You can look up your own source. If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject.

A small distance away from 'ground zero' of the nuclear test sites there is basically zero difference in background radiation from elsewhere in the US in 2016.

Here's some data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/11/10/the-h...

This is from Norway - they were close to the very large and frankly unsafe tests the Russians did. It claims some health-hazard, but then admit that the effective exposure of the population from all that testing was the equivalent of 2 medical x-rays. Not entirely benign, but not a massive health hazard either - and this is back in the 1950's right after the testing was done.

The lingering effects from nuclear testing in SE USA are really, really small and from a health perspective, completely irrelevant.

An airline pilot will be exposed to significantly more radiation than anyone living near the test sites.

I mentioned 'continental testing' because most testing in the US is not 'high yield'. The tests they did out in the Pacific were orders of magnitude greater, and there are almost zero health effects for anyone but the surrounding animals, granted the effects on sea life is not immaterial.

In the grand scheme of things, nuclear tests are a non-starter in terms of public health. Nothing has come of it.

Nuclear energy is a little bit of a different story, but even there there is a lot of hysteria and misinformation.

> If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject.

Well, yes, obviously. That's why I asked.

> This is from Norway - they were close to the very large and frankly unsafe tests the Russians did. It claims some health-hazard, but then admit that the effective exposure of the population from all that testing was the equivalent of 2 medical x-rays.

That is such a misrepresentation that you are basically lying. The article says the effective exposure was equivalent to sixty X-ray mammograms, or two whole-body CT scans. A single CT scan has an estimated 1/2000 chance of causing a fatal cancer[1], a reasonable risk if it's used to diagnose a much more dangerous existing condition. The population of Norway in 1956 was 3,460,000--that means ~3,500 deaths from the equivalent of two unnecessary CT scans, in Norway alone.

Additionally, from your article, "Exposure to nuclear radiation during months three and four of pregnancy [due to fallout over Norway, 1956-1966] was associated with reduced educational attainment, high school completion, and adult earnings. Such exposures were also associated with reduced IQ scores among boys at 18 years of age. A one standard deviation increase in ground exposure reduced high school completion by about 1 percentage-point among men, and by about 2 percentage points among women."

> The tests they did out in the Pacific were orders of magnitude greater, and there are almost zero health effects for anyone but the surrounding animals

This is also a complete lie. Read any account of Castle Bravo alone, and the radiation poisoning and birth defects inflicted on the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands, which the US government covered up for decades.

[1] http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/diagnosis-staging/ct-scan...

You are clearly and intentionally being misleading. I'm kind of embarrassed for you.

> The exposure of the Norwegians was 2 medical xrays

A whole body CT scan delivers way significantly more radiation than a typical "medical xrays".

"The authors cite estimates that Norwegians in the hardest-hit areas were exposed to an annual radiation dose equivalent to about twice the dose one would receive from a whole-body computed tomography (CT) scan, and about 60 times the external dose from an X-ray mammogram."

Come on. That's not the same as getting an X Ray for a broken bone. This is a 1/1000 chance of fatal cancer directly from the radiation exposure.

Spare me your outrage. You used deliberately vague language to make a dangerous procedure used only in cases of pressing need sound like something safe and routine. This is playground lawyer stuff. You're not fooling anyone.

> Norwegian exposure was well within regular medical norms = fact.

No, now you're straight-up lying again. Norwegian exposure was double that of a dangerous and uncommon medical procedure.

And then you're completely ignoring my point about the Castle Bravo disaster and cover-up, and deploying argument-by-distraction. (Car crash deaths are bad! Therefore, cancer deaths don't matter!)

Let's get back to the original point. You said: "follow on health effects from nuclear testing on the continental USA are negligible. You're more at risk getting an x-ray at the dentists office." I clearly can't trust your unsourced statements on this subject, so I really would like to see a credible source, please.

> If you have to ask the question then you're not familiar with the subject.

If think of exposure to radio isotopes in terms of 'chest x-rays' you need to study more.

"having the world taken over by a ruthless Empire that has invaded an occupied dozens of nations, and actively overthrowing states to install vassal dictators?"

Wait, isn't this still happening or are you referring to the Soviet Union?

But his point, modern warfare saving us from the unfathomable horrors of the World Wars, is well worth even the true cost of the fallout from the nuclear testing.

If we're considering the potential cost of wars that didn't happen, we also need to consider the possibility for the Cold War to have escalated into nuclear Armageddon.

Quite certainly true. The ultimate and most insane gamble... which appears to have paid off, for now?