Hacker News Reader

Comment by delichon | Hacker News Reader

In his latest podcast Joe Rogan claimed that John Wayne and others died from cancer caused by radiation from a nuclear test upwind of a movie set for "The Conquerers". Wayne was also a heavy smoker so nobody really knows. Nobody knows how much death and misery the tests caused, or how much war was avoided by nuclear deterence.

By the early 1980s around 40% of the cast and crew had developed cancer, also including Susan Hayward, Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell. And the movie nuclear bombed at the box office.

View on HN

This is a very well known story, particularly to people living in the Intermountain west. Rogan is just repeating Wikipedia.

It wasn’t just from that [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Susana_Field_Laboratory] had 4 of their 10 experimental nuclear reactors melt down (including a big one in ‘59), and was notorious for not disposing of nuclear and chemical waste correctly. Including burn pits.

They had fires in their plutonium ‘hot lab’ at least once we know about.

They regularly burned radioactive waste in open pits.

It’s right next door to Hollywood and many common film shooting locations. John Wayne regularly worked in Simi valley which is right next door.

Also, smoking like a chimney. Also, the whole nuclear bomb test/downwinder stuff too of course.

It’s not just direct exposure either - thyroid issues are common in the generation that grew up when this was happening, and many of them drank milk, ate cheese, etc. from cows grazing on grass that got this contamination on it. Including from Simi valley, where it was a big industry.

Nobody likes to talk about it because good luck quantifying it at this point - and the gov’t does a lot to avoid blowback succeeding. National Security and all.

It doesn’t help that the governments own radiation death models put the population wide cost at several hundred thousand lives lost population wide. But LNT doesn’t really work. But also, clearly there are issues.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders]

Like the 9/11 first responder funds, it’s a nightmare trying to get a pay out, and unlike 9/11 this isn’t from one single event.

Lots of interesting rocket history at SSFL too https://flickr.com/photos/heads-up/14531361085/in/dateposted... . Fascinating place

Yes it is, all back in the day of anything goes engineering. For better or worse.

Reminiscent of the shooting of Tarkovsky’s Stalker, where there was a toxic-waste-producing facility right nearby (and you can supposedly see toxic waste on camera) and some of the cast and crew got ill or died from horrible cancers.[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film)#Filming

>>Between 1951 and 1992, the United States conducted 928 atomic tests at the Nevada Test Site about 65 miles (105 km) northwest of the city of Las Vegas.

Just how nuclear waste polluted is Nevada?

Surely ~1000 tests in one place can't be good. Wouldn't be surprised if people around there do get cancers.

There's nobody around there but the fallout plumes traveled far generally into the north east of the site. Also depends on weather since the particles have to be brought down to ground level e.g. by rain. Places like St George Utah had particularly high amounts but also the area to the north of there through to south west Montana.

I think the John Wayne movie was filmed in an area outside St George called Snow Canyon. It's a state park so if you're inclined you can go there with a Geiger counter.

> By the early 1980s around 40% of the cast and crew had developed cancer, also including Susan Hayward, Agnes Moorehead, and director Dick Powell.

What is the source for that?

https://www.intermountainhistories.org/items/show/144, https://hps.org/publicinformation/ate/q12594/, https://www.straightdope.com/21341555/did-john-wayne-die-of-...

The HPS site contradicts Rogan's claim (as far as I understand Rogan's claim); it's written by an expert in this field:

I agree that 91 cancers of 220 cast members sounds like a lot. It suggests a cancer rate of 91/200 × 100 = 41.3%. But is that abnormally high? Statistics on cancer occurrence in the United States suggest that the lifetime risk of cancer for males is about 39.7% and 36.7% for females, not greatly different than the rates among the cast. As we mature, the odds of dying of cancer increase from about 25% to 50%. Whenever a cancer survey is made among a small group (say, 100 persons or less), there are variations in the observed cancer rates, either larger or smaller. Moreover, it has also been reported that many cast members were heavy smokers, increasing their risk over the average. I believe that given the available information, there is no compelling evidence that the cancer rate among the cast was higher than national rates.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com