Timeline for States causing cancer in enemy politicians, spies, world-leaders
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
34 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 17, 2022 at 6:28 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 480 characters in body
|
| May 17, 2022 at 6:24 | comment | added | user | @Allan you are right. I had mentioned it in a previous version of this question, but moved it to a new question. I guess I should re-add it here as well. | |
| May 16, 2022 at 16:11 | answer | added | Mike Serfas | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 15, 2022 at 21:43 | comment | added | Allan | Hugo Chavez from Venezuela claimed so. He said the USA attacked him when he was at the UN and gave him cancer. | |
| May 15, 2022 at 10:55 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 13, 2021 at 9:53 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Broke question in two. Answers were not affected. It should have been posted as two separate questions since i wanted to know if it's possible and how to prevent it. Answers deviated completely due to the way i asked it.
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 22:08 | history | edited | jdunlop | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 4 characters in body; edited title
|
| Apr 23, 2021 at 19:35 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 166 characters in body
|
| Jul 7, 2018 at 6:24 | comment | added | user | @P.Lord You are right. Perhaps I should have posted that part as an answer. My aim was to ask for ranged cancer-inducing attacks and have users examine how realistic that example was. In effect it's 1.5 questions instead of 1. | |
| Jul 6, 2018 at 22:07 | comment | added | P.Lord | You literally answer your own question with your "For Example" bit | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 14:07 | answer | added | KarmaPeasant | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jul 4, 2018 at 10:00 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 306 characters in body
|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:53 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://health.stackexchange.com/ with https://health.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 1, 2016 at 0:24 | comment | added | Pedro Gabriel | Sorry if I didn't understand what you meant by no physical contact... I didn't understand it as non-ingested. But, as I made clear in my answer, using radiation with any current technology wouldn't produce your desired effect. And I don't see any other way to do it at a distance. But you mentioned viruses on your post... I think those are good alternatives. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 22:28 | comment | added | Catalyst | @Fermi, I was thinking about pre-sensitizing the victim, and then provoking an anaphylactic hyper-reaction, weeks or months later. (With, for instance an uncommon but not unheard of mold spore into the HVAC system.) Happy to chat -- if I can figure out chat here. (I'm new.) | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 22:21 | comment | added | user | @Catalyst Although the alternative Q you propose looks more interesting, i ll avoid changing it now since many answers have been posted. Basically, i was looking a covert/non-contact/nothing-ingested way to cause cancer. Several answers missed the "covert/non-contact/nothing-ingested" part. Perhaps i should have clarified what i meant by "no physical contact". | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 22:18 | comment | added | Catalyst | Can you clarify your Q: does it have to be Cancer, specifically -- or are you looking for a covert/non-contact/nothing-ingested way to incapacitate and/or kill? | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 21:24 | answer | added | Pedro Gabriel | timeline score: 7 | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 20:00 | answer | added | kingledion | timeline score: 11 | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | ohwilleke | About 20% of cancer is caused by known viruses which can be transmitted and there are many known cancer causing substances or environmental conditions. But most are slow and uncertain. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 15:45 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 15:08 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:45 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 107 characters in body
|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:27 | answer | added | user10945 | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:15 | comment | added | user10945 | @Fermiparadox - True, but if you decide to assassinate someone, wouldn't you want it to happen as soon as possible and do what you could to evade discovery (e.g. the Litvinenko polonium poisoning)? Creating a scapegoat would be quicker and more certain than cancer IMO. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:13 | history | edited | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:12 | comment | added | user | @EveryBitHelps I.. don't think this would be very effective :P Also, it would create an enemy with nothing to lose, which is often more dangerous. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:10 | comment | added | user | @Pete "You'd assume that whatever threat the person has posed would be possibly negated after that time." - This is true for many targets; others though have been a problem for a long time, like Fidel Castro. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:10 | comment | added | EveryBitHelps | It's been suggested that sudden intense emotional shock (as in unexpected death in the family or close friend) can trigger cancer in a person. So maybe, your cia government agency can simply assassinate the innocent spouse or a family member of the person they have determined has a high chance of cancer... | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 14:07 | comment | added | user10945 | Sadly, I have experience of glioblastomas being fatal within a year. However, I wouldn't be able to suggest any plausible method of intentionally causing one other than using a "faulty" x-ray machine. I'm also not sure how effective a "weapon" would be given the 30% chance of killing someone in a four year period. You'd assume that whatever threat the person has posed would be possibly negated after that time. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 13:54 | comment | added | Snowlockk | The US spent millions on a heart attack gun, seems better than having a way to make someone who is annoying you now get cancer and die years later. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 13:53 | comment | added | user | @Pete Indeed, though there are some aggressive types of cancer. Also, it doesn't have to induce cancer out of the blue. It could simply increase the growth of existing cancerous cells (since the average human has 50% chance of getting cancer), meaning it wouldn't take that long. And it doesn't have to always be successful. If 1 in 3 attempts succeed at a cost of a few million.. it would still be worth using. "How quickly " - a couple of years. Probably less than 4 would be ideal, because of presidency duration in many countries. | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 13:17 | comment | added | user10945 | Cancer isn't a quick disease. How quickly were you wanting your victims to be incapacitated? | |
| Nov 30, 2016 at 12:35 | history | asked | user | CC BY-SA 3.0 |