The May 19, 1953 test, code-named Harry, used an important new weapon design. Later dubbed Dirty Harry by communities downwind of the test site in Nevada and Utah, it produced the highest level of off-site contamination of any continental U.S. test."

http://www.onlinenevada.org/atmospheric_nuclear_testing...

On May 11, 1953 all hell broke loose:

http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=13128

A short time later, radiation was detected as far away as Albany New York

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/05/02/nyregion/radiation-fr...

On June 8th, a deadly tornado struck Massachusetts killing 94 people.

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/almanac/arc2003/a...

On March 28, 2011, Boston Massachusetts recorded levels of I-131 radiation in their drinking water. On June 1, 2011, the most deadly tornado in Mass. since 1953 hits Springfield.

Not saying any of this can be proven to be connected, but I still find it very intriguing.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:36 PM
Response to Original message
1. Exceedingly unlikely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Because...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Because there's *NO MECHANISM WHATSOEVER* for radiation to have done this. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:45 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Starting with the obvious
Edited on Sat Jun-11-11 02:49 PM by hobbit709
Were there any tornadoes after Chernobyl?

Do you know anything about the mechanics of weather?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #7
21. Chernobyl
is in a different geographic location relative to the US. It is unlikely that this location and the other two mentioned would have as much in common, therefore, cannot be compared.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Go ahead and believe woo science if you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FBaggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Sorry... nope.
The radiation reaching the U.S. from Chernobyl was higher than that reaching it from Fukushima.

Maybe it's that it had a different accent? Or was communist radiation vs. democratic?

Makes as much sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
2. It's been a bad year for me and sneezing fits/allergies.
Obviously it's MY SNEEZING that has caused all the tornados.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
pipi_k Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. This year has been terrible...
I have rhinitis all year, but as soon as the allergy season started I was dripping and sneezing 20 times a day or more.

Then I remembered that I have my nasal rinse thingy that I use during the winter for dryness and to prevent head colds.

Last week I started using it three times a day and the sneezing has gone WAY down. I think I have sneezed maybe seven times in the last six days compared to 20 times a day or more before rinsing.

Doesn't help the runny eyes, or sore throat, but the nose is feeling somewhat better.

You might want to try nasal irrigation... :)

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. I thought it was just me!
But the combined force of both our sneezes is just as likely as radiation being the culprit!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
SoCalDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. Advanced tracking devices & population density is more likely
There are millions of people living where people did not live in the 50's, and back then the meteorological sciences were pretty "skimpy"..

And then there is just luck.. or lack of it when it runs out for your community :(
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:42 PM
Response to Original message
5. This is why we need to do a better job of teaching Science in our schools
FYI, there is no mechanism for radioactive fallout to induce tornadoes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Not as we currently know it
No. However, this is an experiment still in progress. It may take many more decades to find out. Silver iodide, a cousin of I-131 is used for cloud seeding. Large amounts of I-131 may produce atmospheric conditions conducive to tornado production. just speculation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
hobbit709 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. And what are the cloud seeding experiment results?
apples and oranges.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. still an experiment in progress
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. Well, thanks for proving my point about folks not understanding science.
That's not science. That's not even in the same zip code as science.

I heard the similar shit during the Apollo missions. Any freakish weather was blamed on the us landing on the moon. Ask the fools how that could be, the answer was "Well, we don't know now yet, but it may be the reason". <facepalm>
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. all science
starts as speculation. keep an open mind. you really don't know what you think you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
FLPanhandle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. LOL
You didn't go with the old "keep an open mind" canard so quickly did you? That's the equivalent of saying "I've got nothing, but I still want to believe". :rofl:

Sorry, I don't waste time on silly ideas if they have no underlying mechanism, no science, no data, and not even any common sense.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. roll all you want
not trying to pretend there's anything but an idea here. have fun.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. your "idea" is as sound as me saying
that my dog's flatulence is the cause of tornadoes.
hey, keep an open mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Hey
Edited on Sat Jun-11-11 03:30 PM by PhillySane
flatulence is a lot cooler than fallout dude. Dig it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
zappaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:35 PM
Response to Reply #20
29. uh
obviously, you have not experienced my dog's flatulence.
you would not dig it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:56 PM
Response to Reply #13
30. You see where this thread ended up? That means it's woo, not science.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 08:32 PM
Response to Reply #30
35. and I trust all the people on DU
know what woo is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
etherealtruth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:51 PM
Response to Original message
10. My vote is global climate change
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
14. Nope. Moon bombing. End of discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
dorkulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
25. +1
You can't prove it's NOT true, therefore it is.

:yoiks:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
tammywammy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:12 PM
Response to Original message
23. You need to read up on La Nina and El Nino's effect on weather. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Maru Kitteh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. That's not as much fun as woo pseudo-science. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
26. No, it's not intriguing, it's just dumb...
Next you'll be telling us not to believe "the official story".

Radiation has as much to do with tornado's as pics of Weiner's crotch - none.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
PhillySane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 09:51 AM
Response to Reply #26
32. No
Here's what's dumb. Telling the world you can give them all the Nuclear power they want and it's perfectly safe forever and ever. You believe that right?
How about this one. We can drill oil out of the ground underwater and none of it will ever spill, we can handle it, don't worry about it. You probably believed that too.
Here's another. All of this is perfectly safe and will have no effects on the environment or your personal health and safety. We have scientists working for us, we know what we're talking about. Trust us.

The point is this. Before you call anyone dumb around here check your own gullibility in the mirror. Nuclear power is not safe. Neither is burning carbon-based fuels. No one really understands the full effects of either, yet they walk around believing none of this will have any impact on the planet whatsoever.

I'm not saying you need to find anything intriguing, maybe its not within your own mental capacity to do so. If a few more people on the planet would just question the overlords once in a while, we all might be in better shape.

Stop buying the Brooklyn bridge. And stop calling people dumb. It's a really dumb thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Imajika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #32
33. What are you babbling about?
Radiation has nothing to do with tornadoes. Period. I didn't say you were dumb, just that your theory was dumb. There is NO connection between Fukushima and tornadoes. None. Zero. Zilch.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Dreamer Tatum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
27. That, and Sasquatch. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-11-11 07:04 PM
Response to Original message
31. Comedy Gold, Jerry!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-12-11 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
34. I blame the SciFi channel.
This theory sounds like something cooked up in a made for TV movie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-13-11 11:22 PM
Response to Original message
36. Who's to say that the atomic bombs we dropped and "tested" didn't harm the planet ...?
Edited on Mon Jun-13-11 11:26 PM by defendandprotect
Anyone willing to argue that they were healthy for the environment?

Especially the exploding of atomic bombs in other space --

Meanwhile, it is the HEATING of the atmosphere -- Global Warming -- which is

creating more storms, hurricaines which in turn produce more cyclones and tornados.

HEAT brings chaotic weather -- droughts/floods, changes in weather patterns and

wind patterns -- and earthquakes.

Earthquakes in turn generate volcanic activity.

No one can say how all of this will compound.


Americans also need to understand that there was a 50 year delay in our feeling the

effects of Global Warming -- the changes were gradual and not that noticeable --

but it did give the oil industry/ExxonMobil, BP and others the opportunity to lie to

the public about Global Warming -- investing tens of billions of dollars in propaganda

campains to deceive the public about Global Warming.

We are only now feeling the effects of our human activity -- the burning of fossil fuels -

up to about 1960.



Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LARED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-14-11 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #36
37. Just out of curiosity do you have even a shred of evidence
backing up your position?

Why is tested in quotes in the OP header?

Do you think we did not perform tests?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Old Troop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-19-11 04:01 PM
Response to Original message
38. How, specifcally, would radiation cause tornados?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
AverageJoe90 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-30-11 04:00 AM
Response to Original message
39. Was probably a coindicence in '53.......
And was probably a coindicence this year as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov 24th 2014, 12:28 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC