WARNING SPOILERS: SPECTRE Plot hole?

135

Comments

  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Not a mark on him and he is so exhausted that he jumps into bed with Swan ASAP, the contrast to the shower seen in CR is for all to see. Its a very different Bond but its still DC. What other Bond went though such dramatic changes in terms of the way they reacted to events?

    The DC Bond is the only one to show a breadth of character. He's clearly not the same man as the he was in CR, quite different and carefree following years of psychological torment. The fact he hops in bed with Swann is pure, unfiltered Bond. It's a great moment.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Breadth of character, yes, but he either bleeds or he doesn't. Character does develop and obviously CR saw him playing a newby agent but you can't train you skin and flesh to stop bleeding..the shower seen IMHO was one of the highlights of DCs stint.
  • RC7RC7
    Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Breadth of character, yes, but he either bleeds or he doesn't. Character does develop and obviously CR saw him playing a newby agent but you can't train you skin and flesh to stop bleeding..the shower seen IMHO was one of the highlights of DCs stint.

    It's a minor, insignificant detail to me. Had he bled, cool, but it's not something that is going to stem my enjoyment of this fine movie.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Fair point, I tend to look at these details, perhaps too much...but that's where the devil is.
  • OnlyManWhoCanOnlyManWhoCan Greater London
    Posts: 202
    Not really a plot hole, more an observation - We know SP must take place in November as it starts during Mexico's Day of the Dead, which takes place on November 2nd.

    However, during the scenes set in England nobody is wearing Remembrance Poppy, which is traditionally worn in November to remember war dead (or service person who has died in conflict). Here's Daniel Craig wearing his:

    daniel-craig-ge_9520971-original-portrait_6col.jpg?v=12382796

    Whilst it's in no way required to be worn (it's down to personal preference) I find it unthinkable that those working in the government - M, Moneypenny, Denby etc. would not be wearing theirs. M not wearing his is especially incongruous, as he is not only an ex-serviceman himself but if a political figure does not wear theirs it becomes a major talking point in the UK.

    Like I said it doesn't affect the plot, and I am sure there is a good reason why they do not feature (perhaps they wanted to make the film feel 'timeless,' (despite the Day of the Dead section, or perhaps they were not given licence to use the poppies in the film).

    It's just a little bit interesting!
  • RC7RC7
    edited November 2015 Posts: 10,512
    patb wrote: »
    Fair point, I tend to look at these details, perhaps too much...but that's where the devil is.

    You're right and there's a lot of fine, subtle and nuanced detail in the direction and performances in this movie. So I don't feel too aggrieved by the odd perceived misstep.
  • Posts: 14,935
    Ottofuse8 wrote: »
    ^ umm that's how bond films work? The villain displays false hospitality then tries to kill him?

    Indeed. Same thing happened in DN. No even puts Bond to bed!
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117
    Theojw71 wrote: »
    This anomaly is common to the directorial style of Sam Mendes. As a theatrical director, he is used to economising on the bodies on stage. If a character on stage doesn't have a function to perform (dialogue or action) they aren't included in his vision, which is okay on stage as the audience is often left to build the additional backdrop using their imagination. But in film the backdrop is often just as important, to help the cinema audience suspend disbelief and stay engaged. It is a weakness of both SF and SP that reality signals like this get missed.

    A reasonable hypothesis but blown out of the water by Mendes inexplicably allowing Rory Kinnear to skulk around in the background of scenes all the time serving no discernible purpose except to piss on Fleming's character of Bill Tanner.
    Not really a plot hole, more an observation - We know SP must take place in November as it starts during Mexico's Day of the Dead, which takes place on November 2nd.

    However, during the scenes set in England nobody is wearing Remembrance Poppy, which is traditionally worn in November to remember war dead (or service person who has died in conflict). Here's Daniel Craig wearing his:

    daniel-craig-ge_9520971-original-portrait_6col.jpg?v=12382796

    Whilst it's in no way required to be worn (it's down to personal preference) I find it unthinkable that those working in the government - M, Moneypenny, Denby etc. would not be wearing theirs. M not wearing his is especially incongruous, as he is not only an ex-serviceman himself but if a political figure does not wear theirs it becomes a major talking point in the UK.

    Like I said it doesn't affect the plot, and I am sure there is a good reason why they do not feature (perhaps they wanted to make the film feel 'timeless,' (despite the Day of the Dead section, or perhaps they were not given licence to use the poppies in the film).

    It's just a little bit interesting!

    Oh very good!

    The very best you can say is that by the time they had shipped Sciarra's body back to Rome it was after November the 11th? The meeting with M was the 12th the day everyone stops wearing the poppies and and the funeral was the next day the 13th? Only 11 days after his death so possible. Of course it could be that there was a long drawn out inquest in Mexico (likely given the public circumstances and the mysterious man who flew away in a helicopter) so it took a month to get the body back to Rome.

    Actually this is more plausible because, as someone who goes skiing in Austria every year, I have noticed that the snow is getting less reliable before Christmas. Whether its down to global warming or whatever but 10 years ago you would get enough snow to ski in November. These days you are better going in Jan-March (says the mug who has booked a Blofeld-esque mountaintop hotel in Kitzbuhel at Christmas but hopefully the altitude will ensure snow!). If the Austria scenes are only mid to late Nov then there does seem a bit too much snow for my liking! Or course it could just be a very snowy season so its not exactly a plot hole.

    Anyone else consider that we might be over thinking these things sometimes?
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    Matt007 wrote: »
    I thought the bullet proof screen might have been part of the firing range. Or just standard within mi6.

    The location is left a the top of the stair on the first entrance. The room would have been the reception area. As someone pointed out its the most secure building in the UK, the screen would be bullet proof to protect staff from threat or someone attempting to enter and press the required open buttons to access the rest of the building.
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    Posts: 2,138
    RC7 wrote: »
    patb wrote: »
    This is the issue with doing a different style of Bond movie. I understand why he did it but it's still DC as Bond and we have seen him bleeding, bruised and scared in the previous movies (and the public seemed to respond to that) and now he seems to be made of teflon

    He gets the shit kicked out of him by Hinx. He doesn't kick him out of a window like Moore.

    Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".

  • OnlyManWhoCanOnlyManWhoCan Greater London
    Posts: 202
    @TheWizardOfIce

    Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.

    However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.

    At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)
  • See the clue to Bonds survival is all in Waltz dialog. He alluded to finding the right spot in Bonds head but it is clear that his first two attempts, while painful do not do what to Bond what Blofeld is trying to achieve.
  • edited November 2015 Posts: 4,602
    So Walz missed his target twice and that explains why there is no damage? I think there is plenty going on in that part of the body to cause damage, especially when there clearly is some trial and error going on. But, it is the world of Bond
    PS "third time lucky?" would have been a better satirical line (rather than pussy) IMHO
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117

    Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".

    Well it is pointed out quite clearly (an ultra rare example of Rory actually contributing to the film rather than just standing there looking gormless) than the depleted uranium shell that hits Bond is a ricochet. So I'm quite happy to believe that it had lost enough velocity so it wouldnt tear Bond in half but still had enough to pierce his skin.

    @TheWizardOfIce

    Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.

    However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.

    At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)

    Perhaps we are missing a bit where Bond has to escape the Mexican authorities hunting for the man who threw a body into a crowd. Someone filmed Bond in the helicopter on their phone and Bond cant risk the airport so has to lie low for a few days and then stow away on a ship that takes a week to get to Southampton?
  • If you listen to what ESB say's he's trying to erase Bond's mind by stimulating something or other in the base of the skull, making him a vegetable with no memory of Swann, if I'm remembering right he presses the clasp of the watch into his hand creating pain which releases adrenaline to counter the affects of the drill.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Harry Palmer reference? Not sure about that
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117
    If you listen to what ESB say's he's trying to erase Bond's mind by stimulating something or other in the base of the skull, making him a vegetable with no memory of Swann, if I'm remembering right he presses the clasp of the watch into his hand creating pain which releases adrenaline to counter the affects of the drill.

    Err I think hes just trying to undo the strap of his watch so he can activate the bomb.

    I know Bond is a cool customer but I think having a madman drilling into your brain would probably be a sufficient adrenaline rush in its own right.
  • Posts: 4,602
    Yes, its down to Walz's lack of skill/knowledge, IMHO, nothing to do with Bond
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    Waltz does mention something about " If it hits the correct nerve centre" so I guess he had an
    off day and missed ? Softwear problem most likely, probably had the VW Tec team in to fix his computers. :D
  • Posts: 4,602
    Another possible line:
    "You really are a pain in the neck"
  • Waltz does mention something about " If it hits the correct nerve centre" so I guess he had an
    off day and missed ? Softwear problem most likely, probably had the VW Tec team in to fix his computers. :D

    I'll tell you something if someone was drilling holes in my head there'd certainly be some emission to test :))
  • ThunderpussyThunderpussy My Secret Lair
    Posts: 13,384
    :)) the day after watching it, I had a dental appointment. ..... more bloody drills. :D
  • TokolosheTokoloshe Under your bed
    Posts: 2,667
    The newspapers that M throws on the desk immediately after the credits talk about the carnage in Mexico, so it was clearly reported on very quickly.

    Or does our overthinking extend to the assumption that the papers are a few days old by that point? :-)
  • Posts: 4,602
    M had access to old newpapers, throwing it on the desk does not mean it was fresh
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138

    Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".

    Well it is pointed out quite clearly (an ultra rare example of Rory actually contributing to the film rather than just standing there looking gormless) than the depleted uranium shell that hits Bond is a ricochet. So I'm quite happy to believe that it had lost enough velocity so it wouldnt tear Bond in half but still had enough to pierce his skin.

    @TheWizardOfIce

    Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.

    However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.

    At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)

    Perhaps we are missing a bit where Bond has to escape the Mexican authorities hunting for the man who threw a body into a crowd. Someone filmed Bond in the helicopter on their phone and Bond cant risk the airport so has to lie low for a few days and then stow away on a ship that takes a week to get to Southampton?

    Your failing to get the science, is not the impact of the bullet which kills, is the poisoning from the Uranium in the blood stream. DU used in munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117

    Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".

    Well it is pointed out quite clearly (an ultra rare example of Rory actually contributing to the film rather than just standing there looking gormless) than the depleted uranium shell that hits Bond is a ricochet. So I'm quite happy to believe that it had lost enough velocity so it wouldnt tear Bond in half but still had enough to pierce his skin.

    @TheWizardOfIce

    Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.

    However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.

    At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)

    Perhaps we are missing a bit where Bond has to escape the Mexican authorities hunting for the man who threw a body into a crowd. Someone filmed Bond in the helicopter on their phone and Bond cant risk the airport so has to lie low for a few days and then stow away on a ship that takes a week to get to Southampton?

    Your failing to get the science, is not the impact of the bullet which kills, is the poisoning from the Uranium in the blood stream. DU used in munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.

    From the same wiki entry you got that stat from;

    The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[78] Militaries have long had risk-reduction procedures for their troops to follow,[79] and studies are in consistent agreement that veterans who used DU-enhanced munitions have not suffered, so far, from an increased risk of cancer (see the Gulf War and Balkans sections below). The effects of DU on civilian populations are, however, a topic of intense and ongoing controversy.

    As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.[80] According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, "Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance—if any. … Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer." The report warns that "All personnel … should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk … [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."[80] In 2003, the Royal Society called, again, for urgent attention to be paid to the possible health and environmental impact of depleted uranium, and added its backing to the United Nations Environment Programme's call for a scientific assessment of sites struck with depleted uranium.[81] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[82][83] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] Studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.


    OK that's the US Defence Dept that is quoting that so I agree it has to be treated with a pretty hefty dose of scepticism and Bond does leave the round in there for several weeks/months (?) but the point made earlier that he should be dead within 7 minutes of being hit refers to the colossal trauma caused by a DU round. Even Louis Slotin who was exposed to an exposed core about to go critical on the Manhattan Project took a week to die so Bond may well develop some sort of cancer a few years down the line but I doubt the radioactivity would have any relevance in the time span of SF.

    And its still probably not as big a cancer risk as 60 Morlands specials a day!
  • SirHilaryBraySirHilaryBray Scotland
    edited November 2015 Posts: 2,138

    Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".

    Well it is pointed out quite clearly (an ultra rare example of Rory actually contributing to the film rather than just standing there looking gormless) than the depleted uranium shell that hits Bond is a ricochet. So I'm quite happy to believe that it had lost enough velocity so it wouldnt tear Bond in half but still had enough to pierce his skin.

    @TheWizardOfIce

    Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.

    However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.

    At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)

    Perhaps we are missing a bit where Bond has to escape the Mexican authorities hunting for the man who threw a body into a crowd. Someone filmed Bond in the helicopter on their phone and Bond cant risk the airport so has to lie low for a few days and then stow away on a ship that takes a week to get to Southampton?

    Your failing to get the science, is not the impact of the bullet which kills, is the poisoning from the Uranium in the blood stream. DU used in munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.

    From the same wiki entry you got that stat from;

    The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[78] Militaries have long had risk-reduction procedures for their troops to follow,[79] and studies are in consistent agreement that veterans who used DU-enhanced munitions have not suffered, so far, from an increased risk of cancer (see the Gulf War and Balkans sections below). The effects of DU on civilian populations are, however, a topic of intense and ongoing controversy.

    As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.[80] According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, "Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance—if any. … Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer." The report warns that "All personnel … should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk … [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."[80] In 2003, the Royal Society called, again, for urgent attention to be paid to the possible health and environmental impact of depleted uranium, and added its backing to the United Nations Environment Programme's call for a scientific assessment of sites struck with depleted uranium.[81] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[82][83] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] Studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.


    OK that's the US Defence Dept that is quoting that so I agree it has to be treated with a pretty hefty dose of scepticism and Bond does leave the round in there for several weeks/months (?) but the point made earlier that he should be dead within 7 minutes of being hit refers to the colossal trauma caused by a DU round. Even Louis Slotin who was exposed to an exposed core about to go critical on the Manhattan Project took a week to die so Bond may well develop some sort of cancer a few years down the line but I doubt the radioactivity would have any relevance in the time span of SF.

    And its still probably not as big a cancer risk as 60 Morlands specials a day!

    No, what are you talking about, that's all about being around something "airborne radiation risk exposure" what Bond suffered was the effect of it entering directly in to his blood stream through the wound, the contaminated shrapnel was lodged in his shoulder. If your around people with the flu sneezing and coughing you might catch something from them. If you drink their saliva your pretty much guaranteed to get ill do you get me?
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    edited November 2015 Posts: 9,117

    Furthermore if we are playing by those rules then Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS of Skyfall Being hit with a depleted uranium shell , commonly used to destroy army tanks, he would have“turned his lungs inside out and killed him”, the panel of experts have concluded "he would have been dead within 7 minutes of being shot".

    Well it is pointed out quite clearly (an ultra rare example of Rory actually contributing to the film rather than just standing there looking gormless) than the depleted uranium shell that hits Bond is a ricochet. So I'm quite happy to believe that it had lost enough velocity so it wouldnt tear Bond in half but still had enough to pierce his skin.

    @TheWizardOfIce

    Good explanations there! I suppose that it all rests on when the funeral was - it can take weeks for one of these to be arranged so it is conceivable that all the action takes place after the 11th/12th November.

    However, the 'debrief' scene with M and Bond must surely take place within days of the Mexico scene - not only would M demand Bond to be there ASAP to explain himself, but the energy of the scene makes me think it happened recently.

    At the end of the day the Bond Universe is not the real world so we can forgive it the lack of poppies and the abundance of snow in the alps! ;-)

    Perhaps we are missing a bit where Bond has to escape the Mexican authorities hunting for the man who threw a body into a crowd. Someone filmed Bond in the helicopter on their phone and Bond cant risk the airport so has to lie low for a few days and then stow away on a ship that takes a week to get to Southampton?

    Your failing to get the science, is not the impact of the bullet which kills, is the poisoning from the Uranium in the blood stream. DU used in munitions has 60% of the radioactivity of natural uranium.

    From the same wiki entry you got that stat from;

    The U.S. Department of Defense claims that no human cancer of any type has been seen as a result of exposure to either natural or depleted uranium.[78] Militaries have long had risk-reduction procedures for their troops to follow,[79] and studies are in consistent agreement that veterans who used DU-enhanced munitions have not suffered, so far, from an increased risk of cancer (see the Gulf War and Balkans sections below). The effects of DU on civilian populations are, however, a topic of intense and ongoing controversy.

    As early as 1997, British Army doctors warned the British MoD (Ministry of Defence) that exposure to depleted uranium increased the risk of developing lung, lymph and brain cancer, and recommended a series of safety precautions.[80] According to a report issued summarizing the advice of the doctors, "Inhalation of insoluble uranium dioxide dust will lead to accumulation in the lungs with very slow clearance—if any. … Although chemical toxicity is low, there may be localised radiation damage of the lung leading to cancer." The report warns that "All personnel … should be aware that uranium dust inhalation carries a long-term risk … [the dust] has been shown to increase the risks of developing lung, lymph and brain cancers."[80] In 2003, the Royal Society called, again, for urgent attention to be paid to the possible health and environmental impact of depleted uranium, and added its backing to the United Nations Environment Programme's call for a scientific assessment of sites struck with depleted uranium.[81] In early 2004, the UK Pensions Appeal Tribunal Service attributed birth defect claims from a February 1991 Gulf War combat veteran to depleted uranium poisoning.[82][83] Also, a 2005 epidemiology review concluded: "In aggregate the human epidemiological evidence is consistent with increased risk of birth defects in offspring of persons exposed to DU."[10] Studies using cultured cells and laboratory rodents continue to suggest the possibility of leukemogenic, genetic, reproductive, and neurological effects from chronic exposure.


    OK that's the US Defence Dept that is quoting that so I agree it has to be treated with a pretty hefty dose of scepticism and Bond does leave the round in there for several weeks/months (?) but the point made earlier that he should be dead within 7 minutes of being hit refers to the colossal trauma caused by a DU round. Even Louis Slotin who was exposed to an exposed core about to go critical on the Manhattan Project took a week to die so Bond may well develop some sort of cancer a few years down the line but I doubt the radioactivity would have any relevance in the time span of SF.

    And its still probably not as big a cancer risk as 60 Morlands specials a day!

    No, what are you talking about, that's all about being around something "airborne radiation risk exposure" what Bond suffered was the effect of it entering directly in to his blood stream through the wound, the contaminated shrapnel was lodged in his shoulder. If your around people with the flu sneezing and coughing you might catch something from them. If you drink their saliva your pretty much guaranteed to get ill do you get me?

    Well the original post I was responding to stated this: Bond would be dead before the events of SPECTRE as he would have been dead within the PTS.

    I'm far from an expert at all but given one of the technicians at Chernobyl who received 'Deep Radiation Burns on 100% of his body' took 2 weeks to die I dont see how Bond could have died by the end of the PTS due to radiation poisoning alone?

    I've had a quick scan here: http://www.ccnr.org/du_hague.html

    And here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/depleted-uranium-du-general-information-and-toxicology

    Mostly its concerned with inhalation (probably because most people who get hit by a DU round dont survive so radiation poisoning is irrelevant) and the long term effects.

    A few key paragraphs here though:

    If DU enters the body, it can potentially cause damage from the inside (internal exposure) either through irradiation or by chemical action. It can enter the body by inhalation (breathing in fine dust), ingestion via the mouth, contamination of an open wound, or, on the battlefield, by the embedding of shrapnel fragments. Because uranium has been used extensively as a nuclear fuel, and many workers involved in processing uranium have been potentially exposed to dusts containing uranium, over many years, there have been many studies carried out on the behaviour of uranium in the body. In particular, there have been numerous studies conducted to determine the behaviour of uranium in the body after deposition in the lungs of a wide range of different uranium compounds, including the various oxides produced by the use of DU munitions.


    Most of the uranium absorbed into blood is rapidly excreted, mainly in urine. About 65% is excreted during the first day, another 10% during the rest of the first week. There is a continuing slow excretion, about 0.002% of the original uptake to blood per day after a year. That is why measurements are often made on urine to estimate the amount of uranium in the body.

    Note the sentence in bold. Even when DU is inside the body it is still only 'potentially' harmful.

    As I say I am far from even approaching being an expert in the slightest so I dare say you know more than me. I would be grateful (and happy to stand corrected) therefore if you could point me in the direction of some sources that indicate that DU in the bloodstream is as fatal as you seem to be suggesting because I still contend that the dose Bond would've received would have been irrelevant for the duration of SF. Maybe he would be suffering some effects by SP - difficult to say. Any experts on radioactive toxicology on the boards?
  • royale65royale65 Caustic misanthrope reporting for duty.
    Posts: 4,423
    If only we had Dr. No on these boards. He seems to know about radioactivity....
  • TheWizardOfIceTheWizardOfIce 'One of the Internet's more toxic individuals'
    Posts: 9,117
    royale65 wrote: »
    If only we had Dr. No on these boards. He seems to know about radioactivity....

    Well you say that but this line has always made me wonder:

    'My work has given me a unique knowledge of radioactivity,but not without cost, as you see.'

    He then raises his hand as if to say that his radioactivity work was the reason his hands were cut off not the Tongs.
Sign In or Register to comment.