23 ms·

Yeah I can't take this article seriously. It reads as though written by some nutrition/health food fanatic who distorts reality to suit their conclusions. There

by wanda 12y ago

Yeah I can't take this article seriously. It reads as though written by some nutrition/health food fanatic who distorts reality to suit their conclusions. There's just something not quite sane in the writing. The vast bulk of humanity would survive, eventually. I mean this is nitpicky, but what?

Ntrails 12y ago
He's decided that nuclear winter involves a very very small nuclear war hitting a few large cities. Which means the vast majority of humans live. If US and Russia unload, say, 75% of their arsenals I'm pretty sure that is inaccurate. Not to mention there seems to be no consideration of the radiation levels in various foods?
- hga 12y ago
  The earth is very big, and we are very small in comparison. Even back when the warhead and delivery inventories were much larger (100 times or so if my memory serves), a LLNL 3D simulation of "nuclear winter" resulted in a single nuclear fall (TAPPS, which I read when it came out and studied, was fraudulent, especially in it's use of a 1 dimensional model of the atmosphere (i.e. no winds, no oceans, etc.)). Not good, just like all too many volcanic eruptions in recorded or thereabouts history, but not the end of the world. An overall radiation increase would small to immeasurable, the effect immeasurable. It would suck to be close and downwind of a warhead explosion unless you're prepared, further away not so good, but even in Cold War targeted US 10s of millions would have survived without lifting a finger WRT to radiation.
- bmm6o 12y ago
  I think GP's point is that the sentence "The vast bulk of humanity would survive, eventually" is pretty incoherent. It's hard to guess what he means by "eventually" and what specifically he means by "humanity" (vs "humans").
- ars 12y ago
  It's not inaccurate at all. The Earth is really really big, all the nuclear weapons we have would hardly kill a fraction of the people.
saeguaiga 12y ago
Yes. I mean Grant Achatz did this before, cassia seed in the root cellars, right? Backstock in heat-exchange grills (near where 20 K overall cooloffs are welcome) is a little too central to the directionality of curated bacterial slime diets. See also the $60 DRM-free and print bundle of 120p. (Probably has a fold-out mushroom farm and a dehydrated lucky bucca, just looking at http://store.elsevier.com/Feeding-Everyone-No-Matter-What/David-Denkenberger/isbn-9780128021507/ http://store.elsevier.com/Feeding-Everyone-No-Matter-What/Da... 2 Amazon reviews mark its good humor.) It is more likely than it just being one giant parthenogen surviving (...on the box of print books. Sorry!)
- Kluny 12y ago
  Where is the fucking "report" button when you need it?

by wanda 12y ago

Ntrails 12y ago

He's decided that nuclear winter involves a very very small nuclear war hitting a few large cities. Which means the vast majority of humans live. If US and Russia unload, say, 75% of their arsenals I'm pretty sure that is inaccurate. Not to mention there seems to be no consideration of the radiation levels in various foods?

hga 12y ago
The earth is very big, and we are very small in comparison. Even back when the warhead and delivery inventories were much larger (100 times or so if my memory serves), a LLNL 3D simulation of "nuclear winter" resulted in a single nuclear fall (TAPPS, which I read when it came out and studied, was fraudulent, especially in it's use of a 1 dimensional model of the atmosphere (i.e. no winds, no oceans, etc.)). Not good, just like all too many volcanic eruptions in recorded or thereabouts history, but not the end of the world. An overall radiation increase would small to immeasurable, the effect immeasurable. It would suck to be close and downwind of a warhead explosion unless you're prepared, further away not so good, but even in Cold War targeted US 10s of millions would have survived without lifting a finger WRT to radiation.
bmm6o 12y ago
I think GP's point is that the sentence "The vast bulk of humanity would survive, eventually" is pretty incoherent. It's hard to guess what he means by "eventually" and what specifically he means by "humanity" (vs "humans").
ars 12y ago
It's not inaccurate at all. The Earth is really really big, all the nuclear weapons we have would hardly kill a fraction of the people.

saeguaiga 12y ago

Yes. I mean Grant Achatz did this before, cassia seed in the root cellars, right? Backstock in heat-exchange grills (near where 20 K overall cooloffs are welcome) is a little too central to the directionality of curated bacterial slime diets. See also the $60 DRM-free and print bundle of 120p. (Probably has a fold-out mushroom farm and a dehydrated lucky bucca, just looking at http://store.elsevier.com/Feeding-Everyone-No-Matter-What/David-Denkenberger/isbn-9780128021507/ http://store.elsevier.com/Feeding-Everyone-No-Matter-What/Da... 2 Amazon reviews mark its good humor.) It is more likely than it just being one giant parthenogen surviving (...on the box of print books. Sorry!)

Kluny 12y ago
Where is the fucking "report" button when you need it?