----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronn Blankenship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 10:43 PM
Subject: Re: nuclear strikes (was: Re: Who did it?)
> At 06:36 PM 9/17/01, you wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Ticia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 1:55 PM
> >Subject: nuclear strikes (was: Re: Who did it?)
> >
> >
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > > I repeat - there's nothing
> > > > particularly special about dying in a nuclear explosion.
> > >
> > > True, if at the center of the attack you'd die right way. Dead is
dead.
> > >
> > > But what about the periphery? The thousands of people and the entire
> > > ecosystem that die slow deaths due to radiation fallout, cancer, and
> > > gruesomely mutated unviable offspring, *decades* after the fact?
> > >
> >
> >There are a zillion myths concerning radiation. While nuclear weapons do
> >terrible things, its basically because the make a very very big "boom."
> >
> >Lets look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The total deaths were are 100k
IIRC.
> >The long term cancer deaths from 87,000 people who were in a study
because
> >they were exposed is 431 above a background of 7244 expected cancer
deaths.*
> >And, most of these deaths were from people who received high doses.
> >Unviable offspring in people exposed were observed, but all of those
> >offspring were exposed to radiation in uterus (sp). The study found no
> >evidence of an elevated rate of any health problems for offspring
conceived
> >by people who were exposed to the radiation after said radiation
> >exposure.**
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > How can we possibly justify that?
> > >
> > > But there's other ways of killing your enemies, ways that do not
involve
> > > leaving a natural disaster legacy for generations to come (or not come
> > > anymore).
> >
> >Bikini had been the main weapons testing area for the US. The radiation
> >exposure there should be close to the upper limit expected at a a site
that
> >would take a multi-bomb hit. The radiation danger has lessoned, after <
40
> >years) to the point where the natives can move back and live there with
> >exposure less than the international allowable limits. The only risk is
for
> >eating food grown there...and that is not a high risk...and one that will
> >not last for a long time.
> >
> >Remember, for ALARA reasons, we use the linear model to determine deaths
> >from low level exposure, even though there is significant data that
> >indicates that this overstates the real risk. (Easy to understand data:
> >Aberdeen's death rate should be higher that those areas of Europe with
lower
> >background.) I'm not against this. But, we cannot use this to answer
the
> >question of what the real risk from a nuclear strike will be. The long
term
> >radiation risks will be small compared to the risk of getting blown up.
> >
> >Let me put it this way. The long term death radiation toll from a
nuclear
> >hit on New York would be less than the death toll from the two planes.
The
> >immediate death toll would be higher.
> >
> > >Not to mention the fallout winds which would blow all over
> > > neigbouring countries and end up in our own back yards.
> > >
> >
> >That risk would be even lower.
> >
> > > I just don't understand why they made those weapons in the first
place.
> >Well
> > > I do, of course, but now that we look at this Earth as a fragile sole
> > > ecosystem, and know about the long term dangers of radiation, how can
we
> > > continue to make them, even think of using them? (rhetorical)
> > >
> >
> >That's not the problem with nuclear weapons. Radiation has relatively
> >minimal effect on the environment. If we had, God forbid, a massive
nuclear
> >war, the fires would cause far more ecological damage than the radiation.
> >
> >Nuclear weapons are scary, for good reasons and bad. The good reason is
> >that they can kill many people. The bad reasons is the false rumors of
> >three eyed monsters coming from them.
> >
> >Dan M.
>
>
> How about this-which happens to be the plot of a novel I was reading last
> weekend, just before the attacks in NYC and Washington-terrorists manage
to
> blow up (or crash a plane into) the building at a nuclear power plant
where
> the spent fuel rods and other high-level nuclear waste is stored,
employing
> sufficient force to pulverize some of the waste so the wind can spread it
> around? Do you know of any studies on the effects of a scenario like
this?
>
Unfortunately I do. Chenobyl is a good first order approximation of what
would happen if the terrorists could put 40% of the nuclear fuel into the
air and disperse it. Not as bad as this.
I've had nightmare scenerios about loss of life with just 4 planes. Maybe
I'm wrong, but I think this type of explosion at home plate of a packed
baseball game could kill tens of thousands. Indeed, that was a stock
comparision of mine to compare the danger of nuclear power to.
Dan M.
