Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site iuvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!harpo!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!saj From: saj@iuvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Nuclear Winter Rebuttal - (nf) Message-ID: <146@iuvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 15-Feb-84 15:27:51 EST Article-I.D.: iuvax.146 Posted: Wed Feb 15 15:27:51 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 02:16:36 EST Sender: saj@iuvax.UUCP Organization: Indiana U, Bloomington Lines: 99 #R:orca:-57200:iuvax:2000002:000:6353 iuvax!scsg Feb 14 00:06:00 1984 In response to the suggestion that the "Nuclear Winter" effect may be exaggerated, of course it is obvious that we really don't know what the effects of a nuclear war would be--the best we can do is guess. On the other hand, it is also painfully clear that in the past there has been an incredible attempt to display nuclear arms as merely more "big bombs" and totally ignore their potentially devastating environmental and biological effects. In the fifties soldiers were ordered to march right into the vicinity of nuclear tests to see how they would "hold up" under conditions of nuclear warfare. When the Atomic Energy Commission was asked about the effects of fallout they replied that "it wasn't any problem because the radioactive particles would stay in the stratosphere for years." (!!) Only when Japanese fishermen on a fishing vessel passing within about 150 miles of a nuclear test came down with radiation sickness from the fallout showering their vessel did the AEC admit that "oh, perhaps fallout might not stay in the stratosphere forever" (this incident is recounted in "The Closing Circle" by Barry Commoner, as well as other sources) Then there was the supposed "problem" of strontium-90 which the AEC assured Americans was really no problem at all. After all, to be concerned about strontium-90 was obviously some kind of "scare tactic" --as the AEC pointed out, the radiation from strontium-90 can only penetrate 1/2 inch. So it would have to be 1/2 inch away from you to do any harm! Why worry? Well, when biologists discovered that in fact strontium-90 was being passed up the food chain from grass to cow's milk to human bones it would seem that there was some cause for concern after all! The latest discovery of a "Nuclear Winter" effect by two teams of tens of scientists from many fields in BOTH the U.S. and the Soviet Union seems to be falling into the familiar pattern. It has always seemed obvious to me sheerly on a logical and intuitive basis that the environmental effects of the release of millions of times the amounts of radioactivity released by all previous nuclear tests would very likely be enough to destroy , or , at the least, totally disrupt the biosphere. Yet Pentagon estimates of the effects of nuclear war never even seemed to consider the possibility that the simultaneous explosion of nuclear bombs all over the planet might be more devastating than a simple extrapolation from one bomb in one locality. Now the National Academy of Sciences study seems to confirm that reasoning simply on the basis of the debris cast into the atmosphere from several thousand simultaneous nuclear blasts. There are very likely to be other effects of a global nature that are similar that were not considered in this study, and perhaps we cannot even predict. It may be that Prof. Singer is right in saying that the Sagan study overestimated the atmospheric/climactic effects of nuclear war. But I am very skeptical of such a claim. Every time some new danger from nuclear arms has been discovered by scientists, the nuclear partisans have trotted out their own "experts" , like the ones who predicted that fallout would just "stay in the stratosphere forever" and that "strontium-90 is not a problem". I cannot claim to great scientific expertise, but I do know enough about science to understand the "greenhouse effect" and to realize that the "greenhouse effect" which leads to the incredibly hot temperatures on Venus has nothing to do with "particulate matter" like that discussed by the Sagan study but rather to do with excessive amounts of carbon dioxide and other similar gases which allow visible light to pass thru, but reflect the infrared spectrums given off by surface bodies like Venus. The particulate matter postulated by the Sagan study is rather like the dust and soot thrown off by volcanoes and NOT transparent to light as carbon dioxide or ordinary glass is. Prof. Singer's point that the destruction of the ozone layer may not be immediately consequential when ultraviolet radiation would also be blocked by particulate matter is one I had already considered when they announced the study. But his optimism that the ozone layer could be so easily revived contradicts every other scientific report I have ever read on the subject. Moreover Singer cannot have his cake and eat it too- if ultraviolet radiation IS blocked out then so is visible light just as the Sagan study stated. The Sagan study focussed on the possible climactic effects of all the debris thrown into the air by a nuclear war. But there are other effects that may be impossible to estimate as well--what would be the effect on the ocean's plankton of the shower of radioactive material that would follow a nuclear war? What would be the effects on food chains of concentrations of radioactive elements like strontium-90 as these become passed up these food chains in incredibly high doses? What would be the environmental effects of the likely dispersal of plutonium from nuclear plants which would be blown up along with everything else in a nuclear war? It is understandable that many people don't wish to face the reality that nuclear war probably means the extinction of the human species any more than individuals wish to accept the reality of their own death. But I agree with Prof. Singer on one point-we should stop lying to ourselves by talking about "surviving" nuclear war, or mindlessly counting up how many missiles both sides will have left (when there are no people left to defend with them), or talking about "limited nuclear war." For too long we have refused to look this issue straight in the eye-- our own government has deluded us by refusing to admit there even was such a thing as fallout, or then admitting that fallout might be a problem, or admitted that the effects of thousands of nuclear blasts might not be the same as one localized test. The results of the National Academy of Sciences study are not the results of one man-they were checked by many scientists from diverse fields to insure their accuracy. Perhaps they are not totally accurate but it certainly seems prudent to act on the basis of the best facts we have and our own common sense when such a course is a matter of our very survival. tim sevener pur-ee!iuvax!scsg Indiana University, Bloomington