4 ms·

In this scenario, how long would it take for the radioactivity to completely disappear and start re-inhabiting and re-populating the northern hemisphere?

by fosk 13y ago

funkyy 13y ago
Its not that easy. Radioactive materials dont just disappear. It would take probably around ~100-200 years for humans to evolve to be partly immune to radioactivity (the same way we "evolved" to be partly immune to coal vapors and other toxic waste in our air) and reduce amount of sick/sterile people. Then humans would need to slowly remove or neutralize radioactive content - 200 years sounds right for humanity to find a way of doing this (as of now there is no mass way doing so - but I believe humanity would come out with solution if this would be the way for civilization to survive). The process probably would take ages - started with regions less contaminated (Islands etc) and moving onwards avoiding direct impact zones.
- bermanoid 13y ago
  "200 years" and "evolve" should never, ever, appear in the same sentence.
  - thaumasiotes 13y ago
    You're not thinking very hard. How long does it generally take to get a new breed of dog? How many generations of E. Coli will occur over 200 years? Assuming a human generation length of 25 years, why would there be no evolutionary change over 8 generations?
    - judk 13y ago
      Selection for existing attributes is plausible on 200-yr timescale. Pro-adaptive mutation is not.
      - thaumasiotes 13y ago
        To within measurement error, all attributes are pre-existing attributes. It's called "natural variation" and is the universally-accepted explanation for why we have sexual reproduction instead of budding. Right now, some people are more radiation-resistant than others.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
akira2501 13y ago
It depends largely on the type of blast, an air blast, which is the most destructive to property and buildings is the least contaminating in it's effects; e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, if you let the bomb detonate very close the surface, you get less destruction in terms of the blast, but you get insanely high radiation levels for a long time afterwards. Analogous to Chernobyl.

In this scenario, how long would it take for the radioactivity to completely disappear and start re-inhabiting and re-populating the northern hemisphere?

by fosk 13y ago

In this scenario, how long would it take for the radioactivity to completely disappear and start re-inhabiting and re-populating the northern hemisphere?

funkyy 13y ago

Its not that easy. Radioactive materials dont just disappear. It would take probably around ~100-200 years for humans to evolve to be partly immune to radioactivity (the same way we "evolved" to be partly immune to coal vapors and other toxic waste in our air) and reduce amount of sick/sterile people. Then humans would need to slowly remove or neutralize radioactive content - 200 years sounds right for humanity to find a way of doing this (as of now there is no mass way doing so - but I believe humanity would come out with solution if this would be the way for civilization to survive). The process probably would take ages - started with regions less contaminated (Islands etc) and moving onwards avoiding direct impact zones.

bermanoid 13y ago
"200 years" and "evolve" should never, ever, appear in the same sentence.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  You're not thinking very hard. How long does it generally take to get a new breed of dog? How many generations of E. Coli will occur over 200 years? Assuming a human generation length of 25 years, why would there be no evolutionary change over 8 generations?
  - judk 13y ago
    Selection for existing attributes is plausible on 200-yr timescale. Pro-adaptive mutation is not.
    - thaumasiotes 13y ago
      To within measurement error, all attributes are pre-existing attributes. It's called "natural variation" and is the universally-accepted explanation for why we have sexual reproduction instead of budding. Right now, some people are more radiation-resistant than others.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

akira2501 13y ago

It depends largely on the type of blast, an air blast, which is the most destructive to property and buildings is the least contaminating in it's effects; e.g. Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, if you let the bomb detonate very close the surface, you get less destruction in terms of the blast, but you get insanely high radiation levels for a long time afterwards. Analogous to Chernobyl.