Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects (2012) | Hacker News Reader

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Long Term Health Effects (2012)

k1project.columbia.edu

85 pointsamelius60 comments

My grandpa was there for this. He was a Dutch Soldier captured by the Japanese held as a prisoner of war. They had him doing hard labor underground in a coal mine in Hiroshima. When the bomb dropped, everyone in the mine evacuated, believing there was an earthquake happening. Even though he fought gruesome battles, even though he faced tortures / brutalities under the Japanese, it was the melting faces at Hiroshima that consistently haunted him during in his dreams.

Later they moved the POW labor to Nagasaki. They were kept on the outskirts of the city so were safe but still witnessed the second blast. When it happened, the house they were in collaped on him.

He had fought the Boer War for the Dutch. Even captured the regiment that Churchil was with, but luckily released them.

Later in WW2, he fought to protect the Dutch colony in Indonesia from the Japanese - but lost, e.g. the nuclear experiences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

As far as health effects go, he seem to have suffered effects of radiation and also black lung from all of the coal mining. He died in the late 80s and the story in my family goes like this:

Some government scientists showed up at the house to ask his wife if they could autopsy him for research. Later, when the results were given to my family, we found out that all of his bones were slightly blue-tinted and curved. It is not suspected that this strange effect on his skeleton was caused by the radiation exposure, and that the mysterious pain he constantly experienced was a result of this odd deformation.

He died in the late 80s

A lot of people don't live that long even without exposure to radiation or coal dust.

If he was 20 in the war, he could have been 65 in the late 80s. (Yes, it's true that not everyone lives that long, but it's on the short side.)

"late 80s" there would be more likely to refer to "in the years 1987-1989 or so" than to "at an age of 87-89".

I think "his late 80's" seems more likely. The GP post mentions his grandfather fighting in the Boer War (~1900) which would make him almost 110 years old in the late 80's

Perhaps. It would seem equally unusual for a 65+ year old soldier to be in a position to be captured as a PoW in Japan.

The Japanese had all the Dutch imprisoned in Indonesia, not just soldiers. A number of male prisoners had been shipped off to Japan to work in labor camps.

Yes, but ancestor post says "He was a Dutch Soldier captured by the Japanese held as a prisoner of war."

At the end of the day, anyone who fought in the Boer war was born no later than the early 1880's.

If he was still in the military at that point, then wouldn’t that be an accurate description?

Of course. At that point though, it would be unusual enough [for a soldier to serve actively in 1902 and in 1945] that when interpreting conflicting points in a story, that you have to consider if perhaps the author hasn't gotten something mixed up in the memory or in the telling.

If I told a story about my own grandfather's service in World War II in the Seabees (by happenstance he was also a coal miner as a civilian), I'd be likely to get something wrong, not out of intention to mislead, but just that I pieced together the story in my own memories in a certain way when I was told the stories as a young boy. I may mix in details from my other grandfather's service or a great-grandfather's time.

Then, weigh that against a non-native speaker's chance to use a common English idiom "in the late 80s" in a non-standard way and against the chance that someone would express some negative interpretation of someone passing in their late 80s as being perhaps related to radiation exposure and black lung.

It's all speculation for all of us except one. ;)

Perhaps it was his regimen in the Dutch army which had captured Churchill during the Boer war. I.e., the leadership in that regimen were present during that time in the Boer War.

I don't know the story all that well because this is all stories from decades ago. The person who knew it best currently has dementia.

(Wish HN had the ability to edit a comment from 5 hrs ago.)

I don't get the long life of war vets either, my great grandfather was gassed twice in WWI and caught malaria fighting in Turkey yet lived until he was 99yrs old, didn't stop driving until he was 93.Most of his regiment lived well into their 80s and 90s as well he wrote to most of them his whole life.

> long life of war vets

If my father was any indication, he came out of WW2 and the Korean War with a vast appreciation for being alive. That had a positive effect on the rest of his life, and he passed at 93.

Thank you for this honest post. When I read it I cannot help but think of how your grandfather fought thousands and thousands of kilometers away from his home (Japan, South Africa, Indonesia). In places that have never threatened him, his family or his people. If not for imperial interests, could you please expand on why he did it (if you know it)?

Your words are painful to read.

Many people from thousands of kilometers away, liberated the Netherlands from Germany...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands_in_World_War_II

I'm sorry but you seem to be ignoring the jist of his comment [0], and entire centuries of arguably genocidal European (in this case Dutch, but every country and their uncle with the means to do so, did to some extent; lest you think I'm singling out the Dutch) colonialism. Emphasis mine:

[0]>"In places that have never threatened him, his family or his people. If not for imperial interests, [...]"

That is exactly my point. The link dade_ has posted has interesting new and interesting details on that. First sentence under "Dutch East Indies and the war in the Far East" heading is telling:

> On December 8, 1941, the Netherlands declared war on the Japanese Empire.[35] On January 10, 1942 the Japanese invaded the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia).

> Many people from thousands of kilometers away, liberated the Netherlands from Germany...

Analogously, Indonesia should be grateful to the Japanese for traveling thousands of kilometers to liberate them from the Dutch Netherlands.

Umm... probably not.

Experience of the occupation varied considerably, depending upon where one lived and one's social position. Many who lived in areas considered important to the war effort experienced torture, sex slavery, arbitrary arrest and execution, and other war crimes. Many thousands of people were taken away from Indonesia as forced labourers (romusha) for Japanese military projects, including the Burma-Siam and Saketi-Bayah railways, and suffered or died as a result of ill-treatment and starvation. Between four and 10 million romusha in Java were forced to work by the Japanese military.[22] About 270,000 of these Javanese labourers were sent to other Japanese-held areas in South East Asia, Only 52,000 were repatriated to Java, meaning that there was a death rate of 80%.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_occupation_of_the_Dut...

Agreed. I was mostly being facetious; although Indonesian independence might not have occurred without the effects of the Japanese occupation, the actuality was obviously nothing to be grateful for.

As an Indonesian who was kept in a labor camp by the Japanese, my grandma (aforementioned Grandpa's wife) will attest that the Japanese were absolutely brutal. Her sisters were raped in prison. They starved on one cup of rice per day. In occupied Jakarta, a town square with water fountain in the center was filled with crocodiles, and people who resisted the Japanese were thrown inside it - any one who closed their eyes or turned their head to look away was punished. Japanese occupation was objectively bad, although the Dutch were known to be extremely harsh at times too.

He was a Dutch imperialist fighting Japanese imperialists, and also collateral damage for United States imperialists. Into the 70s, he ended up retiring in the United States, while his brother who also fought alongside him, ended up becoming a Dutch diplomat in Japan. Why did they do it? For the pension, of course. Can't sustain pensions without wealthy governments.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Thank you for the honest answer. Much appreciated! (And upvoted!)

Thanks. I upvoted your comment too.

> He had fought the Boer War for the Dutch

Sorry for the dumb question, but...

He was in his 60s during WWII when he was captured?

Yep. Looks like I got that fact wrong. Perhaps it was his regimen which had been in the Boer War in the past, but not himself. Or maybe it was his father. I don't really know. The woman who knows the story is quite old with dementia.

Curved bones sounds like malnutrition, namely ricketts or vitamin D deficiency. Having read some about how the Japanese treated Western POWs, I wouldn't be surprised.

Seems likely. His wife (before they were married) were also held by the Japanese in Indonesia. She was mostly Indonesian by decent, but because she was living in a Dutch part of Jakarta, she and the rest of the people there were all held in camp. There, they allegedly only received one cup of rice per day.

In terms of age, the Boer War ended in 1902. Assuming he was close to 18 then, he would have been in his late 50's during WW2.

Ah. My memory might have duped me there. Perhaps it was his regimen in the Dutch army which had captured Churchill during the Boer war. I.e., the leadership in that regimen were present during that time in the Boer War.

Thank you for the story.

Your grandpa was lucky to have lived through it. The Japanese were preparing to execute all slave prisoners of war in anticipation of the main island campaigns.[1] I think if the nukes had waited another month or two there would have been tens of thousands of allied POWs that never would have made it home.

1. Happy to lookup/provide links if requested. What immediately comes to mind is the story of Louis Zamperini which was captured in the 2014 movie "Unbroken". The book covers how close they all came to extinction (and is also much better than the movie) Also https://www.quora.com/Near-the-end-of-the-war-did-Japan-plan...

Unbroken was quite accurate. Another movie "Bridge Over River Kwai" paints a much rosier picture and is too sugar-coated for most survivors.

"Ghost Soldiers" is also an excellent view into the Japanese POW system.

Thanks for sharing this story.

Thanks and appreciation to him as well for his service to his country and to the defeat of tyranny during the second world war.

Atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But hydrogen bombs, developed years later, are far worse. Check out the size of the radioactive fallout cloud in the graphic halfway through this article ( https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/known-unknowns-th... ). People would be dying from acute exposure as far as 100 miles away from the radioactive fallout

Unfortunately, military use of radioactive elements doesn't stop at bombs. Today's use of depleted uranium - because of its elusiveness - is in some sense worse than the use of atomic/hydrogen bombs. (BTW, only USA uses DU!)

People of Iraq, Libya, Serbia (including Kosovo and Metohija), Bosnia, Afghanistan, Syria (and neighboring countries) but also soldiers that were/are part of the occupational force there are sick and dying of cancer and leukemia.

What? Depleted Uranium is less radioactive than unprocessed Uranium. It's used because it's really, really dense. I'd be comfortable using flatware made out of the stuff.

I'd be comfortable using flatware made out of the stuff.

The main health concerns aren't due to the fact that DU is highly radioactive in itself, but that tiny DU 'dust' particles break of from the munitions on impact and inhaling these particles can be very dangerous.

There is also some evidence that long term exposure to DU can lead birth defects and potentially other health problems, but the causality is very difficult to tease out.

So while I agree that DU isn't used because it is radioactive, that doesn't change the fact that it does potentially cause serious health issues.

I mean, sure, in the long term. But there is a long, long list of stuff that the military uses that I'm more worried about than DU. It's essentially like Tungsten, Lead, or Mercury.

The problem more or less unique to DU munitions is that it gives off tiny aerosol particles when it hits its target which can contaminate a large area and are very easy to breathe in for a long time afterwards. And breathing in these particles are linked to an increasing number of health issues.

> I'd be comfortable using flatware made out of the stuff.

I would strongly advise against that. DU (Depleted Uranium) is not (very) radioactive, but it is still extremely toxic (as toxic as unprocessed Uranium, IIRC), and also carcinogenic.

If you ate off of it, you would become very sick, very quickly.

So, DON'T.

It's not radioactive but it is a toxic metal and can be dangerous for the same reason that lead, mercury, etc are.

Armor-piercing projectiles that are enhanced with DU form an aerosol of Uranium oxides when hitting their target. This aerosol can contaminate large areas and is inhaled by military people and later by civilians, for instance by kids that play in abandoned tanks that were hit with such DU-enhanced projectiles. Since DU is an alpha emitter with a long half-life, it is dangerous to have it in your body, even when the radioactivity is comparably low. As a heavy metal, it will stay in your body pretty much forever, and there's the chemical toxicity as well. The long-term effects of inhaling Uranium oxides are heavily debated, as it will take usually many years for an illness to develop, and it is almost impossible to link a certain illness to DU with high certainty.

In what sense is it worse than nuclear bombs?

One argument is that since it's officially 'safe' to use them, they're used liberally without any concern for the effect they will have one health of the people living in the area. At least with nukes people know to be very very careful with regards to using them.

By that logic, everything that currently kills people is worse than nuclear weapons, including cars, sharks, baseball bats, and ice cream.

The post might be a little hyperbolic (I'm not the poster), but uranium oxide is fairly dangerous. Though you won't get radiation poisoning from it, it is extremely dense and the dust is very dangerous. It is toxic for inhalation and ingestion, like all heavy metals.

Here's the SDS sheet [1] on it that goes into more detail.

[1] https://science.energy.gov/~/media/nbl/pdf/price-lists/SDS/S...

Seems like a lot hyperbolic to me. I know which one I’d rather be a mile away from when it’s used, or have contaminating the landscape afterwards.

I definitely wouldn't call it worse than nuclear, because you're right. I'd rather be near depleted uranium than a nuclear blast, especially with current nuclear weapons. And not to mention the side effects of nuclear attacks.

It could only be argued to be worse in the sense that it has been used more often (and that it can be used rather more quietly).

"BTW, only USA uses DU!"

Not true at all. Both Russia and the UK use depleted uranium in their main armor piercing rounds.

"Uses" and "owns" are two different verbs. Around 20 countries own DU ammo. But, US is the only one that uses it.

Pretending that this is anything but a spurious distinction in this case, you're still wrong as the UK has absolutely admitted to using depleted uranium rounds in combat.[1] If you believe that Russia has not used depleted uranium (and why should you?) it is not because of any humanitarian concerns because they absolutely have used tungsten rounds in combat and tungsten is also a toxic and carcinogenic metal and prone to the same kind of particulate contamination you claim about depleted uranium.[2]

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/depleted-uranium-... 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tungsten#Health_factors

It's weird that the products of the U235 chain reaction seem noticably less horrible than what you get when you forcibly split U238 with a fast neutron from hydrogen fusion. It seems like you get way worse fallout from an H-bomb than from an A-bomb even accounting for yield. Unless you do what the Soviets did in the Tsar Bomba test and replace the U238 with lead.

Came here to say this. The article is misleading. The bombs in existence today are several orders of magnitude more deadly than Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This article seems like an attempt to minimize the effects of radiation from atomic bombings. Given the release of the latest NPS (nuclear posture review) advocating for use of strategic low yield nuclear weapons and the 'escalate to deescalate' strategy being advanced by the current leadership of the U.S. [1], this seems timed to create political allies on the right. This is interesting because other literature from the K=1 institute seems to be anti-nuclear in tone. [2]

I question the way in which the author glosses over the pain and suffering of the cancer victims of these bombings. People were dying in agonizing pain for years and decades after the war had ended [3]. By comparison, outlawed chemical weapons seem relatively humane.

As a society, I believe we need to be vigilant towards attempts to normalize use of these weapons. They may have a role in deterrence, but the relatively low-level wars the USA has taken on over the past 40 years must not make us callous towards choices that will quickly escalate to hundreds of thousands to millions of deaths. With the survivors of the last world war rapidly dwindling, I fear we are quickly losing our global memory of the horror of large-scale conflict and through media, preparing our society to accept a nuclear exchange for which we hav a very limited and untested defense. [4,5] In fact, creating this defense system has spurred our global rivals to develop more horrific weapons [6].

[1] https://www.defense.gov/News/SpecialReports/2018NuclearPostu... https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204755/escalating-t...

[2] https://k1project.columbia.edu/a11

[3] https://www.quora.com/What-is-it-like-to-be-dying-from-leuke...

[4] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/us/politics/military-exer...

[5] https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/the-limits-of-u-s-missile...

[6] https://www.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/1204814/putins-nuke-...

The author points out that the damage was extensive, giving numbers of deaths, rates of cancer among survivors, etc. but the goal of the article wasn't to talk about how much people suffer from nuclear weapons. The point of the article was to discuss the long term effects of a nuclear weapon, so the author focused on the growth of plant life in the area, and the health effects on children born from survivors.

We can discuss nuclear results without having to point out with every breath that we shouldn't blow up cities with nuclear weapons. The individual pain experienced by someone who was in the nuclear bomb has little to do with the possible propagation of side effects through generations.

> [2] https://k1project.columbia.edu/a11

Let's go through five incidents listed here:

(1) GOIANIA ACCIDENT: ... between 60 and 80 people died as a result of the accident ...

OK, that's bad.

(2) RADIOTHERAPY ACCIDENTS: ... Ten deaths and 78 injuries were attributed to overexposure.

The fact that this is called "RADIOTHERAPY" accidents should give you a pause. Radiation was being used to save lives, and when some machines malfunctioned, peoplpe died. Now insert anything else there (say, vaccination or anesthesia) and see how that sounds. Are we saying vaccination is dangerous and should be abolished because accidents lead to death?

(3) THULE ACCIDENT: ... an aircraft accident involving nuclear weapons ... leading to widespread contamination of the area.

Sorry to sound crass, but what military incident doesn't?

(4) CASTLE BRAVO: During a nuclear weapons test, the U.S. military detonated a thermonuclear hydrogen bomb ... ended up having a 15 megaton yield ...

Well, I think we can all agree that detonating a 15MT H-bomb is bad.

(5) THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT

Yes, the infamous radiation accident where nobody died.

-----

I really hate these fear-mongering articles that conflate nuclear bombs and peaceful use of nuclear energy, making the public believe they're both dangerous because they're NUCLEAR. That makes about as much sense as protesting use of asphalt because it's made of the same petroleum that also makes napalm.

The only biases in this straightforward, factual study are the ones you bring to it.

I think the upbeat conclusion trying to downplay the dangers of Fukushima is misleading. The long term escape of large amounts of radioactive materials at Fukushima is a very different situation to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In fact, it is a logical fallacy to argue that Hiroshima and Nagasaki recovered well because of next to no radioactive materials being left there and therefore that Fukushima is no problem.

Though it is easy to see where the funding and motivation for these kinds of "arguments" is coming from.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com