|
this is kind of baffling, because for there to be any point to such experiments, you'd have to then collect data, which would involve frequent visits to the area and/or contact with the people and the iron study sounds more like they were measuring the absorption and retention of iron, and it was only radiolabeled so they could do that could be garbled in transmission i suppose
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:According to the article, that test was performed as part of the radiological weapons program. oh yeah so it does, i guess that might explain why they were interested
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah, if they were developing radiological weapons it'd be for combat use or assassinations. They'd want something that would kill people either immediately or within a few days, so long term study wouldn't be important. yeah but you wouldn't test one by actually dropping one on your own population because that would have been unpopular back in those days you'd use something low-level that doesn't actually kill anyone outright, but then you have the problem of having to go around taking dirt samples and asking people "hey can we have some of your blood" but i guess those classified papers would answer that puzzle
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2017 22:40
|
|