Hiroshima, Hiroshima

Why the page is called "Hiroshima, Hiroshima"

Address concerns with the titling convention at BambooWeb:WikiProject Japanese districts and municipalites. - Sekicho 01:36, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

I think it would be preferable to have this at Hiroshima, since Hiroshima is currently a redirect here. - Montréalais

What other Hiroshimas are there to make the disambiguation necessary? any even remotely as well-known?

Hiroshima prefecture, presumably. --Brion

Enough with the valid points, already.  :-P

Hiroshima prefecture is of course already naturally disambiguated and mentioned in the article, and most references to Hiroshima will refer to the city. - Montréalais

Done. --mav

Looks like it was undone. It's just Hiroshima again. Moscow, London, Tokyo, etc all get their own page. --SFoskett 15:22, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)

---

'k, was it founded in 1589 or 1889? My guess would be founded in 1589 and took on city status on the 300th anniversary...

Oooh. I guessed good =) The castle foundations were commissioned 1589 Apr 15 and "officially became a city" 1889 Apr 1

---

Is the city known for anything other than nucular devastation or being nuked? Or its castle, for that matter. Rickyrab 02:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Dears, As far as I know, this city was NOT importat in military terms, this is why it was not bombed previusly, but the article indicates oterwise... Before making any changes, May I ask you to provide the source of this military importance of the city? Milton 22:29, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Hiroshima is the birthplace and headquarters of Mazda Motor Corp., which is far-and-away the major employer and generates +30% of the city's GDP... -- stewacide 06:13, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

--- Why is this page listed as Hiroshima, Hiroshima?

---

What is the point of mentioning romanization schemes in this article? Sure, in a number of schemes (based on consonant-vowel pairs, not pronunciation) Hiroshima is written Hirosima. And sushi is written susi and sashimi is written sasimi. But that's not how they're pronounced, and not how they're written in standard English. The whole paragraph seems pedantic to me, unless you want to show every romanization for every Japanese word in BambooWeb. (I can see cases where this sort of discussion could be interesting, e.g., Godzilla = Gojira, but here I don't think it is.) Rjyanco 21:43, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Mea Culpa query

I found that documentation of Nuclear strike of the 2 cities is incredibly insufficient. Would anyone please add more infomation of Nuclear strike? Or provide some link of that.

Personally I found it strange that Hiroshima is rebuild on the old position and the environment is not that critical as area that attacked by nuclear weapons as people suspect. --Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as stated in the text.

Regarding the decision to rebuild the city of Hiroshima on the same site, the answer is that the radiation dissipated very rapidly. The bombs exploded several hundred metres above the ground in both cases, so although some of the radioactive material settled on the ground eventually, most was dispersed widely throughout the atmosphere. At Chernobyl, by contrast, most of the radioactive material remained at ground level.

Also, most of the radiation received by victims of the bombing was due to gamma rays sent out at the time of the blast, and the longest-lasting radionucleotide to remain following the bombing was Caesium-134, which has a half-life of just 2 years. So, the quick answer is that it wasn't a long time before the radioactivity due to the bombing reduced to a level below background radiation levels. - MykReeve 11:33, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)