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