Opportunity costs redux 7

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Zarkov Posted 5:10 pm
   06 Jan 2007

   Big BangLOL, might as well go out with a bang.
   
   LIFE would appreciate the lift.  

   Permalink

2. 

   Doug Snodgrass Posted 9:58 pm
   06 Jan 2007

   Thank youWe've got enough weaponry to destroy the earth a gazillion times over, so why shouldn't we make meaningful expenditures to remove the peril that climate change presents to humanity?
   
   Visit the Ecotality Blog at http://ecotalityblog.com

   Permalink

3. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 11:42 pm
   06 Jan 2007

   Personally,I can no longer sit back and allow terrorist infiltration, terrorist indoctrination, terrorist subversion, and the international terrorist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.
   But on a more serious note, impeachment procedings would at least keep him busy and distracted.
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

4. 

   mgembol Posted 12:50 am
   07 Jan 2007

   Time more people knewWe have been living under a Sword of Damocles for a long time.  Two swords, actually.  Nuclear weapons on the one hand and nuclear reactors on the other.  
   Nuclear warheads produce fairly small amounts of radioactive materials.  Enough to kill people hundreds of miles downwind in a fallout plume, depending on wind direction and weather, but not a huge amount of radioactive material.
   A nuclear reactor plant, by contrast, creates TONS of the most deadly witch's brew of radioactive material.  A typical plant has 2-3 reactors plus a spent fuel storage facility with several more tons of deadly fission products.  Altogether, an operating plant may have 10,000 times as much radioactive material as a bomb produces.
   A core meltdown will release only a small fraction of the fission products into the environment.
   The lethal combination is a nuc-on-nuc scenario, where some terrorist or military strike hits a reactor plant with a hydrogen bomb warhead.  This would vaporize the entire plant and put its ENTIRE radioactive materials into the stratosphere to be spread around the earth by the jetstreams.  
   This scenario turns your 100-mile fallout plume into one 10,000 times as long--wrapping around the earth dozens of times, widening and crossing oceans and continents, killing everything.
   The fallout from a nuc-on-nuc would be intense to kill everyone on continent-size areas with direct radiation alone.  The area where people would die by contamination of their food and water and by bioconcentration would be much larger -- one or both hemispheres.
   Yes, one bomb, one reactor plant can destroy the entire human species, plus most other life on the planet.  This is infinity on a scale of 1:10.
   Now, the questions you have to be asking yourself are, is the military stupid enough to target nuclear reactors, and are terrorists smart enough to recognize the ultimate dirty bomb?  Yes on both counts.
   So when you are deciding whether you want more bombs and more reactors to make some gunslinging general or tinhorn politician or defense contractor happy, remember you're playing with ALL the chips.  I, for one, oppose the idea.

   Permalink

5. 

   Laurence Aurbach Posted 12:59 am
   07 Jan 2007

   really?"This scenario turns your 100-mile fallout plume into one 10,000 times as long--wrapping around the earth dozens of times, widening and crossing oceans and continents, killing everything."
   Is that really true? Can you please point me towards a credible engineering analysis that validates that scenario?

   Permalink

6. 

   sunflower Posted 1:56 am
   07 Jan 2007

   Grim newsHard to say what a " lethal combination is a nuc-on-nuc scenario" would have on anthropogenic global warming.
   For those few who may not have subscribed to  Truthout,
   http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/010707Z.shtml
   
   Israel has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran's uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

   Permalink

7. 

   Tod Posted 12:54 pm
   07 Jan 2007

   The real questionis. . .and I mean this not so much in jest . . .
   What if we killed every human with nuclear weapons? Would the environmental disaster be less than if we are allowed to live? Certainly, over the short term (several thousand years), the damage would be significant, but the worldwide cooling trend as a result of particulates blocking sunlight may well act as a decent salve for our polar regions, reverse the albedo effect, and give the globe some much-needed recuperation time.
   There is a case to be made that nuclear war is the strongest environmental action currently available, no?
   :)
   
   
   
   "Because the world doesn't matter if you don't have the strength to go ahead and choose something that's really true." - Julio Cortazar, Hopscotch

   Permalink