It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Enviro-Nuclear Option

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Check this, we can use as much oil as we want, we can use as much coal as we want, but so what? We may have the Siberian permafrost to worry about, or acetates on the seas, but war once again has sorted us out.

If we have a nuclear war, we can drop temperatures to -70 degrees centigrade. But we don't want that much, just a few bombs dropping us a few degrees.

Morality aside, do you think that this is going to happen?




posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
If you look at the area surrounding Chernobyl, it is teeming with wildlife which cannot be affected by man due to the high radiation levels. While smaller animals like birds and rodents have no problem with it, humans can get killed by it. I'm sure that if all humans were killed due to nuclear exchange then nature would bounce back much quicker then anyone realizes.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scalamander
If you look at the area surrounding Chernobyl, it is teeming with wildlife which cannot be affected by man due to the high radiation levels. While smaller animals like birds and rodents have no problem with it, humans can get killed by it. I'm sure that if all humans were killed due to nuclear exchange then nature would bounce back much quicker then anyone realizes.


Mutations 'n' all. I try to keep faith that humanity is a good thing lol. I certainly did not mean enough nukes to kill us.........



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Scalamander
If you look at the area surrounding Chernobyl, it is teeming with wildlife which cannot be affected by man due to the high radiation levels. While smaller animals like birds and rodents have no problem with it, humans can get killed by it.


That is a common misconception. The radiation levels at Chernobyl are not sufficient to kill humans, and haven't been that way since after the first few days of the reactor meltdown. Incredible, but true:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



During the Chernobyl disaster, arguably the worst nuclear catastrophe in human history, three other nuclear reactors in the complex continued to operate, with an active staff during the entire crises, and for nearly fifteen years afterwards.


I think your point is fairly well taken though. Multiple nuclear explosions and the resulting nuclear winter would probably reverse global warming. I would be willing to take a shot, if you would.

Shall we we give it a try?



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   
1. There could never be a limited nuclear exchange.

2. I have no doubt a few humans shall survive and nature will indeed spring back faster than most would consider possible.

3. I do not believe it can be avoided.

4. I do believe it may be both delayed and curtailed.

5. I know the first nuclear warhead will detonate just north of Albania.

6. I know US commercial reactors are 5 to 8 percent enriched uranium but Russians are 98 percent. The Russian plants primary purpose is weapons grade plutonium. I know we can recycle our fuel down to 3 per cent wastage and that we could have safe nuclear energy but our government will never allow it. Just like they will not allow the high level waste to be buried at our old nuclear underground test sites.



posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 07:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Buck Division

Shall we we give it a try?


That's the currently unspeakable point that is stopping us from facing up to that and our environmental responsibilities.



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join