nuclear war

[bigpaul]

whichever way we look at it survival dosent look that good.

[Sekwo]

(21 July 2023, 10:22)bigpaul Wrote: whichever way we look at it survival dosent look that good.

Survival is the worst possible option ... except for the alterative. The adjustment will be difficult, but those that survive, will quickly get used to it.

[bigpaul]

not the sort of life I'd want to live, living with radiation and fallout.

[Sekwo]

(21 July 2023, 12:27)bigpaul Wrote: not the sort of life I'd want to live, living with radiation and fallout.

Without anyway to measure it, and no TV, most people would forget about it and just get on with life.

Almost no one would worry about the radiation, because people would be dying from other causes, linked to poverty.

[Pete Grey]

(20 July 2023, 16:23)Mortblanc Wrote: It is refreshing to see someone that disagrees with Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Openhimer and every other nuclear physicist and stands up for his "flat earth" philosophy to the bitter end.

Truly refreshing!

We are again dealing with our annual nut case.

Don’t forget Ernest Rutherford who influenced a generation of nuclear physicists including Niels Bohr, Sir John Cockcroft, Ernest Walton etc, and all those involved in Tube Products and the Manhattan Project who obviously new nothing.

Oh well............

[Sekwo]

(21 July 2023, 16:20)Pete Grey Wrote:

(20 July 2023, 16:23)Mortblanc Wrote: It is refreshing to see someone that disagrees with Galileo, Isaac Newton, Einstein, Openhimer and every other nuclear physicist and stands up for his "flat earth" philosophy to the bitter end.

Truly refreshing!

We are again dealing with our annual nut case.

Don’t forget Ernest Rutherford who influenced a generation of nuclear physicists including Niels Bohr, Sir John Cockcroft, Ernest Walton etc, and all those involved in Tube Products and the Manhattan Project who obviously new nothing.

Oh well............

Those who understand the science ... argue the science. Those who don't the science ... cite all a long list of real scientists, with no idea what they did and when that doesn't work they turn to insults.

[bigpaul]

(21 July 2023, 15:43)Sekwo Wrote:

(21 July 2023, 12:27)bigpaul Wrote: not the sort of life I'd want to live, living with radiation and fallout.

Without anyway to measure it, and no TV, most people would forget about it and just get on with life.

Almost no one would worry about the radiation, because people would be dying from other causes, linked to poverty.

more likely they will die from cancer linked to the radiation as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
poverty only exists where you have money, living naturally without money or careers the only job is to put food on the table.

[Sekwo]

(21 July 2023, 16:53)bigpaul Wrote:

(21 July 2023, 15:43)Sekwo Wrote:

(21 July 2023, 12:27)bigpaul Wrote: not the sort of life I'd want to live, living with radiation and fallout.

Without anyway to measure it, and no TV, most people would forget about it and just get on with life.

Almost no one would worry about the radiation, because people would be dying from other causes, linked to poverty.

more likely they will die from cancer linked to the radiation as happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
poverty only exists where you have money, living naturally without money or careers the only job is to put food on the table.

They died of cancer because they survived the bomb and then lived a long life in a prosperous country free of most of the problems that usually cut life short.

Most young women won't need to worry about cancer ... they will probably die in child birth, because that is what used to happen. Likewise, huge numbers of children won't get to adulthood. Only the lucky ones will live long enough to die of cancer.

[Pete Grey]

Death from ARS, acute radiation syndrome, can be in as short a time as two weeks according to our favourite source Wikipedia, so don’t worry about cancer you won’t live long enough.

[Sekwo]

(21 July 2023, 19:09)Pete Grey Wrote: Death from ARS, acute radiation syndrome, can be in as short a time as two weeks according to our favourite source Wikipedia, so don’t worry about cancer you won’t live long enough.

That would be useful, if that had been what we were talking about. We aren't talking about acute radiation sickness but about long term effects of living with radiation. One is a one-off dose, which we can recover from, the other is cumulative.

Acute radiation sickness occurs at does above 100rads which is roughly 1Sibert. Cancer can be caused at normal background levels of radiation which is Levels typically range from about 1 to 4 millisievert per year. In other words it would take 250 to 1000 years to get a total dose that (over a short period) would give us acute radiation sickness.

But background radiation varies a lot and some people will get an acute from natural radiation equivalent to the short-term dose needed for radiation sickness ... but they never get radiation sickness, because their body recovers.

But we can tolerate much higher levels that background. To put that background level in perspective, the dose rate for astronauts is about 100x that of background.