Talk:Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

grammar

Is this sentence grammatically correct/ok? Doesnt sound very nice.

the overwhelming majority of the deaths were those of civilians

Good catch, fixed :) Gtadoc 12:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Checking, I saw a wikilink change from [[Collateral damage|civilains]] to [[civilians]], but no grammatical change.

I am no grammarian, but I see the following: in Elements of Style

     A linking verb agrees with the number of its subject.

         What is wanted is a few more pairs of hands.

Also, I see here:

     The number of minor children with one or both parents behind bars is 1.5 million.

          The subject is NUMBER. The linking verb is IS, and the descriptor—in
          this case a predicate adjective—is 1.5 MILLION.

notice in that second example "of minor children with one or both parents behind bars" resembles "of the deaths" in the text from the article (both perhaps are subordinate object clauses containing one or more plural nouns?).

Given that, should not the grammar be something like:

     the overwhelming majority of the deaths was among civilians.
     -------------------------               ---
     Subject (singular)                       +----linking verb (singular)

...? As I say, I am no grammarian, so I won't change this. -- Boracay Bill 23:51, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the subject is "deaths" therefore use a plural link so was becomes were. --LiamE 02:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of style, I'd also suggest that the word "among" should be dropped. --LiamE 02:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Walter Trohan article

First off excuse me I've violated any format conventions here. I seldom post on Wikipedia and just wanted your input on an article I have found. If it's relevant I'd like you to add it it somewhere.

All I want to know is if this is true. Were the Japanese seeking to surrender before the bombs were dropped? I'm holding off judgement on this until someone with a little more background on the subject can fill me in. Anyway, here's the article.

"Chicago Tribune, August 19, 1945

JAPS ASKED PEACE IN JAN. ENVOYS ON WAY -- TOKYO

Roosevelt Ignored M'Arthur Report On Nip Proposals

By Walter Trohan

Release of all censorship restrictions in the United States makes it possible to report that the first Japanese peace bid was relayed to the White House seven months ago.

Two days before the late President Roosevelt left the last week in January for the Yalta conference with Prime Minister Churchill and Marshal Stalin he received a Japanese offer identical with the terms subsequently concluded by his successor, Harry S. Truman.

MacArthur Relayed Message to F.D.

The Jap offer, based on five separate overtures, was relayed to the White House by Gen. MacArthur in a 40-page communication. The American commander, who had just returned triumphantly to Bataan, urged negotiations on the basis of the Jap overtures.

The offer, as relayed by MacArthur, contemplated abject surrender of everything but the person of the Emperor. The suggestion was advanced from the Japanese quarters making the offer that the Emperor become a puppet in the hands of American forces.

Two of the five Jap overtures were made through American channels and three through British channels. All came from responsible Japanese, acting for Emperor Hirohito.

General's Communication Dismissed

President Roosevelt dismissed the general's communication, which was studded with solemn references to the deity, after a casual reading with the remark, "MacArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician."

The MacArthur report was not even taken to Yalta. However, it was carefully preserved in the files of the high command and subsequently became the basis of the Truman-Attlee Potsdam declaration calling for surrender of Japan.

This Jap peace bid was known to the Chicago Tribune and the Washington Times-Herald shortly after the MacArthur comunication reached here. It was not published under the paper’s established policy of complete co-operation with the voluntary censorship code.

Must Explain Delay

Now that peace has been concluded on the basis of the terms MacArthur reported, high administration officials prepared to meet expected congressional demands for explanation of the delay. It was considered certain that from various quarters of Congress charges would be hurled that the delay cost thousands of American lives and casualties, particularly in such costly offensives as Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

It was explained in high official circles that the bid relayed by MacArthur did not constitute an official offer in the same sense as the final offer which was presented through Japanese diplomatic channels at Bern and Stockholm last week for relay to the four major Allied powers.

No negotiations were begun on the basis of the bid, it was said, because it was feared that if any were undertaken the Jap war lords, who were presumed to be ignorant of the feelers, would visit swift punishment on those making the offer.

It was held possible that the war lords might even assassinate the Emperor and announce the son of heaven had fled the earth in a fury of indignation over the peace bid.

Defeat Seen Inevitable

Officials said it was felt by Mr. Roosevelt that the Japs were not ripe for peace, except for a small group, who were powerless to cope with the war lords, and that peace could not come until the Japs had suffered more.

The Jap overtures were made on acknowledgment that defeat was inevitable and Japan had to choose the best way out of an unhappy dilemma -- domination of Asia by Russia or by the United States. The unofficial Jap peace brokers said the latter would be preferable by far.

Jap proposals to Gen. MacArthur contemplated:

1. Full surrender of all Jap forces on sea, in the air, at home, on island possessions and in occupied countries.

2. Surrender of all arms and munitions.

3. Occupation of the Jap homeland and island possessions by Allied troops under American direction.

Would Give Up Territory

4. Jap relinquishment from Manchuria, Korea and Formosa as well as all territory seized during the war.

5. Regulation of Jap industry to halt present and future production of implements of war.

6. Turning over of any Japanese the United States might designate as war criminals.

7. Immediate release of all prisoners of war and internees in Japan proper and areas under Japanese control.

After the fall of Germany, the policy of unconditional surrender drew critical fire. In the Senate Senator White (R.) of Maine Capehart (R.) of Indiana took the lead in demanding that precise terms be given Japan and in asking whether peace feelers had not been received from the Nipponese.

Terms Drafted in July

In July the Tribune reported that a set of terms were being drafted for President Truman to take to Potsdam. Capehart hailed the reported terms on the floor of the Senate as a great contribribution to universal peace.

These terms, which were embodied in the Potsdam declaration did not mention the disposition of the Emperor. Otherwise they were almost identical with the proposals contained in the MacArthur memorandum.

Just before the Japanese surrender the Russian foreign commissar disclosed that the Japs had made peace overtures through Moscow asking that the Soviets mediate the war. These overtures were made in the middle of June through the Russian foreign office and also through a personal letter from Hirohito to Stalin Both overtures were reported to the United States and Britain." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.151.30.17 (talk) 09:00, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

The only convention you may have violated that I see is not signing your comment by putting 4 "~" after it (which gets translated into a signature). But it looks like the system automatically did it for you, so that isn't a problem.

I've seen the Trohan article referred to before, but I've never seen it critically analyzed by any historians who would be able to say whether or not it was legitimate.

The historical record is pretty straightforward that the Japanese government was not willing to make any surrender offers at this time. However, the question of whether the Emperor was trying to make such a deal in secret behind the back of the Japanese government is a little more murky, because such a secret overture would not necessarily show up in any records.

All the history books that I've read that cover the US government in this period make no mention of this offer or any debate over it by any government officials. And MacArthur was pretty set on the view that Japan would never surrender until Tokyo had been captured -- a view he pushed even after Hiroshima. If such an offer were really made by the Emperor, the offer must have been viewed as so illegitimate in the US that everyone dismissed it without debate.

Overall I'm pretty skeptical of the Trohan article. But as far as I can see it is technically possible that Hirohito tried to seek peace behind everyone's backs and this effort wasn't seen as a serious offer in the US. Oralloy 10:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Radiation

I removed a comment in the intro about a large number of people dying from radiation. This is actually a common misconception. The latest BEIR report places the total combined number of deaths from radiation as ~260 acute deaths from leukemia and about 600 later deaths from solid tumors above the normal background for the population. The actual explosion is what the argument should be about, as comparitively the radiation effects were rather small. Gtadoc 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain more about your edit. Thank you.Oda Mari 04:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, basically there is a common misconception amoung laymen that the atomic bombing exposed a lot of people to large amounts of radiation, or that a large number of people died from radiation. In actuality, the people died from the blast or from burns secondary to the blast. Total reports from both bombings indicate that another ~260 people died from acute leukemia in the following 10 year, most in the first two years, and that after following the population over the long term to look for what is called solid tumors they've found less than 1000 additional cases (above baseline) of solid cancer; to be concervative they've attributed all of those to the bombing though some could possibly be from other sources, however, both bodies cited are fairly concervative in their estimates (as they should be) preferring to overstate the number of deaths rather than understate them. The two agencies that have performed the studies (all of which have been mammoth undertakings, involving thousands of scientists from around the world, in particular from Japan and from the US National Academies of Science) are two: the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and National Academy of Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (the BEIR reports, of which there are 7). These studies involved nearly every scientist in the field and followed the populations from Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and other smaller incidents) in order to observe the effects of ionizing radiation (both acute and chronic) and make safety recommendations to the International Commission on Radiological Protection, International Atomic Energy Agency, and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (US). All of the reports from the multiple organizations, and literally the thousands of scientists that have undertaken the studies, have given us our current standards as well as provided the numbers provided in the article. Gtadoc 06:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. But how about the people died from radiation in months after the bombing? Oda Mari 19:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'd be happy to explain further and feel free to indicate to me what level you want it at, I can do so more basically or more scientifically as you prefer. Immediate death from radiation actually requires a very large dose, resulting in something called prodromal syndrome. Unfortunately if someone was close enough to receive such a dose they were very close indeed; the deaths from prodromal syndrome are generally included in the deaths from the bomb (blast) itself as these people generally died of other causes or causes made worse by prodromal syndrome (for example, it causes severe dehydration that would have increased problems secondary to severe burns). As is, those numbers are included in the death toll of people dying "immediately", which really means right away or in the next few days from injuries. If a person is exposed and survives past the first 10 days or so, i.e. the people in the time frame you are asking about (months) the only radiation induced cause of death is acute myelogenous leukemia (AML), the sensitivity period for which is generally a few months to ten years. These numbers are estimated to be around 260 people (there is some small variation in the reports). The rest of the radiation effects are called "late effects" and result in what are referred to as solid tumor, which may appear 5 years or 50 years later. We have most of the data that we will have for this group and the numbers are determined by observing the actual cancer rate in the surviving population and then comparing that to the baseline (what would be expected normally for that population). Gtadoc 03:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

"I removed a comment in the intro about a large number of people dying from radiation. This is actually a common misconception." Apparently it is a misconception held by the US government: "Some 70,000 people probably died as a result of initial blast, heat, and radiation effects.... By the end of 1945, because of the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects, the Hiroshima death toll was probably over 100,000. The five-year death total may have reached or even exceeded 200,000, as cancer and other long-term effects took hold." http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm . Bsharvy 10:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked up the reference for the claim that the number of deaths from radiation sickness was very small: reference number 5. It says no such thing. It is an article that discusses the doses of radiation received by various cohorts. I saw nothing in it that estimates the number of deaths. I am going to revert that whole section unless there is an honest documentation of the claims. Bsharvy 10:31, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the BEIR reports were commissioned by the US government and undertaken by the National Academies of Science. They are considered the authority in the field. The reference you listed was a historical article that spoke in broad generalities and is in no way comparable to a series of seven reports done over a period of 60 years by a large group of the nations best scientists. And, if you cared to read reference 5, it was cited to discuss what happens to people who recieve radiation at what dose, it had nothing to do with death numbers, but rather what doses cause what sickness and/or death. I'll try to find another source to put in so people can see the actual dosage exposures for Hiroshima, though I believe that article did...I'll have to check later. I'll also try to relook up a public copy of BEIR 7 for you (or you could do it yourself, it would be a much better read/source than the one you found), I thought it was actually already cited in there...the best I can do at the moment is this: [[1]] I believe the majority of the report is available there... also please note, as already mentioned, radiation that only contributes to death but is not its cause (as is whats refered to in your source) is already included in the given death tolls.

Also, please remember in your comments to abide by wikipedia civility policy [[2]] Thanks. Gtadoc 17:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the article: that's how I know what it is about. It is not about the number of deaths due to radiation, but that is how it is used as a citation.Bsharvy 11:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, according to the Radiation Effects Research Foundation, in the 1950–1990 period there were an estimated 428 excess cancer deaths among atomic-bomb survivors,[3] and "the total number of estimated radiation related excess noncancer deaths is about 50–100% the number of estimated radiation related cancer deaths"[4]. I've never found a number for 1945–1950, but you'd think the annual rate would be considerably higher than that ~20/year of the following period.

The 428 deaths mentioned at the Radiation Effects Research Foundation is only for the cohort they studied. Read the page: "Because the Life Span Study cohort does not include all survivors ... the number of cancer deaths that may be attributed to radiation among all survivors would be larger than the 428 shown in Table 2." We don't need to speculate about the number of deaths between 1945-50 because this encyclopedia is not for our speculation. We write something like: "The U.S. government estimates that 70,000 died from immediate effects of the blast, and in excess of 30,000 probably died from radiation in the next five years." and give the citation. I am editing the paragraph to make compliant with Wikipedia policy regarding original research and POV. Bsharvy 11:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The source you provided, besides being low quality, makes no claim that "30,000 probably died from radiation". Also, if you read the Sources and Notes page you will find that these are not DOE estimates, but from Leslie R. Groves' Now It Can Be Told and Vincent C. Jones' Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb.—eric 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The exact phrasing is: "the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects," increased the death toll from 70,000 to 100,000 by the end of the year. Someone can add "and other effects" if desired. I trust subtraction is not considered original research. What other documentation of the DOE estimate do you want other than the DOE estimating it? The notes you mentioned actually say: "Summaries of Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualty rates and damage estimates appear in Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper & Row, 1962), 319, 329-330, 346, and Vincent C. Jones, Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb, United States Army in World War II (Washington: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1988), 545-548. " In other words, 1) it doesn't say the DOE got the estimates from Now It Can Be Told but that a summary appears there, and 2) the other (alleged) source of the figures is the Center of Military History, United States Army. As far as I can tell, the entirety of the reason for deleting the information that many died from radiation effects is a misunderstood source, RERF, that 1) didn't study the first five years, when conventional estimates of radiation related deaths are in the 100,000 range, and 2) only reports deaths in a cohort that it studied and makes no estimate of the total deaths from radiation effects. Please actually read sources that are cited, and please don't make ideologically motivated changes to the entry. Some of the sloppiness here is so bad it's suspicious. Some further changes I suggest: it is important to be evenhanded. So, we should not report US government figures in the main text, and relegate Japan government figures to footnotes. The Fox News story reference should be deleted. It is a secondary source when we have three primary sources; the main topic of the story is not the death estimates; the context suggests to me that it is an estimate of the deaths from the immediate blast, not of the total deaths.

Regarding the contention that primary sources should be preferred to secondary sources, please see this section of WP:OR (an official policy on the English Wikipedia). -- Boracay Bill 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that states that primary sources should be used with caution, and that secondary sources are often needed to back up a primary source. The exception noted is when there is expert knowledge of a primary source. The BEIR reports would hence be a primary source (of considerable authority), while the Hall (Radiobiology for the Radiobiologist) would be an authoritative (high quality) secondary source. Gtadoc 01:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see such an exception noted in WP:OR, but it looks to me as if you are using the term "Primary source" here to refer to material which doesn't fit the WP:OR description of "Primary source". Regardless, I think it would be counterproductive to digress here into a tangential discussion about that. Regarding the "Fox News story" in particular (Ref 65 is the only item I see attributed to Fox), I think that usefully supports the assertion in support of which it is cited. -- Boracay Bill 03:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's reference 9. It is used to document a claim about the total number of deaths at Nagasaki, but from the context I think it refers to immediate deaths from the blast. The prior sentence is that the remains of many of the victims have never been found, which obviously doesn't apply to deaths in the months and years that followed the blast. A detailed explanation of death estimates is not the topic of the news story, and the relevant information is buried several paragraphs down.

The wording I was refering to was this "Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it's easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source" I do agree though that its not central to the debate. At the moment the only authoritative sources we have (and the ones that should be cited in the intro) are in agreement with the text indicating that (relative to say, burns) a small number of people died of radiation effects, and since we're dealing with a scientific topic/process in this instance the quality of the source (or if its even a scientific source or not) is important. While unfortunately not possible in WP, it would be nice if I could simply put up my lecture powerpoints for Radiation Biology (a junior level undergraduate course that I've taught in the past) containing all the explanations, in any event I encourage you to read the BEIR 7 sections and the Eric Hall text (as it is excellent). You can also look at the Life Span Study (Radiation Effects Research Foundation) [5] , a summary of their results:

Hiroshima and Nagasaki – August 1945 �� ~210,000 died �� ~90,000 survivors followed in Life Span Study �� ~50,000 received doses >0.005 Sv �� ~9,000 deaths from solid cancer in those exposed to >0.005 Sv �� ~700 excess cancers from radiation exposure �� All types of cancers Gtadoc 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete other editors' contributions without prior discussion. For the third time, I've read the RERF study. It doesn't contradict anything that was written (and deleted) in the paragraph in question. It doesn't contradict the claim that the blast at Hiroshima killed roughly 75,000, that a total of 100,000 died by the end of the year, or that up to 200,000 died within the first five years after the bomb. So please stop deleting those figures from the entry. The figure of 210,000 deaths is for the first 2-4 months. The study of cancer rates after 1950 is irrelevant, because 1) the topic is not limited to death from cancer, 2) the topic is not limited to deaths after 1950. The topic of that paragraph is simply to give estimates of the total number of deaths caused by the bomb. Not death from cancer or leukemia. Not deaths starting five years after the bomb. Bsharvy 12:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I simply reverted the changes you made w/o discussion. If you have read the 4 sources I cited, all of which are authoritative (compaired to two nonscientific sources of low quality) you'll see that they correctly report that very few people died from radiation; I understand that few people understand how radiation works or how it causes death, but it is not my responsibility to offer a course for those who don't. I'm sorry, but for the moment I'm going to leave the article as is, though I would be open to restoring it to what I consider the better version that had accurate death numbers (particularly dealing with radiation) before it was erased...at the moment I don't have time though as there were several useful changes made after your edit that I would have to restore. The edit you refer to was grossly innacurate and contradicted by all of the scientific literature. Gtadoc 14:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Your dishonesty is getting tiresome. 1) The changes I made were preceded by all my posts here; to say I made them "without discussion" is a lie, 2) You have produced absolutely zero references to deaths in the five years after the bomb; you have produced all of one reference that discusses the number of deaths due to radiation, and it restricted itself to to the post-1950 period, 3) that one reference explicitly states its numbers only apply to the cohort it studied not all deaths at Hiroshima, 3) the reference I gave was the US government, whose numbers are relevant regardless of whether some editor named 'Gtadoc' on Wikipedia thinks he knows better, 4) the topic is simply the total number of deaths attributable to the bomb in given time periods, not your theories of radiation and cancer: all the sources--including the one from RERF that you think is mightier than God--say the number of deaths due to after-effects (such as radiation) are in the tens of thousands. That is not very few, 5) the other reference you gave to "document" the claim that the number of deaths was small had zilch to do with estimated deaths; it didn't estimate deaths, it didn't cite estimates of deaths, it made no claims on the subject. You are lying about the scientific literature, you are lying about the content of your own references, and you are doing so in way that minimizes the deaths every time (an amazing coincidence). Keep your political agenda out of the encyclopedia.Bsharvy 03:55, 5 August 2007

The comment immediately above ("Your dishonesty is getting tiresome. ... Keep your political agenda out of the encyclopedia.") was deleted at 16:07, 8 August 2007 by Gtadoc and restored by Hoary 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I restored my comments on this Talk page which Gtadoc deleted. Do not delete editors comments on Talk pages. If you don't want your actions described as dishonest then don't undo edits after three days of discussion and assert they were made them "without discussion"; don't assert a source studying a post-1950 time period refutes a statement about pre-1950, after this has been pointed out repeatedly in the discussion; do not represent references as supporting claims of small number of deaths which say absolutely nothing about numbers of deaths; do not characterize references as "grossly innacurate and contradicted by all of the scientific literature" when they are supported by all the scientific literature you have provided. Bsharvy 01:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I see you've also begun selectively deleting your own posts to remove your personal attacks, as well as deleting your own talk page. Oh, sorry, were we talking about honesty? Please comment on material, not editors, as you have already been warned and will be blocked (again) if you continue. I have no problem deleting personal attacks, deleting warnings from admins and other editors is another thing. Gtadoc 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I didn't delete any of my posts here. (What I do with my own Talk pages in my business.)Bsharvy 21:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I warn anybody here not to delete anybody else's comment or their own, other than as expressly described in WP:Talk. As you will see, that page fudges a little on the issue of rudeness. Solution: interpret the guideline strictly when deciding what to say, interpret it loosely when deciding what others may say. If there's an instance of what you regard as egregious rudeness from somebody with whom you already have a disagreement, invite an uninvolved party to decide whether or not to delete it: your own deletion is likely to look like a crude attempt at censorship. -- Hoary 03:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. In order to restore assumptions of good faith, I want an apology from Gtadoc. He needs to acknowledge that he deleted my comment, and then accused me of deleting it. I am willing to soften the language, e.g. change "dishonest" to "misleading" or "misunderstood." But the deliberate attempt to portray his own actions as my own terminates assumptions of good faith, and requires an apology.Bsharvy 00:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hoary noted; if I do end up editing this page more, which is unlikely, I will be sure to get someone else to remove any comments from this user if they continue to fall under the contex of egregious rudeness as they did before (there was no ambiguity to their intention), fortunately the user deleted himself the most egregious comments. Best, Gtadoc 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As for exposure to radiation,

Current studies of deaths and cancer incidence are based on a sample of 86,500 atomic-bomb survivors who were alive and living in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki at the time of the Japanese national census in October 1950 and for whom radiation dose estimates can be computed. About 50,000 of these persons were exposed to significant radiation doses [5 millisieverts] within a distance of 2.5 km from the hypocenter. The other 36,500 members of the study population were exposed beyond 2.5 km and received very low doses.

In the national census of 1950, approximately 280,000 people indicated that they had been exposed to the atomic bombs. The population studied by RERF probably includes about 50% of the proximally exposed survivors [<2.0 km of hypocenter] and about 25% of the distally exposed [>2.5 km of hypocenter]. However, these percentages are not precise because the census did not include recording of the place of exposure.[6]

—wwoods 18:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The period from 1945-50 would have not had much in the way of cancer deaths, with the exception of leukemia, one of the principles in radiation biology is that carcinogenesis is a multistep process that takes a long time (less than 10 year peak time for leukemia, more than 20 year peak time for solid cancer). I've copied the figure for excess deaths from the BEIR 7 report; its pretty much the same as what I see in BEIR 5. For an easier way to read the same thing try looking this up (don't know exact page numbers) in Radiobiology for the Radiobiologist (Eric Hall). He is probably the most authoritative author in the field right now and that is his "entry level" text for college radiobiology courses, it discusses the bombings, the numbers, and will help explain the reasons behind it all (which is, I think, where most people stumble here...). Here is the table ES-1 from BEIR 7 Risk of Incidents of all solid cancer and Leukemia:

Excess cases (including non fatal)= 800 (male, solid cancer), 1300 (female, solid caner); 100 (male, leukemia), 70 (female, leukemia)

Excess deaths = 410 (male, solid cancer), 610 (female, solid cancer); 70 (male, leukemia), 50 (female, leukemia)

Confidence interval=95%

The numbers from UNISCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) are about the same, with a slightly higher number for acute leukemias (202 total). Gtadoc 00:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. What are the symptoms of acute myelogenous leukemia? Oda Mari 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

see [7] -- Boracay Bill 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The source provided here is accurate, this is also a good one: [8]; I rounded today (last time in a few weeks, I'll be leaving overseas) in the bone marrow transplant ward with several AML patients and I assure you that while I believe it is necessary to dispel the myth that a large number died from radiation poisoning, I want to make sure that we in no way diminish the suffering of those who did or who acquired a disease because of the bombings. Gtadoc 01:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be strange. In 4.2 The bombing in the Nagasaki Section, there's a sentence like this. “The total number of residents killed may have been as many as 80,000, including the few who died from radiation poisoning in the following months.[47]". I saw the [47], but there was no mention about the radiation poisoning death number. Oda Mari 15:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, someone miscited 47; it seems 45 might be what they wanted, or perhaps cites 1-5. Its also possible that the text got put in the wrong place with the source refering to something above it. It might be worth looking back in the history to see. Gtadoc 14:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Misinformation

I delete the US forewarnings of bombings Section. OWI notice #2106 has nothing to do with the atomic bombings. The notice is an ordinary air raid warning. Neither the name 廣島/Hiroshima nor 長崎/Nagasaki are printed on the notice. They are just two of 35 cities the leaflet was dropped. Some of the cities printed on the notice were actually air raided. 水戸/Mito and 八王子/Hachioji were on Aug.1, 富山/Toyama was on Aug 2, and 前橋/Maebashi was on Aug.5. [[9]] [[10]] And please read this [[11]]. You will understand the reason of my deletion.Oda Mari 05:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional info. These are the 12 cities printed on the leaflet:from upper left 長野/Nagano, 高岡/Takaoka, 久留米/Kurume, 福山/Fukuyama, 富山/Toyama, 舞鶴/Maizuru, 大津/Otu, 西ノ宮/Nishinomiya, 前橋/Maebashi, 郡山/Koriyama, 八王子/Hachioji, and 水戸/Mito. 福山/Fukuyama was on Aug.8 and 久留米/Kurume was on Aug. 11 air raided. Oda Mari 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't argue your decision to remove the section on editorial grounds, though I personally do feel that it should stay. Regarding the charge of "Misinformation", as it says in WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I posted verifiable information supported by an arguably reliable source, which I cited. If you have information from another reliable and verifiable source which contradicts the information which I posted, it would have been better IMHO to add the information to the article about the information conflict between the two sources. That cannot be done in this article, of course, if the section is removed from the article for editorial reasons. Personally, I think that if what you say is verifiably the case, then one source or the other has reliability problems.

I looked at my cited source again, and I see that they provide an email contact form. I have emailed them the information that the information which I cited from their web page has been challenged. -- Boracay Bill 08:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Though the source is reliable, there was no mention about atomic bombs or a new weapon, whatever the word is, in the section you posted. That picture was posted in the article air raid in jp.wiki. And the word misinfo. may be not appropiate. As you might noticed, I'm a Japanese and my English writing is not good enough. No ill meaning. Please accept my apology for my choice of the word.Oda Mari 10:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not know anything about the details - which number was assigned to the air raid notice or anything like that - but I do believe that the government, if not the people of these two cities, was forewarned. My temptation would be to suggest that we leave the details about the specific OWI notice out, and cite (i.e. find a source that says this, and quote from it) simply that notices were dropped, that the people were forewarned. LordAmeth 10:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The point is american B-29 dropped on Japanese cities millions of leaflets, written in Japanese, and 7 millions alone revealing the terms of the Potsdam declaration, which was hidden to them by the Showa regime. The point is not if people from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were warned of atomic bombings but that Japanese people from many large cities were warned of future bombings, informed of the conditions of surrender and called on to make direct appeals to emperor Showa. --Flying tiger 13:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

To Boracay Bill. Please look at these. [12], [13] page14, [14] page7, and [15].

To LordAmeth and Flying Tiger. Please look at [16] Advertising the Destructionof Hiroshima and the bigger picture [17].

Oda Mari 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, well, I guess it would seem that the warnings did not specifically indicate Hiroshima as a target. This makes sense, actually, as the US did not want to give the Japanese military an opportunity to move American, Chinese, or other POWs into the area. In any case, I stand by my previous assessment, that there is no need to specify exact OWI document numbers. As Flying tiger points out, the issue is not whether or not the name "Hiroshima" was specifically mentioned in the warnings, but simply that, in general, efforts were made to alert the Japanese populace as to what was going on - the surrender terms, and that certain cities were among the targets if the government didn't surrender. Also note that the warning document specifies that "America is not fighting the Japanese people but is fighting the military clique which has enslaved the Japanese people" and that "We cannot promise that only these cities will be among those attacked." Were there warnings specifically pertaining to Hiroshima and to an atomic weapon? I don't know. But were there warnings in general, that innocent Japanese civilians should understand the US's purpose in the war, and that getting out of the cities would be a good idea? Yes. LordAmeth 20:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The Lemay leaflet of August 1 was the one I was referring too. It doesn't talk about "atomic bombings" but refer to a list of cities. We should put this image in the article, precising that leaflets were dropped by americans, warning the Japanese people of imminent bombings and telling them about the Potsdam ultimatum, without refering to "atomic bombings". --Flying tiger 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The "little boy" device was not an Nuclear weapon. It was an Atomic type device. It's inefficiency was based on the breaking the bonds of atoms. The "Fat Man" device was a Nuclear weapon. It split the nucleus of the Atom, yielding a more efficient reaction. 167.7.12.164 13:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Both bombs were fission devices, one of uranium and the other of plutonium

—wwoods 15:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep. See Little Boy and Fat Man. -- Boracay Bill 23:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Atomic and nuclear are interchangable. Both were atomic weapons and both were nuclear weapons. The energy realeased in both was from exactly the same source - that being the conversion of matter to energy by the fission of fissile matterial. The only difference was one used uranium as fuel the other plutonium. In both cases the atomic nuclei of (a portion of) the fuel split releasing energy. --LiamE 19:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Connection

It should be known that there were many Canadian contributions to the nuclear bomb drop on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. First of all, it should be noted that Pugwash NS was one of the many meeting sites for the scientists. Secondly, the idea of a nuclear bomb this massive that hit both cities was based after scientists examined damage from the 1917 Halifax Explosion. AnthonyWalters 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no doubt that the Halifax Explosion came up when discussing the bomb, and I also know Canada helped out with the Manhattan Project too but do you know where this information can be found (to use as a source). Anynobody 02:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

What's happened to Karl Bunker

Karl Bunker used to habitually occupy this article. He made hundreds of edits to it. Yet, it appears that every edit and every mention of him has been deleted. Does anybody know why this has happened ? --Salom Khalitun 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him? He can be contacted at User talk:KarlBunker. He has changed his name to User:RedSpruce, though. Neil ╦ 15:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark

I cannot edit this article but I do think the OMD song, Enola Gay, is worth mentioning in the "Popular Culture" section. I always think of Hiroshima when I hear it! Perhaps someone could paste in the following:

Orchestral Manoeuvres in the Dark (often abbreviated to OMD) a British synth pop group recorded Enola Gay in 1980, named after the airplane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima, which, in turn, was named after the pilot's mother.

I just did a test and discovered that pasting alone will not retain the links e.g. "Enola Gay (song)|Enola Gay" :-(

References in lead section

The lead section is currently a complete mess due to hasty revisions, misunderstood or misrepresented sources and sloppy editing. There are some very poor references used, most no longer support the text they are attached to because the reference has been moved or the original text deleted.

• Ref 1 Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation: BEIR VII Phase 2 (2006) no longer has any relation to the text it follows
• Ref 2 [18] is the RERF FAQ page, we should be citing the studies themselves
• Ref 3 is a general radiobiology text which no longer has any relation to the text it follows
• Refs 4&5 are the DOE history website, we have much better sources available for casualty numbers
• Ref 6 cites a pictorial museum guide, the 237,000 and 135,000 numbers have been much discussed previously and are a tally of the total number of people exposed to the bomb and have since died of whatever cause. If i recall correctly The Spirit of Hiroshima was introduced to support a total different claim
• Ref 7 Mikiso Hane is a general survey of Japanese history since the nineteenth century and was i think added to support something about Korean survivors, that text is now gone from the article
• Ref 9 is an AP article which is misrepresented in the article text

I suggest we delete this entire paragraph and start over.—eric 19:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the prior discussion on this Talk page, and the two versions of that paragraph under discussion. There is already a section to discuss redoing the estimated deaths; it is called "Estimated Deaths." Most of your obections have been discussed: that is why there is an attempt to change the current version. The edit that keeps being undone is essentially a "start over" of this paragraph. Getting rid of the irrelevant references and changing the use of Ref. 9 has already been proposed and attempted--it is being blocked by unrelenting undos. It would be nice if this discussion didn't go in circles.Bsharvy 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Gtadoc 01:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup references tag

As EricR notes above, the references and footnotes in this article are a mess, scattered across multiple sections, with inconsistent (and not always helpful) formatting. I found it very hard to judge the reliability of sources when all that is given is an incomprehensible URL instead of the cite web formatting. I've added a tag. Please don't remove it until the references and footnotes are cleaned up. THF 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths Afermath

The number of deaths because of this horrific bomb should be stated in first paragraph alone, then continue onwards to the second. This is one of the main points of the atomic bomb - the death. The first paragraph should answer most of the "What" "When" "Where" "Why" and "How". "How" being, "How many innocent deaths were caused by this atomic bomb by the Americans" User:74.102.43.107

Actually, the five Ws and H usually apply to the subject in the heading, in this case, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The death toll follows in the second par. The How that you are talking about, how many innocent people died, is a different matter, and you open a can of worms here. How do you decide the number of innocent people who died. How do you decide the number of guilty people who died, when we can't even come within cooee of agreeing on the total number of people who died during/after the events.Moriori 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

By innocent I mean, people who had nothing to do with the war and we all know that there was over atleast 100,000 deaths resulting in this HATRISFEE (wrong spelling).

What is HATRISFEE? Moriori 21:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Funny. Till this day, the Japanese government doesn't acknowledge many things that were done by the Japanese Military during World War II. The Nanking Massacre anyone? 100,000 is NOTHING!!! At lease 300,000 Chinese were killed in Nanking alone. Learn your history first, then come to lecture us later. Oh, by the way, while you are on it, learn English too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.26.62 (talk • contribs)

That's not very helpful. It's not compulsory to have English as a first language to edit this English wiki. Other editors will follow along and whack stuff into shape. Please sign your posts. Moriori 21:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

above IP user, please see WP:CIV and WP:TALK, specifically the parts that say we are not a soapbox. If you start trying to insult people again, or make more WP:NPOV comments trying to start fights, I will remove your posts. The talk page is for discussing the article only --lucid 21:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

We are currently trying to address the issue you mention; the page is currently locked while we try to get some concensus as to how to word the parts about the deaths, I don't think anyone plans to leave out a more definate wording we're just still working on it. Gtadoc 02:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody considered the "Actual Status Survey of Atomic Bomb Survivors", an attempt to count all the names of Hiroshima A-bomb fatalities? [19]

To my knowledge they haven't surpassed 90,000 names yet, but I haven't seen any updates beyond the one I linked. Oralloy 23:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Official number of deaths in Nagasaki. More about the registry.

I notice this page is protected, so definitely won't make any edits. I spent yesterday in Nagasaki, including time at the A-Bomb Museum and Peace Park. Have numerous pictures. When I have the time, will upload them to Commons for use here under cc-by-sa. Spent time last week in Hiroshima, including some time at the museum and peace park there, with many pictures. I'm heading back to Hiroshima this afternoon and will be there for a few more days. So, if there is anything else in Hiroshima that needs a picture, please say so.

For now, my pictures (mainly of Nagasaki and Hiroshima) are on Flickr in this set: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kmf164/sets/72157601080401307/ I will try to take time later today to upload them to commons. Something here may be useful for this or other articles. --Aude (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't have time to look at the RFC in detail now, but notice it's about the death figures. The City of Nagasaki keeps official numbers on this. The current total for Nagasaki is 143,124. (I have a picture which shows this) I'll look again for numbers for Hiroshima. --Aude (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the booklet for the Nagasaki Peace Ceremony yesterday. It includes the Nagasaki Peace Declaration by Tomihisa Taue (Mayor of Nagasaki). It says "the intense heat rays and severe blast winds, together with enormous amounts of radiation, claimed 74,000 lives and inflicted terrible injuries on 75,000 others" These are immediate deaths. When added together with deaths from a-bomb illnesses later, the total is 143,124. --Aude (talk) 06:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else notice that the figure has changed, the tape is pretty obvious. How many times has it changed, and where did the new info come from to make the changes? Anynobody 05:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

They added the number of past 12 months death of after-effects sufferers. I think they do this every year.Oda Mari 05:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The increasing victim count includes anyone who was in the city and has died, for any reason, since the bombing. Torturous Devastating Cudgel

It's the number of names in the registry, with 3,069 names added in the past year. These are people who died of radiation illnesses, and not other reasons. [20] --Aude (talk) 20:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Japan have any scientific documentation that explains the basis for concluding that all the people they keep adding to this total really died from A-bomb-related causes? Is there any explanation as to why these numbers are so much higher than the numbers from RERF (an organization whose documentation is readily available for peer review)? Oralloy 08:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that 62 years after the bombing, any death can be reliably attributed to radiation exposure.Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Both cities have their database. [21] and [22]. Oda Mari 10:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This issue comes up often, every anniversary the mayors make speeches and the AP and Reuters report the number of Hibakusha who died the prior year as casualties of the atomic bomb. As Oralloy mentions above there's quite a discrepancy between RERF's > 428 deaths since 1950 and the various other figures for casualties due to radiation (i was half listening to HBO's new documentary the other night which claimed 160,000 fatalities from radiation since 1946.) It sure would be nice to find some kind of definitive statement and fill this hole in the article.—eric 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note to those working on the article.

There's a comment on the talk page of the "Hiroshima - before-after photograph" that questions it's status.

“ I'd like to dispute the freedom of this image, based on the fact that it is claimed to be [a] copyright held since 1998 by the City of Nagasaki as they took the aerial photos. In the thing, "El Commandante" has stated that "Public domain I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide." -- is El Commandante an affiliate or worker of the City of Nagasaki? Just questioning ”

Source

It may be nothing, or the opposite, but i thought it'd be of pertinence to show. Uxorion 19:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The copyright applies to the text on the webpage, as well as the map. The "mushroom cloud" photograph is copyrighted by Hiromichi Matsuda. However, the before and after photographs were taken by the U.S. government, thus public domain. [23] The top image on the webpage, taken from aircraft, is also public domain. --Aude (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Reference

I think Masao Ohki (1901-1971) should be mentioned in the cultural reference section. Based on six paintings by Iri and Toshi Maruki he wrote his fifth symphony "Hiroshima", which has eight movements (Prelude - Ghosts - Fire - Water - Reinbow - Boys and Girls - Atomic Desert - Elegy) of which Movements 2-7 are inspired by the paintings. The symphony is written in expressionistic style using chromatic and dissonant harmonies as well as harmonic and solemn elements. It was first performed on 1st november 1953 and also changed public image of Ohki from a conservative patriotic composer to left-wing anti-imperialist.

Martin Stern 10:41 15 August 2007(CEST)

Possible addition

{{editprotected}}

The text:

"the status quo of conventional bombings and the Japanese occupations in Asia were causing tremendous loss of life."

could be made more specific by referring to the death toll in conventional bombing raids. For example, according to this reference in Bombing of Tokyo in World War II, the death toll from the conventional bombing raid on Tokyo in March 1945 was at least 80,000, and perhaps exceeded 100,000. (NB. the total death toll from the conventional bombing raid on Tokyo was higher than the total death toll from the atomic bombing of Nagasaki).

One suggestion would be the following replacement text:

"the status quo of conventional bombings and the Japanese occupations in Asia were causing tremendous loss of life with, for example, over 80,000 people killed in the bombing of Tokyo in March 1945."

Rnt20 12:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

? The mention about conventional bombings is already in the Manhattan Project section. Oda Mari 15:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've disabled the editprotected request while discussion continues. Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)