On Monday 17 September 2001 22:02, you wrote:
> ----- 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.
Dr. Bleibtreu said that the real risk from radiation, and even more from
chemical mutagens was not the immediate damage to adult organisms or even the
F1 generation, but the mutagenic effect on gametes compounded over several
generations. In the worst case one can imagine damage of an extent that
full-term fetal viability in some highly dosed populations drops below
replacement in Fn and the population implosion accelerates from there since
each subsequent generation inherets the scrambled code from its parents plus
has its own code scrambled further by the pervasive enviromental contaminants.
NB. This effect would be most pronounced in small, non-currated
populations. (For curated populations, including ourselves, we would take
steps to insulate the population from the enviromental hazard as part of the
curation process.)
