--- Keith Nagel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This seems a bit weak... > > "Residual radiation exposures in this area are > unknown, as Port Chicago was used also as a > decontamination port for ships exposed to > nuclear blasts in the Marshall Islands"
Unknown? At the time of the explosion, nuclear weapons were unknown to the public, of course, and no one was thinking of radiation dangers or cancer. However, Contra Costa county, where the explosion occurred, has had an unusual cancer rate as far back as records started to be kept. See if you can find the March 28, 1982 New York Times article. It has been reported locally several times that Contra Costa county still has the highest cancer rate in North America, but I can't verify that online. And obviously the Chamber of Commerce would want to hide the fact if possible. Plus it was reported that the site of the explosion was thoroughly dredged to a depth of 20 feet below the crater within a week or the incident and the mud deposited near the Farallon Islands, which supposedly has the highest residual radioactivity of any offshore marine site in the USA - higher even than Bikini Atoll, according to the Sierra Club. I know, not exactly an unbiased source. And of course some of that radioactivity could have been more recent, as LBNL and LLNL have probably made more than a few 'midnight runs' out there. When I was younger and a little more fit, it's a place that was fund to sail out to - so I'm probably overexposed as well. The radioactivity is definitely in the adjacent area, that is for sure, even if not high at ground zero. But I doubt you would find anything abnormal at Hiroshima now either. Jones
