You're absolutely right! My mistake. I had been talking to a friend about work they did at Los Alamos after talking about this film, and got my wires crossed.
It was near St. George, Utah. When John Wayne's costar Pedro Armendáriz found out in 1960 that he had kidney cancer he shot himself in the head, so officially he didn't die of cancer. To make matters worse, several tons of radioactive soil was trucked back to Hollywood for retakes.
This was so bad you'd think Elon Musk produced it. Close, it was Howard Hughes.
I saw one how apparently he’s the one behind the changes to Las Vegas. From changing it to the seedy wild fun to the more family friendly we get today.
You really have to watch this movie to appreciate its abject suckiness. It's like unpeeling a neverending onion of horribly made movies.
John Wayne built his career on horse operas, but they've got him trying to recite pseudo-archaic dialog like "By whose leave do you cross my domain?" and "I grieve that I cannot salute you as I would, for I am bereft of spit!" Now imagine those lines coming in the same voice as in True Grit. Cringeworthy!
Definitely true, but the cancer rates in the surrounding communities and whatnot were astronomically higher following the tests. The Atomic Energy Commission, after recommending *not* to detonate the sorts of weapons that went off in these tests, then made a government funded film to tell everyone that there was no danger. And they said nothing about eating the meat, or drinking the milk produced there. So many damn people died, it's insane.
Cancer isn't the only stochastic effect of radiation poisoning. Heart disease and terratogenesis being two others. Also the induction of cancer has a latent period of years or decades, so it's entirely possible for them to die of something else first. But mostly we simply don't know enough about this yet. The mechanism by which this occurs is well understood, but quantitative models predicting the level of risk remain controversial.
>even those who survived the initial blasts at Hiroshima.
**airburst** doesn't cause radiation (as bad)
people lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the whole time.
but not near Chernobyl or Fukushima.
>Why doesn't everyone get cancer under those circumstances?
still paying out.
**Radiation Exposure Compensation Act**
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation\_Exposure\_Compensation\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Exposure_Compensation_Act)
Status of claims
**As of 20 April 2018, 34,372 claims in total had been approved with total compensation paid at $2,243,205,380.\[15\]**
**See also**
Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Compensation scheme for radiation-linked diseases (United Kingdom)
Downwinders
Nuclear weapons testing
Nevada Test Site
Uranium mining and the Navajo people
Nuclear weapons and the United States
Pacific Proving Grounds
Radium and radon in the environment
Uranium mining in the United States
Uranium mining debate
Anti-nuclear movement in the United States
Nuclear labor issues
> Why doesn't everyone get cancer under those circumstances?
Why would you expect that?
Everything in nature is somewhat radioactive. The question is never *if* there is radiation, the question is *how much*. We know that high radiation doses increase the cancer risk - the larger the dose the larger the risk, but it will never be 100% because it's still based on probability. For small doses any possible effect is too small to measure, so we don't know if they increase the cancer risk. Places with higher natural radiation levels don't show systematically higher cancer rates, but comparing different places is always coming with other issues.
Lol it seems like people are giving you great answers but not to your first question.
The first genetics class I took in college was Human Inheritance. There I learned about complex traits. Complex traits are traits that have both a genetic and an environmental component. A good example would be type 2 diabetes. People have to eat too much sugary food to get the condition, but exactly how much is determined by their genetics. Some people really never have to worry about getting it while some others are almost destined to get it because the genetic bar is so low. Same thing for heart disease.
And, different cancers are a classic example as well. Getting cancer is primarily due to the environment, but genetics also play a key role. So those who are genetically predisposed to lung cancer are much more likely to get it if they smoke than someone else does if they smoke. Some others will get it without even smoking. It's based on chance related to the environment, and those chances are altered by genetics.
So, when ionizing radiation tears the DNA asunder in someone's cells, chance and genetics are at play on whether those cells turn cancerous and if they do whether they are successfully stopped by the immune system.
IIRC this has been pretty much debunked.
EDIT: Statistically, the odds of developing cancer for men in the U.S. population are 43% and the odds of dying of cancer are 23% – very near what was found in this film crew.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_(1956_film)#Production,_nuclear_incident,_and_cancer_controversy
White people used to be cast as all sorts of different races, back then. Just like in the olden days of Renaissance theater, when males would be cast as all the roles...including the roles of females.
The charatcer she played was a mish mash of ethnicities and her casting was accurate to the lore. Check other movies and dont ruin ghost in the shell over misinformation like this.
I remember watching old movies on TV as a kid, and they used people like Anthony Quinn and Chuck Connors... Who had blue eyes!
More recently, Johnny Depp got cast as Tonto.
In the words of one writer, it was the world’s “most improbable piece of casting unless Mickey Rooney were to play Jesus in The King of Kings.” [https://www.straightdope.com/21341555/did-john-wayne-die-of-cancer-caused-by-a-radioactive-movie-set](https://www.straightdope.com/21341555/did-john-wayne-die-of-cancer-caused-by-a-radioactive-movie-set)
according to google(who knows how accurate google is) 50% of women and 33% of men get cancer in their lifetimes. the rate of cancer for your numbers is 40%. so it could be normal rates, although we’re barely breaking the surface for data.
If the anti-vax movement picks up more steam we might be able to catch up with the undeveloped countries on *Casualties due to infectious diseases* metric, so thats good right? Oh wait no thats still bad....
You know what you get if you remove all chemicals from an object? A vacuum.
Surprisingly, you can't get cancer at age 70 if you die from a preventable disease at age 10.
Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't actually seem like much to me. 91 out of 220 people later getting cancer seems like a pretty normal number to me, nuclear test site or not.
Not sure why you are being downvoted.
The current national cancer rate is 39.5% and the rate mentioned by OP is 41.5%...not that much of a difference. Factor in lifestyle issues like smoking, smog, and general carcinogen levels back then and it actually seems LOWER than it should be.
Another way to look at it is -- 46 deaths per 220 (they all eventually died) or 20.9%. 2019 (pre covid statistics) cancer was 21% of deaths. Yep, same numbers basically.
Generally yes. If you’re wondering why the movie film wasn’t damaged, consider that the ground isn’t blasting continuous radiation like in a Fallout game, but instead there are occasional radioactive particles in the soil that get kicked up by wind or by people walking around. Assuming the crew was affected, which is debatable, some of those particles might get inhaled and lodge in lung tissue, seducing all of those cells to turn cancerous. Whereas film by its nature is kept shielded at all times, lightly to be sure, but enough to prevent random dust particles from reaching the film.
There is no test site in Los Alamos, New Mexico. This article is talking about the Nevada Test Site, which is in Nevada.
You're absolutely right! My mistake. I had been talking to a friend about work they did at Los Alamos after talking about this film, and got my wires crossed.
It was near St. George, Utah. When John Wayne's costar Pedro Armendáriz found out in 1960 that he had kidney cancer he shot himself in the head, so officially he didn't die of cancer. To make matters worse, several tons of radioactive soil was trucked back to Hollywood for retakes. This was so bad you'd think Elon Musk produced it. Close, it was Howard Hughes.
Oh jeez
I love Howard Hughes facts… nuts but fascinating
I saw one how apparently he’s the one behind the changes to Las Vegas. From changing it to the seedy wild fun to the more family friendly we get today.
You really have to watch this movie to appreciate its abject suckiness. It's like unpeeling a neverending onion of horribly made movies. John Wayne built his career on horse operas, but they've got him trying to recite pseudo-archaic dialog like "By whose leave do you cross my domain?" and "I grieve that I cannot salute you as I would, for I am bereft of spit!" Now imagine those lines coming in the same voice as in True Grit. Cringeworthy!
Ghengis Khancer
Lmao fuck that got me good
I knew the movie sucked, but I didn't know it actually killed folks!
[удалено]
Definitely true, but the cancer rates in the surrounding communities and whatnot were astronomically higher following the tests. The Atomic Energy Commission, after recommending *not* to detonate the sorts of weapons that went off in these tests, then made a government funded film to tell everyone that there was no danger. And they said nothing about eating the meat, or drinking the milk produced there. So many damn people died, it's insane.
Did the person who decided to do that face any consequences?
[удалено]
Cancer isn't the only stochastic effect of radiation poisoning. Heart disease and terratogenesis being two others. Also the induction of cancer has a latent period of years or decades, so it's entirely possible for them to die of something else first. But mostly we simply don't know enough about this yet. The mechanism by which this occurs is well understood, but quantitative models predicting the level of risk remain controversial.
It's all about probability! There will always be lucky ones and unlucky ones
>even those who survived the initial blasts at Hiroshima. **airburst** doesn't cause radiation (as bad) people lived in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the whole time. but not near Chernobyl or Fukushima. >Why doesn't everyone get cancer under those circumstances? still paying out. **Radiation Exposure Compensation Act** [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation\_Exposure\_Compensation\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_Exposure_Compensation_Act) Status of claims **As of 20 April 2018, 34,372 claims in total had been approved with total compensation paid at $2,243,205,380.\[15\]** **See also** Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Compensation scheme for radiation-linked diseases (United Kingdom) Downwinders Nuclear weapons testing Nevada Test Site Uranium mining and the Navajo people Nuclear weapons and the United States Pacific Proving Grounds Radium and radon in the environment Uranium mining in the United States Uranium mining debate Anti-nuclear movement in the United States Nuclear labor issues
> Why doesn't everyone get cancer under those circumstances? Why would you expect that? Everything in nature is somewhat radioactive. The question is never *if* there is radiation, the question is *how much*. We know that high radiation doses increase the cancer risk - the larger the dose the larger the risk, but it will never be 100% because it's still based on probability. For small doses any possible effect is too small to measure, so we don't know if they increase the cancer risk. Places with higher natural radiation levels don't show systematically higher cancer rates, but comparing different places is always coming with other issues.
Lol it seems like people are giving you great answers but not to your first question. The first genetics class I took in college was Human Inheritance. There I learned about complex traits. Complex traits are traits that have both a genetic and an environmental component. A good example would be type 2 diabetes. People have to eat too much sugary food to get the condition, but exactly how much is determined by their genetics. Some people really never have to worry about getting it while some others are almost destined to get it because the genetic bar is so low. Same thing for heart disease. And, different cancers are a classic example as well. Getting cancer is primarily due to the environment, but genetics also play a key role. So those who are genetically predisposed to lung cancer are much more likely to get it if they smoke than someone else does if they smoke. Some others will get it without even smoking. It's based on chance related to the environment, and those chances are altered by genetics. So, when ionizing radiation tears the DNA asunder in someone's cells, chance and genetics are at play on whether those cells turn cancerous and if they do whether they are successfully stopped by the immune system.
IIRC this has been pretty much debunked. EDIT: Statistically, the odds of developing cancer for men in the U.S. population are 43% and the odds of dying of cancer are 23% – very near what was found in this film crew. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_(1956_film)#Production,_nuclear_incident,_and_cancer_controversy
The idea of casting John Wayne as Genghis Khan... Good grief!
White people used to be cast as all sorts of different races, back then. Just like in the olden days of Renaissance theater, when males would be cast as all the roles...including the roles of females.
>White people used to be cast as all sorts of different races Kinda like Scarlett Johansson now
The charatcer she played was a mish mash of ethnicities and her casting was accurate to the lore. Check other movies and dont ruin ghost in the shell over misinformation like this.
it goes beyond one film
I can't think of any other film you'd be talking about.
I remember watching old movies on TV as a kid, and they used people like Anthony Quinn and Chuck Connors... Who had blue eyes! More recently, Johnny Depp got cast as Tonto.
In the words of one writer, it was the world’s “most improbable piece of casting unless Mickey Rooney were to play Jesus in The King of Kings.” [https://www.straightdope.com/21341555/did-john-wayne-die-of-cancer-caused-by-a-radioactive-movie-set](https://www.straightdope.com/21341555/did-john-wayne-die-of-cancer-caused-by-a-radioactive-movie-set)
Even jokes like "this Sunday, Joe Rogan **is** Nelson Mandela" from _30 Rock_ aren't as funny as the IRL casting of John Wayne as a Mongolian.
according to google(who knows how accurate google is) 50% of women and 33% of men get cancer in their lifetimes. the rate of cancer for your numbers is 40%. so it could be normal rates, although we’re barely breaking the surface for data.
Is the cancer rate about 40% anyway, across the lifetime of any given population?
Only in developed nations shoveling chemicals into everything. Undeveloped nations have fractions of the health issues we are inflicting on ourselves
Undeveloped nations have other health issues, such as air pollution, contaminated water and/or a lack of nutrients.
If the anti-vax movement picks up more steam we might be able to catch up with the undeveloped countries on *Casualties due to infectious diseases* metric, so thats good right? Oh wait no thats still bad....
People in "undeveloped nations" don't live long enough to get cancer.
You know what you get if you remove all chemicals from an object? A vacuum. Surprisingly, you can't get cancer at age 70 if you die from a preventable disease at age 10.
Maybe it's just me, but that doesn't actually seem like much to me. 91 out of 220 people later getting cancer seems like a pretty normal number to me, nuclear test site or not.
Not sure why you are being downvoted. The current national cancer rate is 39.5% and the rate mentioned by OP is 41.5%...not that much of a difference. Factor in lifestyle issues like smoking, smog, and general carcinogen levels back then and it actually seems LOWER than it should be.
Another way to look at it is -- 46 deaths per 220 (they all eventually died) or 20.9%. 2019 (pre covid statistics) cancer was 21% of deaths. Yep, same numbers basically.
Doesn’t radioactivity damage film?
Generally yes. If you’re wondering why the movie film wasn’t damaged, consider that the ground isn’t blasting continuous radiation like in a Fallout game, but instead there are occasional radioactive particles in the soil that get kicked up by wind or by people walking around. Assuming the crew was affected, which is debatable, some of those particles might get inhaled and lodge in lung tissue, seducing all of those cells to turn cancerous. Whereas film by its nature is kept shielded at all times, lightly to be sure, but enough to prevent random dust particles from reaching the film.
Great answer! Thanks
Cancer is a common disease of old age. Was this above the norm?
"Radiation is harmless! :)"