4 ms·

> I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock[...] I wouldn't call WW3

> I'm afraid the problem will fix itself soon enough. WW3 could be around the corner according to the people behind the Doomsday Clock[...] I wouldn't call WW3 a fix (short term anyway). Even a small nuclear exchange would have devastating ecological consequences [0] [0] "Radioactive fallout from these weapons’ debris clouds would reach the stratosphere, where it would travel worldwide, potentially contaminating crops and livestock as well as causing radiation sickness and cancer directly. Later, this fallout would cause genetic mutations in plants, animals and human beings, as it has in the vicinity of the Chernobyl nuclear accident." From: https://medium.com/freeman-spogli-institute-for-international-studies/how-nuclear-war-would-affect-the-world-climate-and-human-health-8b40b4668074 https://medium.com/freeman-spogli-institute-for-internationa...

drb91 8y ago
Dark. I can see the immediate consequences would be atrocious. How would nuclear fallout affect wider gene pools and extinction rates? I’ve always envisioned the “apocalyptic” scenario to be a nuclear winter. Is that accurate?
code_duck 8y ago
I think the idea is that the massive depopulation caused by what you describe would function as a ‘fix’.
- pvaldes 8y ago
  A fix or an end. It is said that without enough population to watch and repair the current nuclear systems, the problem would quickly scalate in a few years when nuclear plants in the planet would deteriorate, get out of control and explode one after one.
  - CalRobert 8y ago
    That would be devastating for individual organisms, but what would the large scale ecological impact be? Chernobyl is home to quite a bit of wildlife as I understand it. Also, if we're talking about a world after the exchange of thousands of ICBM's I'm not sure how much relative impact the melting down of the world's nuclear power plants would have. The problem has been considered before, though probably as a general safety issue rather than trying not to further irradiate a barren world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
    - code_duck 8y ago
      Wildlife thrive near Chernobyl because normal human activity is more destructive than that radiological disaster has been.
      - pvaldes 8y ago
        And because there is a replacement outside. Chernobil is acting as a sink for some species with individuals inside being killed faster but replaced with immigrants constantly.
        code_duck 8y ago
        I thought studies said that mortality wasn’t significantly increased, though some deformities were?
travisoneill1 8y ago
This has been tested and disproven by the very large nuclear exchanges that have already taken place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
deialtrous 8y ago
The fallout myth isn't true. And chernobyl is a perfect example. It caused the accidental creation of a huge nature preserve where species thought to be locally extinct are now thriving. Most wild animals don't live long enough for the slightly increased cancer rates to matter. The lack of humans destroying everything makes a huge difference on the other hand.

drb91 8y ago

Dark. I can see the immediate consequences would be atrocious. How would nuclear fallout affect wider gene pools and extinction rates? I’ve always envisioned the “apocalyptic” scenario to be a nuclear winter. Is that accurate?

code_duck 8y ago

I think the idea is that the massive depopulation caused by what you describe would function as a ‘fix’.

pvaldes 8y ago
A fix or an end. It is said that without enough population to watch and repair the current nuclear systems, the problem would quickly scalate in a few years when nuclear plants in the planet would deteriorate, get out of control and explode one after one.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  That would be devastating for individual organisms, but what would the large scale ecological impact be? Chernobyl is home to quite a bit of wildlife as I understand it. Also, if we're talking about a world after the exchange of thousands of ICBM's I'm not sure how much relative impact the melting down of the world's nuclear power plants would have. The problem has been considered before, though probably as a general safety issue rather than trying not to further irradiate a barren world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety
  - code_duck 8y ago
    Wildlife thrive near Chernobyl because normal human activity is more destructive than that radiological disaster has been.
    - pvaldes 8y ago
      And because there is a replacement outside. Chernobil is acting as a sink for some species with individuals inside being killed faster but replaced with immigrants constantly.
      - code_duck 8y ago
        I thought studies said that mortality wasn’t significantly increased, though some deformities were?

travisoneill1 8y ago

This has been tested and disproven by the very large nuclear exchanges that have already taken place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=856fWEltiXo

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

deialtrous 8y ago

The fallout myth isn't true. And chernobyl is a perfect example. It caused the accidental creation of a huge nature preserve where species thought to be locally extinct are now thriving. Most wild animals don't live long enough for the slightly increased cancer rates to matter. The lack of humans destroying everything makes a huge difference on the other hand.