3 ms·
> affects up to 2B people "Affects." Saying it affects 2B people without saying how much means very little. The tailpipe emissions from my single car family a
by randyrand 9y ago
> affects up to 2B people
"Affects." Saying it affects 2B people without saying how much means very little. The tailpipe emissions from my single car family affect 7B+ people, just very slightly.
I think we should start with lives lost as an easy to understand measure.
Thanks for linking the source.
- SapphireSun 9y agoI agree with your criticism. We'll have to read the paper to find out what that means. ;)
- SapphireSun 9y agoI dug up the correspondence. Here's what Dr. Robock said. Again, I explicitly asked permission to quote him. Here's the relevant excerpt. Me: "I understand that you've conducted 100 Hiroshima simulations that describe a nuclear autumn that could lead to mass starvation. Is it known where the crossover point is located between deaths due to direct effects and incidental effects of nuclear war? Furthermore, is this even a useful question to ask?" Dr. Robock: "We simulated one case of an India-Pakistan nuclear war. We estimated 20,000,000 direct casualties, and Ira estimated 1,000,000,000 to 2,000,000,000 indirect deaths. We have a new project to do much better jobs of investigating more credible scenarios and quantifying the impacts on agriculture and food availability." I'd recommend digging into the paper for more info. Probably in a month or two, I'll have an article that explores this question based on available credible sources in more depth. He has a TEDx talk here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsrEk1oZ-54 EDIT: added TEDx link
- randyrand 9y agoThanks!