Exposing the Real Story of Hiroshima

Rewriting History

GPT Book Summary

Introduction

Hiroshima Revisited by Michael Palmer critically examines the official narrative surrounding the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, challenging the claim that these events were nuclear detonations. By analyzing physical evidence, eyewitness accounts, and scientific data, the book argues that the destruction in these cities was caused by conventional incendiary methods and chemical agents rather than atomic bombs. The text systematically dismantles the foundation of the nuclear narrative, emphasizing inconsistencies in fallout, survivor testimonies, and medical findings.

Summary

🌍 The Shaky Foundations of the Nuclear Myth

The Manhattan Project, claimed to have developed the world’s first atomic bombs, is scrutinized for its rapid timeline and untested methods. The purported success of “Little Boy,” a uranium bomb, is questioned, as it was deployed without prior testing. The Trinity Test, conducted in July 1945 with a plutonium device, becomes central to the narrative, but its limited relevance to Hiroshima raises doubts. The feasibility of enriching uranium to weapon-grade levels during the timeframe presented in the official story is also contested (Pages 1–3, 69–70).

🔥 Hiroshima’s Firestorm: Conventional Weapons in Disguise

Hiroshima’s destruction is attributed to extensive firebombing, consistent with tactics used in other Japanese cities such as Yokohama. Observers, including Alexander P. de Seversky, reported intact structures, undamaged bridges, and minimal blast damage near the hypocenter, incompatible with a nuclear explosion. Survivor testimonies describing a flash similar to a photographer’s magnesium light suggest photoflash bombs, not a nuclear device, were used. Scientific studies of fallout show minimal radioactive contamination, contradicting the nuclear hypothesis (Pages 3–10).

🌉 Nagasaki: Another City, Another Hoax

Nagasaki, bombed three days after Hiroshima, exhibited destruction patterns similar to conventional incendiary attacks. Fallout analysis from the Nishiyama Reservoir revealed isotope ratios inconsistent with nuclear detonation, supporting the reactor waste hypothesis. Symptoms of radiation sickness reported in survivors align more closely with chemical exposure to agents like sulfur mustard. These findings mirror observations in Hiroshima, further undermining the narrative of nuclear explosions (Pages 64–66).

⚛️ The Fallout That Wasn’t

Analysis of soil, black rain, and building materials from Hiroshima revealed negligible levels of cesium-137 and uranium-235. The minimal deviation from natural uranium isotope ratios suggests that the radioactive materials were not bomb-derived. Survivors located at or near the hypocenter exhibited no signs of radiation burns, further contradicting the official account. Studies by Shizuma et al. provided critical evidence of the absence of significant fallout, challenging the authenticity of the nuclear event claims (Pages 6–8).

💊 Radiation Sickness or Chemical Poisoning?

Survivor symptoms labeled as “radiation sickness” are reinterpreted as effects of sulfur mustard exposure. This chemical weapon causes burns, respiratory failure, and bone marrow suppression, closely mimicking radiation effects. The long-term persistence of symptoms and the spread of illness to those entering the city weeks later align with mustard gas’s properties. Medical findings, such as the absence of retinal burns in survivors who witnessed the flash, contradict expectations of a nuclear explosion (Pages 12–16).

👁️ Eyewitnesses to an Unfolding Deception

Eyewitness testimonies reveal critical inconsistencies. Survivors close to the hypocenter reported faint or inaudible explosions, contrasting with the catastrophic sound expected from a nuclear detonation. Observations of mushroom clouds are attributed to firestorms rather than a nuclear blast. Survivors frequently described a “peculiar odor” in the city, consistent with chemical weapon use, not radiation effects. These accounts challenge the reliability of the nuclear bombing narrative (Pages 8–14).

📑 Censored Truths: The Silencing of Alternative Narratives

The U.S. Military Censorship Office played a significant role in shaping public perception of the bombings. Reports suggesting alternative explanations, such as those by Masao Tsuzuki on mustard gas, were suppressed. Early journalists like Wilfred Burchett, who documented evidence of chemical poisoning, faced censorship and discrediting. These efforts ensured that the nuclear bombing narrative remained unchallenged in the immediate postwar period (Pages 12–14).

🔥 The Weaponry of Fire: Incendiaries and Chemical Agents

The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is placed in the context of widespread firebombing tactics used in Japanese cities. Incendiaries such as napalm and thermite caused devastating fires, capable of creating the scale of destruction observed in both cities. The use of mustard gas to simulate radiation effects is presented as a strategic choice to maintain the illusion of nuclear weapon deployment, reinforcing U.S. geopolitical dominance during the early Cold War (Pages 1–7, 12–16).

🎭 The Cold War Illusion: Motives Behind the Myth

The official narrative of nuclear bombings served a dual purpose: to justify the enormous expense of the Manhattan Project and to establish the U.S. as a superpower during the Cold War. The illusion of nuclear dominance provided a psychological advantage, bolstered by Japan’s collusion in promoting the narrative to avoid accountability for wartime atrocities. The suppression of contradictory evidence ensured the long-term acceptance of the nuclear myth (Pages 273–283).

📜 Rethinking History: Exposing the Hiroshima Hoax

Hiroshima Revisited dismantles the nuclear bombing narrative through rigorous analysis of physical evidence, medical findings, and survivor accounts. The book reveals the strategic use of conventional explosives and chemical agents to replicate the effects of a nuclear detonation. It highlights the motives behind the narrative’s perpetuation, emphasizing its geopolitical significance in the postwar era. By challenging the foundational myth of nuclear warfare, the text calls for a reevaluation of one of history’s most significant events.

FAQ

Q: Were the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki authentic atomic bomb detonations?
The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not authentic atomic bomb detonations. Evidence indicates the destruction was achieved through conventional means, including firebombing and incendiaries such as napalm. Observations by Alexander P. de Seversky concluded that Hiroshima’s devastation mirrored the aftermath of conventional air raids on other Japanese cities, with no distinct signs of nuclear explosion effects, such as complete vaporization or widespread structural collapse due to shockwaves. Further scientific and eyewitness evidence corroborates the absence of a nuclear detonation (Pages 1–21).

Q: How much uranium from the Hiroshima bomb was recovered in fallout?
The Hiroshima bomb, reportedly containing 50 kilograms of uranium-235, left almost no trace of uranium in fallout studies. Measurements of black rain traces revealed isotope ratios near natural uranium levels, with only negligible deviations. For example, in one sample, only 0.2% of the uranium could be attributed to bomb material. This result, combined with minimal detection of cesium-137, contradicts the expected radioactive signature of a nuclear detonation (Pages 6–8).

Q: What accounts for the symptoms labeled as “radiation sickness” in victims?
Symptoms resembling radiation sickness, such as bone marrow suppression, hair loss, and gastrointestinal distress, are explained by exposure to sulfur mustard gas. Sulfur mustard, used as a chemical weapon, closely mimics radiation effects by damaging rapidly dividing cells in the bone marrow, skin, and intestinal lining. Numerous survivor accounts and medical observations describe symptoms consistent with chemical poisoning, not radiation exposure. The lingering presence of poisonous gases in the city weeks after the bombing further supports this conclusion (Pages 10–16).

Q: Was there any evidence of a high-intensity nuclear blast at Hiroshima?
There was no evidence of a high-intensity nuclear blast. Alexander P. de Seversky, who surveyed Hiroshima, found the city’s damage to be consistent with firebombing. He observed intact structures, undamaged metal fixtures, and standing flagpoles within proximity of the supposed hypocenter, none of which could have survived a nuclear detonation. The absence of a clearly vaporized epicenter and minimal shockwave damage further disproves the claim of a nuclear explosion (Pages 3–5).

Q: Did the Hiroshima bomb create significant radioactive fallout?
The radioactive fallout from the Hiroshima bomb was far below the expected levels of a nuclear detonation. Scientific studies of soil and building materials showed minimal enrichment of uranium-235 or cesium-137, both of which should have been abundant if the bomb were nuclear. Fallout measurements suggested contamination consistent with reactor waste, not the byproducts of a nuclear explosion (Pages 7–8).

Q: How were eyewitness accounts of the bomb’s effects described?
Eyewitness testimonies displayed significant inconsistencies. Some survivors near the hypocenter reported seeing a bright flash but hearing no explosion, while others described the noise as faint, “like rain.” Observations of a mushroom cloud were attributed to city fires rather than a nuclear blast. Survivors’ descriptions of injuries and environmental damage aligned with incendiary attacks and chemical exposure rather than a nuclear detonation (Pages 8–10).

Q: What was the role of mustard gas in these events?
Mustard gas played a crucial role in mimicking radiation sickness effects. Clinical symptoms reported in survivors, including skin blistering, peeling, and respiratory issues, are hallmarks of mustard gas exposure. Masao Tsuzuki, a prominent Japanese physician, proposed the presence of poison gas in the bombing aftermath. This theory was supported by censored reports and consistent survivor accounts describing a “malodorous gas” in the city. The gas’s long-lasting effects also explained sickness in those entering the city weeks later (Pages 12–16).

Q: Why did medical findings in Hiroshima contradict expected nuclear effects?
Medical findings from Hiroshima contradicted expected nuclear effects in several ways. Survivors near the hypocenter reported no retinal burns, which would have been unavoidable had they witnessed a nuclear flash. Many individuals shielded only by wooden structures survived near the epicenter, contradicting the lethal effects of blast, heat, and radiation expected from a nuclear explosion. Cases of radiation sickness among individuals far outside the city or those entering it days later further challenge the nuclear narrative, as residual radiation levels were insufficient to cause such effects (Pages 16–18).

Q: What kind of destruction was observed in Hiroshima?
The destruction in Hiroshima reflected the characteristics of large-scale firebombing. The city’s predominantly wooden buildings were incinerated, creating widespread firestorms. However, concrete structures remained standing, and bridges near the hypocenter were intact, indicating that the destructive forces were consistent with incendiaries and not the shockwave or heat of a nuclear explosion. Observers noted a “pink carpet” effect caused by oxidized debris, common in firebombed cities but unrelated to nuclear events (Pages 5–7).

Q: Why is the official narrative of nuclear bombings considered a hoax?
The official narrative is considered a hoax due to overwhelming evidence against a nuclear detonation. Physical traces, such as the absence of radioactive fallout and structural damage, fail to support the claim. Medical observations align with chemical poisoning rather than radiation exposure. Eyewitness testimonies lack consistency with nuclear effects. The destruction patterns and environmental aftermath fit conventional firebombing and chemical attack strategies. These findings collectively disprove the authenticity of the nuclear bombing narrative (Pages 16–21).

People

Alexander P. de Seversky
De Seversky was a Russian-American pilot and aeronautical engineer who examined Hiroshima after the bombing. His observations revealed that Hiroshima’s destruction was indistinguishable from other Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing. He documented standing buildings, intact metal structures, and the absence of unique effects expected from a nuclear detonation. His findings, published in Air Power: Key to Survival, challenged the prevailing narrative and faced intense criticism (Pages 3–5).

Werner Heisenberg
Heisenberg, a prominent physicist and Nobel laureate, initially expressed skepticism about the authenticity of the atomic bombings. His doubts about the feasibility of the bomb and the immediate timing of its development reflected the initial hesitation of some experts to accept the official narrative (Page 1).

Masao Tsuzuki
Tsuzuki, a leading Japanese physician and member of the U.S.-Japanese Joint Commission, suggested that poison gas was used during the Hiroshima bombing. His reports, censored by U.S. authorities, documented accounts of victims inhaling gas with a pungent odor, causing respiratory and systemic symptoms. He later reaffirmed his position, noting the unexplained nature of the lingering gas (Pages 12–13).

Wilfred Burchett
Burchett, an Australian journalist, was the first independent reporter to document Hiroshima’s aftermath. He described a “peculiar odor” and gauze-masked survivors, attributing their symptoms to a poisonous gas. His accounts challenged the official explanation, suggesting environmental and chemical factors contributed to the devastation (Pages 13–14).

Toyofumi Ogura
Ogura, a survivor of the Hiroshima bombing, likened the flash of the explosion to the bright, bluish light of a photographer’s magnesium flash. His description aligns with the hypothesis that photoflash bombs, rather than a nuclear detonation, created the observed effects (Page 10).

Morton Camac
Camac, a physicist involved in early Manhattan Project experiments, recounted crude trial-and-error methods used to study uranium criticality. His testimony revealed the limitations and dangers of such experiments, contrasting the purported precision and success of the Hiroshima bomb’s design (Page 2).

Franklin Stahl
Stahl, a molecular biologist and contributor to the book’s foreword, shared personal experiences and reflections on the contradictions within the atomic bomb narrative. His insights highlighted inconsistencies in radiation effects and genetic damage studies, bolstering skepticism about the official account (Pages xiii–xiv).

Akio Nakatani
Nakatani, author of Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax, provided foundational arguments and evidence for questioning the feasibility of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. He proposed alternative explanations for the destruction and fallout, including the use of conventional explosives and reactor waste (Page 3).

John Hersey
Hersey, author of the book Hiroshima, recorded survivors’ testimonies, including discrepancies about the flash, blast, and sound of the explosion. His work documented phenomena inconsistent with a nuclear detonation, such as inaudible explosions and varying accounts of the event’s effects (Pages 8–10).

Shizuma et al.
This team of researchers conducted studies on uranium isotopes and cesium-137 levels in fallout samples. Their findings demonstrated minimal deviation from natural uranium levels and negligible radioactive contamination, directly challenging the claim of a nuclear explosion (Pages 6–8).

Organizations

Manhattan Project
The Manhattan Project was the U.S. government’s program claimed to have developed the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The timeline of its operations, from the discovery of nuclear fission in 1938 to the bombings in 1945, is scrutinized. The feasibility of achieving uranium enrichment and the technical sophistication required for bomb design during this period is questioned (Pages 1–3).

U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey documented the destruction of Japanese cities during World War II. Its reports included details on the use of incendiary bombs, such as napalm and thermite, as primary weapons in urban bombings. These findings supported the argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s destruction was consistent with conventional firebombing (Pages 10–11).

Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)
The ABCC was established to study the effects of the bombings on survivors. It collected data on acute radiation sickness, genetic damage, and long-term health effects. The accuracy and interpretation of its findings are challenged, as many reported symptoms are attributed to chemical exposure rather than radiation (Pages 211–217).

Joint Commission of U.S. and Japanese Medical Scientists
This commission investigated the medical consequences of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Japanese member Masao Tsuzuki raised concerns about the presence of poison gas during the attacks, but his reports were censored by U.S. authorities. The commission’s role in shaping postwar narratives about radiation effects is significant (Pages 12–13).

Red Cross
The International Red Cross played a critical role in documenting the immediate aftermath of the bombings. Its early reports included cases of individuals outside the blast zones or entering the city later, who developed symptoms resembling radiation sickness. These observations raised questions about the source and nature of contamination in Hiroshima (Page 17).

Imperial Japanese Government
The Imperial Japanese Government’s role in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings is examined, particularly claims of collusion. The government’s cooperation in promoting the atomic bomb narrative to avoid accountability for its wartime actions is suggested as a motive for its silence on alternative explanations (Pages 273–283).

Trinity Test Program
The Trinity Test, conducted in New Mexico, is the only confirmed nuclear test claimed to have occurred before the Hiroshima bombing. It is described as involving a plutonium bomb, raising doubts about the untested uranium bomb’s success in Hiroshima. The possibility of the Trinity Test being part of a staged program is also considered (Pages 10, 69).

U.S. Military Censorship Office
The U.S. Military Censorship Office controlled the dissemination of information about the bombings. It suppressed reports about gas exposure, eyewitness testimonies inconsistent with nuclear effects, and critiques from experts such as Alexander P. de Seversky. This organization ensured the official narrative remained unchallenged during the immediate postwar period (Pages 12–14).

Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge was central to uranium enrichment for the Manhattan Project. Questions about the feasibility of enriching uranium to bomb-grade levels during the short time frame preceding the Hiroshima bombing are raised, casting doubt on the official timeline of events (Pages 66–68).

Los Alamos Laboratory
Los Alamos was the primary site for designing and assembling the atomic bombs. The accounts of physicists involved in experiments, such as Morton Camac, suggest trial-and-error methods rather than the precision required for successful bomb deployment. This discrepancy questions the credibility of the official story (Pages 2–3).

Locations

Hiroshima, Japan
Hiroshima was the first city targeted during the purported atomic bombings on August 6, 1945. The city’s destruction is analyzed and attributed to large-scale firebombing with incendiaries rather than a nuclear explosion. Observations of intact structures near the hypocenter, minimal radioactive fallout, and the absence of vaporization or other nuclear effects challenge the official narrative. The city’s wooden construction made it particularly vulnerable to firestorm tactics (Pages 1–7).

Nagasaki, Japan
Nagasaki was the second city bombed on August 9, 1945. Like Hiroshima, its destruction aligns with patterns seen in conventional incendiary bombings. Reports of acute radiation sickness among survivors and those entering the city later are attributed to mustard gas exposure. The lack of a distinct nuclear detonation signature further questions the narrative of a plutonium bomb explosion (Pages 1–7, 64–66).

Trinity Test Site, New Mexico, USA
The Trinity Test, conducted on July 16, 1945, is described as the first successful detonation of a nuclear device. The use of a plutonium bomb in this test raises doubts about the viability of the untested uranium bomb allegedly used in Hiroshima. The test is central to claims that nuclear weapons technology existed but is also scrutinized for potential fabrication as part of the broader hoax narrative (Pages 69–70).

T-Bridge, Hiroshima
The T-Bridge served as the aiming point for the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Observers such as Alexander P. de Seversky reported that the area showed no signs of complete vaporization or obliteration. Intact structures and minimal impact near the bridge undermine claims of a nuclear detonation at this location (Page 5).

Nishiyama Reservoir, Nagasaki
The Nishiyama Reservoir area in Nagasaki was studied for radioactive fallout. Soil and sediment samples revealed inconsistent isotope ratios and minimal radioactive contamination, contradicting expectations of a nuclear explosion. The findings support the hypothesis of reactor waste dispersal rather than a bomb-generated fallout (Pages 64–65).

Koi Area, Hiroshima
The Koi area, located about 2 kilometers from the hypocenter, reportedly received the highest levels of radioactive fallout. Despite this, radiation levels were insufficient to cause acute sickness in those present. Symptoms observed in individuals entering this area later are consistent with mustard gas exposure, not residual radiation (Pages 17, 32).

Osaka University Hospital, Japan
This hospital treated patients evacuated from Hiroshima, providing critical observations of survivors’ conditions. Reports from American physician Keller documented a lack of consistency in symptoms attributed to radiation sickness and highlighted survivors’ proximity to the hypocenter, suggesting alternative causes such as chemical exposure (Pages 9–10).

Los Alamos Laboratory, New Mexico, USA
Los Alamos was the primary research site for the Manhattan Project. Claims of advanced nuclear weapon designs emerging from this location are contradicted by anecdotal evidence of crude trial-and-error experiments. These findings question the feasibility of the Hiroshima bomb’s development within the official timeline (Pages 2–3).

Bari, Italy
Bari is cited as an example of mustard gas deployment during World War II. A German airstrike on a U.S. transport carrying mustard gas caused widespread casualties among servicemen and civilians. The incident demonstrates U.S. familiarity with chemical weapons and supports the argument that mustard gas was used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to simulate radiation effects (Pages 14–15).

Yokohama, Japan
Yokohama is mentioned as one of several Japanese cities destroyed by firebombing before Hiroshima. Observers noted that the destruction in Hiroshima resembled the aftermath in cities like Yokohama, suggesting the use of similar incendiary tactics rather than a nuclear weapon (Page 4).

Timeline

1938
The discovery of nuclear fission is made, laying the foundation for the development of nuclear technology. This marks the theoretical beginning of atomic bomb research (Page 1).

1942
The Manhattan Project is formally established to develop nuclear weapons, with key sites at Los Alamos, Oak Ridge, and Hanford. Early experiments face significant technical challenges, particularly in uranium enrichment and bomb design (Pages 2–3).

1943
The Bari chemical disaster occurs in Italy, where a German airstrike hits a U.S. ship carrying mustard gas. The event demonstrates the lethal potential of chemical weapons and U.S. readiness to use them in wartime scenarios (Pages 14–15).

July 16, 1945
The Trinity Test is conducted in New Mexico, reportedly using a plutonium bomb. This is claimed as the first successful nuclear detonation, though the use of a uranium bomb in Hiroshima without prior testing raises doubts about its authenticity (Pages 69–70).

August 6, 1945
Hiroshima is bombed, allegedly with the uranium-based “Little Boy” atomic bomb. The destruction aligns with conventional firebombing tactics. Minimal radioactive fallout and survivors near the hypocenter contradict claims of a nuclear detonation. Symptoms of radiation sickness are later attributed to chemical agents like sulfur mustard (Pages 1–10).

August 9, 1945
Nagasaki is bombed with the plutonium-based “Fat Man” bomb. The destruction mirrors firebombing seen in other Japanese cities. Fallout analysis suggests reactor waste dispersal rather than a nuclear explosion. Acute radiation sickness symptoms in survivors are linked to chemical exposure (Pages 1–7, 64–66).

Late August–Early September 1945
American physician Keller studies Hiroshima survivors at Osaka University Hospital. His findings reveal inconsistencies in reported radiation sickness symptoms, challenging the narrative of a nuclear explosion (Pages 9–10).

September 1945
Wilfred Burchett, the first independent journalist in Hiroshima, reports on lingering chemical smells and survivors wearing gauze masks. He attributes the symptoms to poisonous gas, contradicting claims of radiation-induced illness (Pages 13–14).

1945–1946
The U.S. Military Censorship Office suppresses reports and eyewitness accounts inconsistent with the official narrative of nuclear bombings. This includes censored writings by Masao Tsuzuki, who proposed poison gas use during the Hiroshima attack (Pages 12–14).

1946
The U.S.-Japanese Joint Commission begins studying the bombings’ effects on survivors. Reports emphasize radiation sickness but fail to explain cases outside the immediate blast zone, supporting alternative hypotheses of chemical exposure (Pages 211–217).

1947
The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC) is established to conduct long-term studies of survivors. Its findings on radiation exposure and genetic effects are challenged, with observations more consistent with chemical agents like sulfur mustard (Pages 211–223).

Bibliography

Air Power: Key to Survival by Alexander P. de Seversky
De Seversky provides a detailed analysis of Hiroshima’s destruction, comparing it to conventional firebombing tactics. His observations of intact structures and the absence of nuclear-specific effects were central to debunking the official narrative of a nuclear explosion (Pages 3–5).

Death Object: Exploding the Nuclear Weapons Hoax by Akio Nakatani
This book offers foundational arguments against the feasibility of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings as nuclear events. Nakatani’s research emphasizes the use of conventional explosives and chemical agents to replicate nuclear effects (Page 3).

Hiroshima by John Hersey
Hersey documents the testimonies of Hiroshima survivors, capturing descriptions of the flash, blast, and aftermath. Many accounts contradict the nuclear narrative by aligning with phenomena caused by firebombing and chemical exposure (Pages 8–10).

The Effects of Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey
This official report describes the physical and environmental impact of the bombings. The findings on destruction patterns and minimal fallout inadvertently support firebombing as the primary method of destruction (Pages 10–11).

Studies by Shizuma et al.
This research analyzed uranium isotopes and cesium-137 levels in fallout samples. Results showing minimal radioactive contamination challenge the claim of nuclear detonations and point to reactor waste dispersal instead (Pages 6–8).

Reports from the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)
The ABCC conducted long-term health studies on Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors. Findings of inconsistent radiation sickness symptoms and limited genetic effects question the bombings’ nuclear authenticity (Pages 211–223).

Censored Reports by Masao Tsuzuki
Tsuzuki’s investigations into poison gas use during the bombings were suppressed by U.S. authorities. His documentation of sulfur mustard’s effects on survivors provides critical evidence for alternative explanations (Pages 12–13).

Wilfred Burchett’s Reports
Burchett, the first independent journalist in Hiroshima, recorded eyewitness accounts of gas-like smells and symptoms consistent with chemical exposure. His observations are essential to the argument against nuclear detonations (Pages 13–14).

Findings from the U.S.-Japanese Joint Commission
This commission studied the medical effects of the bombings, with reports suggesting radiation sickness while ignoring evidence of chemical agents. The censored contributions of Japanese scientists, including Tsuzuki, reveal gaps in the official narrative (Pages 211–217).

Eyewitness Testimonies
Testimonies from survivors, including those documented by John Hersey, highlight discrepancies in the flash, sound, and effects of the bombings. Descriptions of chemical smells and physical symptoms further support the firebombing and chemical exposure hypotheses (Pages 8–10, 13–14).

Glossary

Glossary in Hiroshima Revisited

Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC)
An organization established by the U.S. government to study the long-term health effects of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings on survivors. Its findings of radiation-related illnesses are challenged by evidence of chemical exposure and inconsistencies in reported symptoms (Pages 211–223).

Black Rain
A term used to describe the radioactive and soot-laden precipitation following the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Chemical analyses of the rain reveal minimal levels of uranium-235 and cesium-137, undermining claims of nuclear fallout (Pages 7–8).

Cesium-137
A radioactive isotope commonly associated with nuclear fallout. Studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki detected negligible amounts of cesium-137, suggesting that reactor waste or conventional materials, not a nuclear detonation, contributed to contamination (Pages 6–8).

Firebombing
A military tactic using incendiary devices such as napalm to cause widespread destruction. The patterns of devastation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki closely resemble those of other Japanese cities subjected to firebombing, challenging the nuclear narrative (Pages 1–7).

Flash Bomb
A type of explosive device that produces an intense flash of light. Survivor accounts likening the Hiroshima explosion to a photographer’s magnesium flash suggest the use of photoflash bombs rather than a nuclear detonation (Page 10).

Hypocenter
The point directly beneath the detonation of a bomb. Observations of minimal damage and intact structures near the hypocenter in Hiroshima question the claim of a nuclear explosion (Pages 3–5).

Manhattan Project
The U.S. research initiative that claimed to develop the first nuclear weapons. The program’s timeline and the feasibility of its achievements are heavily scrutinized in the book (Pages 2–3).

Mustard Gas
A chemical agent causing severe burns, respiratory distress, and symptoms mimicking radiation sickness. Evidence suggests mustard gas was used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to replicate the effects attributed to radiation exposure (Pages 12–16).

Napalm
A flammable gel used in incendiary bombs. The widespread destruction in Hiroshima is consistent with the use of napalm, which creates intense fires capable of devastating wooden structures (Pages 1–7).

Trinity Test
The first reported test of a nuclear device, conducted in New Mexico on July 16, 1945. The device tested was a plutonium bomb, raising doubts about the untested uranium bomb allegedly used in Hiroshima (Pages 69–70).