At 12:23 AM 9/18/01, you wrote:
>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.)
Hey, that "Eschew obfuscation" rule I suggested is looking better and
better . . .
Actually, the part I didn't get is the curated/non-currated part. Could
you elucidate?
-- Ronn! :)
God bless America,
Land that I love!
Stand beside her, and guide her
Thru the night with a light from above.
From the mountains, to the prairies,
To the oceans, white with foam�
God bless America!
My home, sweet home.
-- Irving Berlin (1888-1989)
