Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:07, 8 August 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:FAOL

Japan A‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 06:12, January 12, 2025 (JST, Reiwa 7) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Japan to do list: edit history watch purge Peer review: None A-class review: None Featured content candidates –  Articles: None Pictures: None Lists: None Good article nominations: Vinland Saga (TV series), Godzilla Minus One Add requested images to articles that need them. Pages for Deletion: Participate in Japan-related deletion discussions. Improve and expand Japan-related stubs. Create some requested articles. Help translate an article from the Japanese Misplaced Pages into English. Assess unassessed articles

Military history: Aviation / Technology / Weaponry / Asian / Japanese / North America / United States / World War II Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force Asian military history task force Japanese military history task force North American military history task force United States military history task force World War II task force

Archives
Discussion archive 1 Discussion archive 2 Discussion archive 3 Discussion archive 4 Discussion archive 5 Discussion archive 6 Discussion archive 7 Discussion archive 8 Discussion archive 9 Discussion archive 10 Discussion archive 11 Discussion archive 12 Discussion archive 13

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 ] to ], 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)

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: ] 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 ] 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, and "the total number of estimated radiation related excess noncancer deaths is about 50–100% the number of estimated radiation related cancer deaths". 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages). -- 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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) , 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)

I restored my comments on this Talp 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)

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 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 and about 25% of the distally exposed . However, these percentages are not precise because the census did not include recording of the place of exposure.

—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 -- Boracay Bill 23:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The source provided here is accurate, this is also a good one: ; 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.". I saw the , 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. ] ] And please read this ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 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. , page14, page7, and .

To LordAmeth and Flying Tiger. Please look at Advertising the Destructionof Hiroshima and the bigger picture .

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" :-(

Estimated Deaths

At this point, I think the subject of estimated deaths due to the bombs in given time periods should be separated from the Radiation heading. This is the subject of the second paragraph, which needs some fixing.

First, the first sentence is a stream of personal opinion and strikes me as unnecessary: "In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda." I propose deleting it. We can simply cite the range of official estimates and let the reader draw conclusions about the difficulty, political agendas, etc. Or we can cite a source-discussion of the problem of estimating deaths.

There seem to be four standard time periods for estimating deaths: the immediate time of the blast; the few months afterwards or end of the year; the next five years; and post-1950. The only numbers I've seen for post-1950 are the RERF study cited by Gtadoc, which restricts itself to cancer and leukemia deaths, and to a chosen cohort. I didn't see an extrapolation from the cohort results to total deaths.

The sources which are of interest merely because of who they are are the US government and the Japanese government. I'd like to find offical estimates from the Japanese government.

The DOE publishes these estimates: 1) Immediate blast: Hiroshima 70,000; Nagaskai 40,000 2) End of the year: Hiroshima 100,000; Nagasaki 70,000 3) By 1950: Hiroshima 200,000; Nagasaki 140,000 http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

The phrasing used by the DOE to describe delayed deaths is "the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects...cancer and other long-term effects"

The RERF study only makes a comprehensive claim about total deaths for the period within "two to four months" of the bombs, i.e. end of the year. Those numbers support the DOE's: Hiroshima 90,000-140,000 Nagaskai 60,000-80,000 http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html

Note the phrasing used here is "deaths that occurred later from burns and radiation exposure."

So, I propose something like the following for the second paragraph:

The bombing of Hirshima killed approximately 100,000 people within four months, due to immediate effects of the blast and after-effects such as burns and radiation. . The United States Department of Energy estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are generally 30% lower.. Almost all the deaths were civilians.

Proposed deletions: Ref. 1 (it's based on the RERF study, already cited), Ref. 3 (nothing to do with the subject of this paragraph), and Ref. 9 (unclear, probably derived from the sources already mentioned)

I'm not sure if there is a system for preferring the ref format or the direct link, when the ref. is a Web page.

Please discuss this proposal without misrepresenting sources, treating the encycolpedia as a forum for your personal expertise, or pushing a thinly-veiled political agenda. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)

Actually, upon further review, it looks like the Fox News story is useful because it cites Japanese estimates for immediate deaths at Nagasaki, and official Japanese estimates belong in the entry alongside USA estimates, when possible. So I propose the following for the second paragraph:

The bombing of Hirshima killed approximately 100,000 people within four months, due to immediate effects of the blast and after-effects such as burns and radiation. . The United States Department of Energy estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are generally 30% lower. . The DOE estimates 40,000 died at Nagaskai from immediate blast effects, whereas the offical Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range . Almost all the deaths were civilians.

The Fox News story still has the problem of not specifying the time period, but from the comment that many of the remains of the victims were never found, I infer it refers to immediate blast effectsBsharvy 01:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of what you're saying, a lot of people have opinions about this but most of them don't know much about it beyond the general idea that "nuclear weapons are wrong and the war could have been won without them". I'd personally like to see more discussion about the damage already inflicted by months of firebombing and the conditions coming closer to famine as the US mining and submarine campaigns had sunk around 85% of their merchant fleet. (This could be WP:OR so I'm not advocating including it but I doubt Downfall would have been as bad casualty wise for the Allies as it was planned. People who are starving generally aren't able to put up much of a defense, had they just kept up the bombing/blockade combination for another six months even if they didn't surrender those left alive would be pretty easy to overcome.
As innocuous as that sounds, it would have killed hundreds of thousands more civilians either in firestorms or famine.)

It's easy for me to see why, given their already bad situation, the introduction of nuclear warfare was a strong factor in deciding to surrender. Anynobody 09:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Since I don't believe Bsharvy or his sockpuppet is going to be a productive contributor to this discussion I will answer posts from anyone else. At the moment we have a technical question already answered by authoritative, scientific sources being disputed by a random history page that is not clear (nor an official position of any government, as the already cited National Academies reports were commissioned and accepted by the US government and most of the world). Since it is a scientific subject I understand that it will be difficult for some editors to read/understand the material, however I hope civility can be maintained (as it was in the past on this topic). Someone asked for the Japanese version, it is called the Lifespan Study ]. I will link to the page that has a variety of reports, however, if you'd like they have a simple FAQ section here ]. The "version" by the national academies (i.e. the one considered authoritative) is here: ] (intro and the several pages that follow). I would be fine with someone wanting to increase the numbers in the intro about the death toll, as long as they don't make statements contrary to sources by trying to claim the deaths were from radiation and not other factors. Also, as this page is getting confusing with editing being done within discussion instead of at the bottom if you have a specific question for me feel free to ask on my talk page. Gtadoc 14:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What??? What??? this edit, which had an edit summary of "Radiation - removing diatribe per WP:NPA also leaving warning on editer Wtmitchell|Boracay Bill talk page" was followed by this threat on my talk page. How did I get dragged into this? I demand (yes, DEMAND) an apology! -- Boracay Bill 00:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

yes you were warned. If you continue to make personal attacks instead of commenting on content a request to block your account will be made to an admin. Please read the noted policy and follow it. Thank you. Gtadoc 13:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Size concern

The article has become quite large according to WP:SIZE. To fix this I think summary style should be followed and a spin-off article called Debate over bombings, or something like it, be created. The main article then discusses only the actual bombings. Anynobody 03:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Template:RFChist

There is undo/revert war between the following second paragraphs:

In estimating the number of deaths caused by the attacks, there are several factors that make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures: inadequacies in the records given the confusion of the times, and the pressure to either exaggerate or minimize the numbers, depending upon political agenda. The United States Department of Energy estimates that, at Hiroshima, the death toll from the immediate blast was roughly 70,000, with additional deaths occuring in the time soon after the explosion and in the decades that followed. The figures for Nagasaki are slightly less. Other estimates vary widely, and are as low as 74,000 for Nagasaki. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

And...

The bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of the blast, and approximately another 30,000 within four months, due to after-effects such as burns and radiation. . The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are generally 30% lower. The DOE estimates 40,000 died at Nagaskai from immediate blast effects, whereas the offical Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range. Other estimates vary widely . In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsharvy (talk • contribs)

RFC responses

Upon further review, my inclination is to agree with the consensus, and to disagree with Bsharvy, but perhaps there is some unexpressed reason for Bsharvy's version? THF 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I am the author of the second; it is an edit of a slightly older version of the first. I have no strong objection to the first, except it avoids any estimate of total deaths, and the first sentence is a blend of POV and OR. I want to add specificity, such as estimates for the death toll due to radiation, burns, and other after-effects, for various time periods. The estimates given in the second version are attributed to the same sources used in the first version (DOE and RERF), so I don't understand the objections. If there is to be an opinion about how difficult it is to estimate deaths--and why--it should be it should be attributed to a reliable source. Also, one of the references in the first version doesn't seem to have any relevance to death estimates at Hiroshima and Nagaskai.Bsharvy 15:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In essence, my goal is to replace "with additional deaths occuring in the time soon after the explosion and in the decades that followed" with some specific estimates, and that can be done using the sources already provided. Also, the POV and OR needs to be removed or cited. (I'm not sure what you mean by "the consensus"...there is no consensus; it is a two-person disagreement.) I am also not sure what you mean by "unexpressed reason"--I created the entire section on Death Estimates to express the reasons. Bsharvy 15:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous consensus that myself and about 6 other editors were working with is here ] ; after the Bsharvy edit it was changed to the current version ] in order to try to keep some of the useful changes that had been made since then while removing the added content. I do agree that the pov statement about politics needed to be removed, there was also agreement as to the numbers involved and causes of death with accurate numbers from high quality sources. Gtadoc 16:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that the POV is removed, I have no strong objection to the first version (other than an irrelevant reference). I want to add to it. I have been effectively disallowed from adding to it by Gtadoc's undos. I want to add the United States' estimate of total deaths up to 1950; I can't imagine why an editor should be disallowed from adding the US government's estimates of total deaths in a US government military action in the Misplaced Pages entry for that military action. What the US government says about its own action is of interest in itself; if Gtadoc thinks it is wrong, he should add to the entry by saying "Such-and-such research contradicts these figures." Instead he just keeps undoing what I wrote. The most reliable figures we have, because they come from BOTH main sources, are the estimates of deaths by the end of 1945. So I want to add that information, but that too has been prevented by Gtadoc's undos. I want to add information about official Japanese estimate of the deaths, because that balances the US estimates and is of interest in itself; but that information too is being blocked by these undos. Why should an editor be blocked from adding official Japanese estimates of deaths in the bombing of Nagasaki in the entry for the bombing at Nagasaki? It's absurd. Again: All of the additions I've made come from the exact same sources already used in the current version. I have just added specific numbers to the entry.Bsharvy 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Bsharvy, please take the time to read through the prior discussion back in archive 7, and especially have a look at the casualties table. The consensus back then was that—for the article lead—the most appropriate sources for casualty estimates were either Hiroshima and Nagasaki: The Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bombings 1979/1981 (Hiroshima 140k, Nagasaki 70k by end of '45) or Richard Frank's summary in Downfall (exact numbers will never be known, but probably 100–100k). The casualty estimates on this page are often contentious, and we should take some particular care to ensure we use the highest quality sources available and not to misrepresent what they say.—eric 18:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in those figures contradicts the edit I made. As I've said (over and over and over), nothing in the edit I made contradicts the sources already in use. In addition, what the US government says about a US government action is of interest in itself. What the government of Japan says on this topic is of interest in itself. If some editors don't think the government numbers are reliable, they should add some statements and documentation to that effect. The meaning of being a contentious issue is that we should provide balance and represent all sides. What could possibly be the point of objecting to my edit on the grounds that the consensus estimates are Hiroshima 140k, Nagasaki 70k for the end of 1945, when those numbers are consistent with what my edit says? I am trying to add those estimates to the article. Please read the actual text in question.Bsharvy 18:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Which simply tells me you didn't read the sources, unfortunately, they directly contradict your first claim about death being from radiation. Also, you keep refering to what the "US" says, yet do you realize what the National Academies are? If you want to include your alternative theories that might be possible, but the intro is not the place for it. Several editors had been working on the exact wording for a while before this...Gtadoc 21:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Gtadoc is undoing two types of information in the proposed edit: casualty numbers attributable to the bomb by the end of 1945 and the end of 1950, and 2) the claim that some of those deaths are due to radiation. The rationale for these undos is the RERF Lifespan Study. I have addressed this source so many times, in every possible way that applies to my edit, that I am sick of it. I will simply cut and paste the responses I have already made regarding RERF and my edit. These are the verbatim responses already made.
1. 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..." (August 3)
2. 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... (August 4)
3. ...only reports deaths in a cohort that it studied and makes no estimate of the total deaths from radiation effects. (August 4)
4. 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.... (August 3)
5. ....It doesn't contradict the claim that the blast at Hiroshima killed roughly 75,000... (August 4)
6. ...that a total of 100,000 died by the end of the year, (August 4)
7. ...or that up to 200,000 died within the first five years after the bomb. So please stop deleting those figures from the entry. (August 4)
8. The study of cancer rates after 1950 is irrelevant, because 1) the topic is not limited to death from cancer,... (August 4)
9. ...the topic is not limited to deaths after 1950. (August 4)
10. 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. (August 4)
11. ...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... (August 5)
12. ...that one reference explicitly states its numbers only apply to the cohort it studied not all deaths at Hiroshima, (August 5)
13. ...the topic is simply the total number of deaths attributable to the bomb in given time periods (August 5)
14. ...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 (August 5)
15. What the US government says about its own action is of interest in itself; if Gtadoc thinks it is wrong, he should add to the entry by saying "Such-and-such research contradicts these figures." Instead he just keeps undoing what I wrote. (August 6)
16. Again: All of the additions I've made come from the exact same sources already used in the current version. I have just added specific numbers to the entry. (August 6)
17. As I've said (over and over and over), nothing in the edit I made contradicts the sources already in use. (August 6)

So, I've addressed the idea that RERF Lifespan Study refutes the casualty numbers in the 1945-50 time period 17 times in the last 5 days. The only response has been a repetitive assertion that my edit contradicts the scientific literature, and immediate undos of my edit. What exactly do I have to do to get these points addressed? Make them 17 times in one hour? DONE.

The other question is how to characterize causes of death, e.g. radiation. I have already addressed that several times. Again, cut/paste....
1. The phrasing used by the DOE to describe delayed deaths is "the lingering effects of radioactive fallout and other after effects...cancer and other long-term effects" (August 6)
2. Note the phrasing used here is "deaths that occurred later from burns and radiation exposure." (August 6)
Did my edit misrepresent the idea? The phrasing in my edit:
3. "after-effects such as burns and radiation."
4. "cancer and other long-term effects"

Nonetheless, I am being constantly accused of misrepresenting or ignoring sources; Gtadoc claims I attribute deaths solely to radiation. He claims the sources say there were no significant deaths to radiation. His is misrepresenting the sources and mischaracterizing my actions, my discussion, and my contributions. It is impossible to believe he is not lying. He knows the limits of the RERF source: they has been pointed out to him 17 times in five days. He knows the sources attribute some of the deaths to radiation. He knows my edit did not attribute them solely to radiation. I posted my edit in Talk first and he has undone my edit repeatedly; presumably he has read it repeatedly. This entire process has been a travesty of communication, sincerity and integrity.
References already used in the article for deaths attributed to radiation and other effects:
http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/qa1.html
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/hiroshima.htm

There is not a single claim or source anywhere in the edit I made that violates any policy or that is contradicted by any scientific literature presented anywhere in this discussion. Period. The Lifespan study only addresses the post-1950 period. The claim that some of the delayed deaths in the first months and years are due to radiation comes from both the sources already in use in the article. One, the DOE, is of interest for its own sake; there is also no evidence discrediting it. The other is a consensus "high-quality" source. This edit should be a non-issue. Bsharvy 05:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but has anyone here read; The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagaski report by the US Strategic Bombing Survey? The numerical accuracy of casualties is acknowledged as being imperfect:

The exact number of dead and injured will never be known because of the confusion after the explosions. Persons unaccounted for might have been burned beyond recognition in the falling buildings, disposed of in one of the mass cremations of the first week of recovery, or driven out of the city to die or recover without any record remaining. No sure count of even the pre-raid populations existed. Because of the decline in activity in the two port cities, the constant threat of incendiary raids, and the formal evacuation programs of the Government, an unknown number of the inhabitants had either drifted away from the cities or been removed according to plan.

— USSBS, 1946

However the allegations that casualty figures are politically motivated is nonsensical, if the US was out to sanitize it's image would it's report refer to the larger amount of destruction inflicted by firebombing? I therefore propose a paragraph which mentions the uncertainty of casualty figures for circumstantial but not overt political reasons.

In estimating an exact number of deaths caused by the attacks, several factors make it difficult to arrive at reliable figures. No sure count of populations existed prior to the raids combined with a decline in activity of both cities, constant threat of firebombing raids, and formal evacuation programs of the Government, an unknown number of inhabitants had either left the cities or been removed according to plan. The bombing of Hiroshima killed approximately 70,000 people due to immediate effects of heat and blast, while approximately 30,000 others died within four months, from their wounds, radiation or a combination of both. . The United States Department of Energy (DOE) estimates that as many as 200,000 may have died from cancer and other long-term effects by 1950. The numbers for Nagasaki are lower, owing mostly to the city's unique terrain. DOE estimates approximately 40,000 died at Nagasaki from immediate blast effects, whereas the official Japanese numbers are in the 75,000 range. Other estimates vary widely, into five figures. In both cities, the overwhelming majority of the deaths were civilians.

Anynobody 23:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the inability to know for sure. Notice, that the DOE source (the low quality source, i.e. random history page) is unspecific as to the causes of death, it just gives numbers. It does say deaths occured around 4-8 weeks after the bombing (i.e. refering to acute leukemia as prodromal syndrome only takes 1-2 weeks) and again, doesn't give numbers. We are left with words like "long term effects" which for as far as we know means malnutrition. Fortunately, the US government report (BEIR 7) and the joint US/Japanese report (Lifespan study) both give us specific numbers about radiation; from that it would be unappropriate for any editors to try to say that any additional deaths are due to radiation beyond what is evidenced in both of these sources. So while it may be the consenus to include a large death toll number in the lead (if sourced properly) it would not follow that radiation could be blamed for those deaths when the two high quality sources contradict that. Gtadoc 23:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

That's right, deaths weeks or months after the event can not be assumed to always result solely from ionizing radiation. Japan was a mess, to put it mildly, and was mostly cut off from receiving food and medical supplies ensuring the wounded had less chances to survive.

Would it be a good idea to explain the difference in fallout between an airburst and ground level detonation. Since the latter generates a lot more radioactive fallout, I think people may not understand the specifics about radiation and nuclear weapons. Anynobody 05:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if the intro would be the place for that, and as my particular expertise in this field is the effects of radiation on cells/organisms then you might be a better person to write it into the body. I'm going to go back and look in more detail at the sources that were previously used here before the changes (by previous concensus) to see if anything additional pops out at me (its been a while since I've looked at historical, rather than scientific literature on the subject). Gtadoc 05:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding the opinion that estimates are difficult is OK as long the opinion isn't originating with an editor: it needs to be sourced, say to the USSBS (a very old source) or RERF. Gtadoc's statements about the sources are misleading. The sources do attribute the deaths mentioned to radiation and other aftereffects, they do mention causes, and the Lifespan study is not relevant because it studies a different time period and doesn't estimate total deaths. Also, there are not 2 studies, RERF and BEIR 7; the BEIR 7 uses the RERF study. He is consistently misrepresenting the sources. We should establish which sources to use for the casualty estimates, and what those sources say, before we layer on information about the physics of different kinds of fallout. Bsharvy 06:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not my fault if you don't understand the sources, there is nothing I can do about that. BEIR 7 uses the lifespan study and (along with the other BEIR reports) all the available evidence from the time period as well as evidence from other exposures to make its conclusions. It very clearly gives death estimates from radiation which is what we are discussing. Also, the sources that were already cited previously before your edits were agreed upon here as being of the best quality and the most accurate number. I believe may have directed you to read those, have you yet? There is no reason to move away from what was in the article in the first place, and the change you wanted to make about radiation is not supported. Please also read this when you get the chance ]. As a side note, the random DOE history page referenced in the article is in the process of being rewritten, I expect to see it changed in the near future. Gtadoc 15:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protected

The revert war today has led to Bsharvy receiving a 24-hour block for four reverts. In investigating this case I have decided that the disputes outlined above are severe enough that the page should be fully protected until he, Gtadoc and other interested parties can work out a compromise. I would advise eneryone to just cool off and edit other articles until Bsharvy's block expires and you can continue in the direction above. Don't hesitate to seek further outside intervention such as mediation or 3O if you feel things getting out of control again. Daniel Case 02:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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 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/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)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• A-Class Japan-related articles
• Top-importance Japan-related articles
• WikiProject Japan articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class military aviation articles
• Military aviation task force articles
• Start-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
• Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
• Start-Class weaponry articles
• Weaponry task force articles
• Start-Class Asian military history articles
• Asian military history task force articles
• Start-Class Japanese military history articles
• Japanese military history task force articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• Start-Class World War II articles
• World War II task force articles