{"id":311,"date":"2012-12-10T21:42:05","date_gmt":"2012-12-10T21:42:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rolandorre.se\/?p=311"},"modified":"2012-12-10T23:01:27","modified_gmt":"2012-12-10T23:01:27","slug":"worldwide-effects-of-nuclear-war-some-perspectives","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/?p=311","title":{"rendered":"WORLDWIDE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR — SOME PERSPECTIVES"},"content":{"rendered":"

First, as you know, Albert Einstein was wrong<\/a>, Hitler did not develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction<\/strong>. This time I have a guest blogger<\/strong>, it is an analysis written by U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency<\/strong>, 1975<\/strong>, with a foreword by their Director, Fred C. Ikle.<\/p>\n

You may have noticed, now during December I’ve just made the titles as an Advent calender<\/strong> (to be later filled in case we reach the next level in this game, as I’m lazy, as all developers. I only do something when it’s needed)<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

WORLDWIDE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR — SOME PERSPECTIVES<\/strong>
\nU.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1975.<\/em><\/p>\n

CONTENTS<\/strong>
\nForeword
\nIntroduction
\nThe Mechanics of Nuclear Explosions
\nRadioactive Fallout
\nA. Local Fallout
\nB. Worldwide Effects of Fallout
\nAlterations of the Global Environment
\nA. High Altitude Dust
\nB. Ozone
\nSome Conclusions<\/p>\n

Note 1: Nuclear Weapons Yield
\nNote 2: Nuclear Weapons Design
\nNote 3: Radioactivity
\nNote 4: Nuclear Half-Life
\nNote 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation<\/p>\n

\n

FOREWORD<\/strong><\/p>\n

Much research has been devoted to the effects of nuclear weapons.\u00a0 But
\nstudies have been concerned for the most part with those immediate
\nconsequences which would be suffered by a country that was the direct
\ntarget of nuclear attack.\u00a0 Relatively few studies have examined the
\nworldwide, long term effects.<\/p>\n

Realistic and responsible arms control policy calls for our knowing more
\nabout these wider effects and for making this knowledge available to the
\npublic.\u00a0 To learn more about them, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) has initiated a number of projects, including a National Academy of Sciences study, requested in April 1974.\u00a0 The Academy’s study, Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations, a highly technical document of more than 200 pages, is now available.\u00a0 The present brief publication seeks to include its essential findings, along with the results of related studies of this Agency, and to provide as well the basic background facts necessary for informed perspectives on the issue.<\/p>\n

New discoveries have been made, yet much uncertainty inevitably persists.
\nOur knowledge of nuclear warfare rests largely on theory and hypothesis,
\nfortunately untested by the usual processes of trial and error; the paramount goal of statesmanship is that we should never learn from the experience of nuclear war.<\/p>\n

The uncertainties that remain are of such magnitude that of themselves they must serve as a further deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons.\u00a0 At the same time, knowledge, even fragmentary knowledge, of the broader effects of nuclear weapons underlines the extreme difficulty that strategic planners of any nation would face in attempting to predict the results of a nuclear war.\u00a0 Uncertainty is one of the major conclusions in our studies, as the haphazard and unpredicted derivation of many of our discoveries emphasizes.
\nMoreover, it now appears that a massive attack with many large-scale nuclear detonations could cause such widespread and long-lasting environmental damage that the aggressor country might suffer serious physiological, economic, and environmental effects even without a nuclear response by the country attacked.<\/p>\n

An effort has been made to present this paper in language that does not require a scientific background on the part of the reader.\u00a0 Nevertheless it must deal in schematized processes, abstractions, and statistical generalizations.\u00a0 Hence one supremely important perspective must be largely supplied by the reader: the human perspective–the meaning of these physical effects for individual human beings and for the fabric of
\ncivilized life.<\/p>\n

Fred C. Ikle
\nDirector<\/em>
\nU.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency<\/em><\/p>\n

\n

INTRODUCTION<\/strong><\/p>\n

It has now been two decades since the introduction of thermonuclear fusion weapons into the military inventories of the great powers, and more than a decade since the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union ceased to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.\u00a0 Today our understanding of the technology of thermonuclear weapons seems highly advanced, but our knowledge of the physical and biological consequences of nuclear war is continuously evolving.<\/p>\n

Only recently, new light was shed on the subject in a study which the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency had asked the National Academy of Sciences to undertake.\u00a0 Previous studies had tended to focus very largely on radioactive fallout from a nuclear war; an important aspect of this new
\nstudy was its inquiry into all possible consequences, including the effects
\nof large-scale nuclear detonations on the ozone layer which helps protect
\nlife on earth from the sun’s ultraviolet radiations.\u00a0 Assuming a total
\ndetonation of 10,000 megatons–a large-scale but less than total nuclear
\n“exchange,” as one would say in the dehumanizing jargon of the
\nstrategists–it was concluded that as much as 30-70 percent of the ozone
\nmight be eliminated from the northern hemisphere (where a nuclear war would presumably take place) and as much as 20-40 percent from the southern hemisphere.\u00a0 Recovery would probably take about 3-10 years, but the Academy’s study notes that long term global changes cannot be completely ruled out.<\/p>\n

The reduced ozone concentrations would have a number of consequences
\noutside the areas in which the detonations occurred.\u00a0 The Academy study
\nnotes, for example, that the resultant increase in ultraviolet would cause
\n“prompt incapacitating cases of sunburn in the temperate zones and snow
\nblindness in northern countries . . ”<\/p>\n

Strange though it might seem, the increased ultraviolet radiation could
\nalso be accompanied by a drop in the average temperature.\u00a0 The size of the
\nchange is open to question, but the largest changes would probably occur at
\nthe higher latitudes, where crop production and ecological balances are
\nsensitively dependent on the number of frost-free days and other factors
\nrelated to average temperature.\u00a0 The Academy’s study concluded that ozone changes due to nuclear war might decrease global surface temperatures by only negligible amounts or by as much as a few degrees.\u00a0 To calibrate the significance of this, the study mentioned that a cooling of even 1 degree centigrade would eliminate commercial wheat growing in Canada.<\/p>\n

Thus, the possibility of a serious increase in ultraviolet radiation has
\nbeen added to widespread radioactive fallout as a fearsome consequence of the large-scale use of nuclear weapons.\u00a0 And it is likely that we must
\nreckon with still other complex and subtle processes, global in scope,
\nwhich could seriously threaten the health of distant populations in the
\nevent of an all-out nuclear war.<\/p>\n

Up to now, many of the important discoveries about nuclear weapon effects
\nhave been made not through deliberate scientific inquiry but by accident.
\nAnd as the following historical examples show, there has been a series of
\nsurprises.<\/p>\n

“Castle\/Bravo” was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United States.\u00a0 Before it was set off at Bikini on February 28, 1954, it was
\nexpected to explode with an energy equivalent of about 8 million tons of
\nTNT.\u00a0 Actually, it produced almost twice that explosive power–equivalent
\nto 15 million tons of TNT.<\/p>\n

If the power of the bomb was unexpected, so were the after-effects.\u00a0 About
\n6 hours after the explosion, a fine, sandy ash began to sprinkle the
\nJapanese fishing vessel Lucky Dragon, some 90 miles downwind of the burst point, and Rongelap Atoll, 100 miles downwind.\u00a0 Though 40 to 50 miles away from the proscribed test area, the vessel’s crew and the islanders received heavy doses of radiation from the weapon’s “fallout\u201d–the coral rock, soil, and other debris sucked up in the fireball and made intensively radioactive by the nuclear reaction.\u00a0 One radioactive isotope in the fallout, iodine-131, rapidly built up to serious concentration in the thyroid glands of the victims, particularly young Rongelapese children.<\/p>\n

More than any other event in the decade of testing large nuclear weapons in
\nthe atmosphere, Castle\/Bravo’s unexpected contamination of 7,000 square
\nmiles of the Pacific Ocean dramatically illustrated how large-scale nuclear
\nwar could produce casualties on a colossal scale, far beyond the local
\neffects of blast and fire alone.<\/p>\n

A number of other surprises were encountered during 30 years of nuclear
\nweapons development.\u00a0 For example, what was probably man’s most extensive modification of the global environment to date occurred in September 1962, when a nuclear device was detonated 250 miles above Johnson Island.\u00a0 The 1.4-megaton burst produced an artificial belt of charged particles trapped in the earth’s magnetic field.\u00a0 Though 98 percent of these particles were removed by natural processes after the first year, traces could be detected 6 or 7 years later.\u00a0 A number of satellites in low earth orbit at the time of the burst suffered severe electronic damage resulting in malfunctions and early failure.\u00a0 It became obvious that man now had the power to make long term changes in his near-space environment.<\/p>\n

Another unexpected effect of high-altitude bursts was the blackout of
\nhigh-frequency radio communications.\u00a0 Disruption of the ionosphere (which
\nreflects radio signals back to the earth) by nuclear bursts over the
\nPacific has wiped out long-distance radio communications for hours at
\ndistances of up to 600 miles from the burst point.<\/p>\n

Yet another surprise was the discovery that electromagnetic pulses can play havoc with electrical equipment itself, including some in command systems that control the nuclear arms themselves.<\/p>\n

Much of our knowledge was thus gained by chance–a fact which should imbue us with humility as we contemplate the remaining uncertainties (as well as the certainties) about nuclear warfare.\u00a0 What we have learned enables us, nonetheless, to see more clearly.\u00a0 We know, for instance, that some of the earlier speculations about the after-effects of a global nuclear war were as far-fetched as they were horrifying–such as the idea that the
\nworldwide accumulation of radioactive fallout would eliminate all life on
\nthe planet, or that it might produce a train of monstrous genetic mutations
\nin all living things, making future life unrecognizable.\u00a0 And this accumulation of knowledge which enables us to rule out the more fanciful possibilities also allows us to reexamine, with some scientific rigor, other phenomena which could seriously affect the global environment and the populations of participant and nonparticipant countries alike.<\/p>\n

This paper is an attempt to set in perspective some of the longer term effects of nuclear war on the global environment, with emphasis on areas
\nand peoples distant from the actual targets of the weapons.<\/p>\n

\n

THE MECHANICS OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

In nuclear explosions, about 90 percent of the energy is released in less
\nthan one millionth of a second.\u00a0 Most of this is in the form of the heat
\nand shock waves which produce the damage.\u00a0 It is this immediate and direct explosive power which could devastate the urban centers in a major nuclear war.<\/p>\n

Compared with the immediate colossal destruction suffered in target areas,
\nthe more subtle, longer term effects of the remaining 10 percent of the energy released by nuclear weapons might seem a matter of secondary concern.\u00a0 But the dimensions of the initial catastrophe should not overshadow the after-effects of a nuclear war.\u00a0 They would be global, affecting nations remote from the fighting for many years after the holocaust, because of the way nuclear explosions behave in the atmosphere and the radioactive products released by nuclear bursts.<\/p>\n

When a weapon is detonated at the surface of the earth or at low altitudes,
\nthe heat pulse vaporizes the bomb material, target, nearby structures, and
\nunderlying soil and rock, all of which become entrained in an expanding,
\nfast-rising fireball.\u00a0 As the fireball rises, it expands and cools,
\nproducing the distinctive mushroom cloud, signature of nuclear explosions.<\/p>\n

The altitude reached by the cloud depends on the force of the explosion.
\nWhen yields are in the low-kiloton range, the cloud will remain in the
\nlower atmosphere and its effects will be entirely local.\u00a0 But as yields
\nexceed 30 kilotons, part of the cloud will punch into the stratosphere,
\nwhich begins about 7 miles up.\u00a0 With yields of 2-5 megatons or more,
\nvirtually all of the cloud of radioactive debris and fine dust will climb
\ninto the stratosphere.\u00a0 The heavier materials reaching the lower edge of
\nthe stratosphere will soon settle out, as did the Castle\/Bravo fallout at
\nRongelap.\u00a0 But the lighter particles will penetrate high into the
\nstratosphere, to altitudes of 12 miles and more, and remain there for
\nmonths and even years.\u00a0 Stratospheric circulation and diffusion will spread
\nthis material around the world.<\/p>\n

\n

RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Both the local and worldwide fallout hazards of nuclear explosions depend
\non a variety of interacting factors: weapon design, explosive force, altitude and latitude of detonation, time of year, and local weather conditions.<\/p>\n

All present nuclear weapon designs require the splitting of heavy elements
\nlike uranium and plutonium.\u00a0 The energy released in this fission process is
\nmany millions of times greater, pound for pound, than the most energetic
\nchemical reactions.\u00a0 The smaller nuclear weapon, in the low-kiloton range,
\nmay rely solely on the energy released by the fission process, as did the
\nfirst bombs which devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.\u00a0 The larger
\nyield nuclear weapons derive a substantial part of their explosive force
\nfrom the fusion of heavy forms of hydrogen–deuterium and tritium.\u00a0 Since
\nthere is virtually no limitation on the volume of fusion materials in a weapon, and the materials are less costly than fissionable materials, the fusion, “thermonuclear,” or “hydrogen” bomb brought a radical increase in the explosive power of weapons.\u00a0 However, the fission process is still
\nnecessary to achieve the high temperatures and pressures needed to trigger the hydrogen fusion reactions.\u00a0 Thus, all nuclear detonations produce
\nradioactive fragments of heavy elements fission, with the larger bursts
\nproducing an additional radiation component from the fusion process.<\/p>\n

The nuclear fragments of heavy-element fission which are of greatest
\nconcern are those radioactive atoms (also called radionuclides) which decay by emitting energetic electrons or gamma particles.\u00a0 (See “Radioactivity” note.) An important characteristic here is the rate of decay.\u00a0 This is measured in terms of “half-life”–the time required for one-half of the
\noriginal substance to decay–which ranges from days to thousands of years
\nfor the bomb-produced radionuclides of principal interest.\u00a0 (See “Nuclear
\nHalf-Life” note.) Another factor which is critical in determining the hazard of radionuclides is the chemistry of the atoms.\u00a0 This determines whether they will be taken up by the body through respiration or the food cycle and incorporated into tissue.\u00a0 If this occurs, the risk of biological damage from the destructive ionizing radiation (see “Radioactivity” note) is multiplied.<\/p>\n

Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a
\nhalf-life of 30 years.\u00a0 It is a major source of radiation in nuclear fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue.<\/p>\n

Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28
\nyears, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days.\u00a0 Strontium-90
\nfollows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the
\nbones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from
\ncows consuming contaminated forage.\u00a0 Iodine-131 is a similar threat to
\ninfants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland.
\nIn addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives.
\nA bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs,
\nwhere its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.
\nPlutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus) and has a half-life of 24,000 years.<\/p>\n

To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a
\nweapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an
\nelectron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron
\nemitter with a half-life of 5,730 years.\u00a0 Both are taken up through the
\nfood cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.<\/p>\n

Three types of radiation damage may occur: bodily damage (mainly leukemia and cancers of the thyroid, lung, breast, bone, and gastrointestinal
\ntract); genetic damage (birth defects and constitutional and degenerative
\ndiseases due to gonodal damage suffered by parents); and development and growth damage (primarily growth and mental retardation of unborn infants and young children).\u00a0 Since heavy radiation doses of about 20 roentgen or more (see “Radioactivity” note) are necessary to produce developmental defects, these effects would probably be confined to areas of heavy local fallout in the nuclear combatant nations and would not become a global problem.<\/p>\n

A. Local Fallout<\/strong>
\nMost of the radiation hazard from nuclear bursts comes from short-lived
\nradionuclides external to the body; these are generally confined to the
\nlocality downwind of the weapon burst point.\u00a0 This radiation hazard comes
\nfrom radioactive fission fragments with half-lives of seconds to a few
\nmonths, and from soil and other materials in the vicinity of the burst made
\nradioactive by the intense neutron flux of the fission and fusion
\nreactions.<\/p>\n

It has been estimated that a weapon with a fission yield of 1 million tons
\nTNT equivalent power (1 megaton) exploded at ground level in a 15
\nmiles-per-hour wind would produce fallout in an ellipse extending hundreds
\nof miles downwind from the burst point.\u00a0 At a distance of 20-25 miles
\ndownwind, a lethal radiation dose (600 rads) would be accumulated by a
\nperson who did not find shelter within 25 minutes after the time the
\nfallout began.\u00a0 At a distance of 40-45 miles, a person would have at most 3
\nhours after the fallout began to find shelter.\u00a0 Considerably smaller
\nradiation doses will make people seriously ill.\u00a0 Thus, the survival
\nprospects of persons immediately downwind of the burst point would be slim unless they could be sheltered or evacuated.<\/p>\n

It has been estimated that an attack on U.S. population centers by 100
\nweapons of one-megaton fission yield would kill up to 20 percent of the
\npopulation immediately through blast, heat, ground shock and instant
\nradiation effects (neutrons and gamma rays); an attack with 1,000 such
\nweapons would destroy immediately almost half the U.S. population.\u00a0 These
\nfigures do not include additional deaths from fires, lack of medical
\nattention, starvation, or the lethal fallout showering to the ground
\ndownwind of the burst points of the weapons.<\/p>\n

Most of the bomb-produced radionuclides decay rapidly.\u00a0 Even so, beyond the blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be areas (“hot spots”)
\nthe survivors could not enter because of radioactive contamination from
\nlong-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium-90 or cesium-137, which can
\nbe concentrated through the food chain and incorporated into the body.\u00a0 The
\ndamage caused would be internal, with the injurious effects appearing over
\nmany years.\u00a0 For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation
\nhazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the
\nattack.<\/p>\n

B. Worldwide Effects of Fallout<\/strong>
\nMuch of our knowledge of the production and distribution of radionuclides
\nhas been derived from the period of intensive nuclear testing in the
\natmosphere during the 1950’s and early 1960’s.\u00a0 It is estimated that more
\nthan 500 megatons of nuclear yield were detonated in the atmosphere between 1945 and 1971, about half of this yield being produced by a fission
\nreaction.\u00a0 The peak occurred in 1961-62, when a total of 340 megatons were detonated in the atmosphere by the United States and Soviet Union.\u00a0 The limited nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 ended atmospheric testing for the
\nUnited States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, but two major non-signatories, France and China, continued nuclear testing at the rate of about 5 megatons annually. (France now conducts its nuclear tests\u00a0 underground.)<\/p>\n

A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumulative per capita
\ndose to the world’s population up to the year 2000 as a result of
\natmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the study) will be the
\nequivalent of 2 years’ exposure to natural background radiation on the
\nearth’s surface.\u00a0 For the bulk of the world’s population, internal and
\nexternal radiation doses of natural origin amount to less than one-tenth
\nrad annually.\u00a0 Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a
\nsevere radiation threat in global terms.\u00a0 But a nuclear war releasing 10 or
\n100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far
\ngreater worldwide threat.<\/p>\n

The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been
\ncalculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences.\u00a0 Based on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear
\ntesting through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease per million live births in the next generation.\u00a0 This means that between 3 and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing generation will have genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded.\u00a0 With similar uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the induction of cancers would range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion people in the
\npost-test generation.<\/p>\n

If we apply these very rough yardsticks to a large-scale nuclear war in
\nwhich 10,000 megatons of nuclear force are detonated, the effects on a
\nworld population of 5 billion appear enormous.\u00a0 Allowing for uncertainties
\nabout the dynamics of a possible nuclear war, radiation-induced cancers and genetic damage together over 30 years are estimated to range from 1.5 to\u00a0 30 million for the world population as a whole.\u00a0 This would mean one
\nadditional case for every 100 to 3,000 people or about 1\/2 percent to
\n15 percent of the estimated peacetime cancer death rate in developed
\ncountries.\u00a0 As will be seen, moreover, there could be other, less well
\nunderstood effects which would drastically increase suffering and death.<\/p>\n

\n

ALTERATIONS OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT<\/strong>
\nA nuclear war would involve such prodigious and concentrated short term
\nrelease of high temperature energy that it is necessary to consider a
\nvariety of potential environmental effects.<\/p>\n

It is true that the energy of nuclear weapons is dwarfed by many natural
\nphenomena.\u00a0 A large hurricane may have the power of a million hydrogen
\nbombs.\u00a0 But the energy release of even the most severe weather is diffuse;
\nit occurs over wide areas, and the difference in temperature between the
\nstorm system and the surrounding atmosphere is relatively small.\u00a0 Nuclear
\ndetonations are just the opposite–highly concentrated with reaction
\ntemperatures up to tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.\u00a0 Because they
\nare so different from natural processes, it is necessary to examine their
\npotential for altering the environment in several contexts.<\/p>\n

\n

A.\u00a0 High Altitude Dust<\/strong>
\nIt has been estimated that a 10,000-megaton war with half the weapons
\nexploding at ground level would tear up some 25 billion cubic meters of
\nrock and soil, injecting a substantial amount of fine dust and particles
\ninto the stratosphere.\u00a0 This is roughly twice the volume of material
\nblasted loose by the Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, whose explosion in 1883 was the most powerful terrestrial event ever recorded.\u00a0 Sunsets around the world were noticeably reddened for several years after the Krakatoa eruption, indicating that large amounts of volcanic dust had entered the stratosphere.<\/p>\n

Subsequent studies of large volcanic explosions, such as Mt. Agung on Bali
\nin 1963, have raised the possibility that large-scale injection of dust into the stratosphere would reduce sunlight intensities and temperatures at the surface, while increasing the absorption of heat in the upper atmosphere.<\/p>\n

The resultant minor changes in temperature and sunlight could affect crop
\nproduction.\u00a0 However, no catastrophic worldwide changes have resulted from volcanic explosions, so it is doubtful that the gross injection of
\nparticulates into the stratosphere by a 10,000-megaton conflict would, by
\nitself, lead to major global climate changes.<\/p>\n

\n

B. Ozone<\/strong>
\nMore worrisome is the possible effect of nuclear explosions on ozone in the
\nstratosphere.\u00a0 Not until the 20th century was the unique and paradoxical
\nrole of ozone fully recognized.\u00a0 On the other hand, in concentrations greater than I part per million in the air we breathe, ozone is toxic; one major American city, Los Angeles, has established a procedure for ozone
\nalerts and warnings.\u00a0 On the other hand, ozone is a critically important
\nfeature of the stratosphere from the standpoint of maintaining life on the
\nearth.<\/p>\n

The reason is that while oxygen and nitrogen in the upper reaches of the
\natmosphere can block out solar ultraviolet photons with wavelengths shorter
\nthan 2,420 angstroms (A), ozone is the only effective shield in the
\natmosphere against solar ultraviolet radiation between 2,500 and 3,000 A in
\nwavelength.\u00a0 (See note 5.)\u00a0 Although ozone is extremely efficient at
\nfiltering out solar ultraviolet in 2,500-3,OOO A region of the spectrum,
\nsome does get through at the higher end of the spectrum.\u00a0 Ultraviolet rays
\nin the range of 2,800 to 3,200 A which cause sunburn, prematurely age human skin and produce skin cancers.\u00a0 As early as 1840, arctic snow blindness was attributed to solar ultraviolet; and we have since found that intense ultraviolet radiation can inhibit photosynthesis in plants, stunt plant
\ngrowth, damage bacteria, fungi, higher plants, insects and annuals, and
\nproduce genetic alterations.<\/p>\n

Despite the important role ozone plays in assuring a liveable environment
\nat the earth’s surface, the total quantity of ozone in the atmosphere is
\nquite small, only about 3 parts per million.\u00a0 Furthermore, ozone is not a
\ndurable or static constituent of the atmosphere.\u00a0 It is constantly created,
\ndestroyed, and recreated by natural processes, so that the amount of ozone
\npresent at any given time is a function of the equilibrium reached between
\nthe creative and destructive chemical reactions and the solar radiation
\nreaching the upper stratosphere.<\/p>\n

The mechanism for the production of ozone is the absorption by oxygen
\nmolecules (O2) of relatively short-wavelength ultraviolet light.\u00a0 The
\noxygen molecule separates into two atoms of free oxygen, which immediately unite with other oxygen molecules on the surfaces of particles in the upper atmosphere.\u00a0 It is this union which forms ozone, or O3.\u00a0 The heat released by the ozone-forming process is the reason for the curious increase with altitude of the temperature of the stratosphere (the base of which is about 36,000 feet above the earth’s surface).<\/p>\n

While the natural chemical reaction produces about 4,500 tons of ozone per
\nsecond in the stratosphere, this is offset by other natural chemical reactions which break down the ozone.\u00a0 By far the most significant involves nitric oxide (NO) which breaks ozone (O3) into molecules.\u00a0 This effect was discovered only in the last few years in studies of the environmental problems which might be encountered if large fleets of supersonic transport aircraft operate routinely in the lower stratosphere.\u00a0 According to a report by Dr. Harold S. Johnston, University of California at Berkeley– prepared for the Department of Transportation’s Climatic Impact Assessment Program–it now appears that the NO reaction is normally responsible for 50 to 70 percent of the destruction of ozone.<\/p>\n

In the natural environment, there is a variety of means for the production
\nof NO and its transport into the stratosphere.\u00a0 Soil bacteria produce
\nnitrous oxide (N2O) which enters the lower atmosphere and slowly diffuses
\ninto the stratosphere, where it reacts with free oxygen (O) to form two NO
\nmolecules.\u00a0 Another mechanism for NO production in the lower atmosphere may be lightning discharges, and while NO is quickly washed out of the lower atmosphere by rain, some of it may reach the stratosphere.\u00a0 Additional amounts of NO are produced directly in the stratosphere by cosmic rays from the sun and interstellar sources.<\/p>\n

It is because of this catalytic role which nitric oxide plays in the destruction of ozone that it is important to consider the effects of high-yield nuclear explosions on the ozone layer.\u00a0 The nuclear fireball and the air entrained within it are subjected to great heat, followed by relatively rapid cooling.\u00a0 These conditions are ideal for the production of tremendous amounts of NO from the air.\u00a0 It has been estimated that as much as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear explosive power.<\/p>\n

What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into the stratosphere by
\nan all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,000 megatons of
\nexplosive force in the northern hemisphere?\u00a0 According to the recent
\nNational Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide produced by the
\nweapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent.<\/p>\n

To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back to the earth’s
\nsurface less heat than would normally be the case, thus causing a drop in
\ntemperature–perhaps enough to produce serious effects on agriculture.
\nOther changes, such as increased amounts of dust or different vegetation,
\nmight subsequently reverse this drop in temperature–but on the other hand,
\nit might increase it.<\/p>\n

Probably more important, life on earth has largely evolved within the
\nprotective ozone shield and is presently adapted rather precisely to the
\namount of solar ultraviolet which does get through.\u00a0 To defend themselves
\nagainst this low level of ultraviolet, evolved external shielding (feathers, fur, cuticular waxes on fruit), internal shielding (melanin pigment in human skin, flavenoids in plant tissue), avoidance strategies (plankton migration to greater depths in the daytime, shade-seeking by desert iguanas) and, in almost all organisms but placental mammals, elaborate mechanisms to repair photochemical damage.<\/p>\n

It is possible, however, that a major increase in solar ultraviolet might
\noverwhelm the defenses of some and perhaps many terrestrial life forms.
\nBoth direct and indirect damage would then occur among the bacteria,
\ninsects, plants, and other links in the ecosystems on which human
\nwell-being depends.\u00a0 This disruption, particularly if it occurred in the
\naftermath of a major war involving many other dislocations, could pose a
\nserious additional threat to the recovery of postwar society.\u00a0 The National
\nAcademy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the ecological
\nsystems would have essentially recovered from the increase in ultraviolet
\nradiation–though not necessarily from radioactivity or other damage in
\nareas close to the war zone.\u00a0 However, a delayed effect of the increase in
\nultraviolet radiation would be an estimated 3 to 30 percent increase in
\nskin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere’s mid-latitudes.<\/p>\n

\n

SOME CONCLUSIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have considered the problems of large-scale nuclear war from the
\nstandpoint of the countries not under direct attack, and the difficulties
\nthey might encounter in postwar recovery.\u00a0 It is true that most of the
\nhorror and tragedy of nuclear war would be visited on the populations
\nsubject to direct attack, who would doubtless have to cope with extreme and perhaps insuperable obstacles in seeking to reestablish their own
\nsocieties.\u00a0 It is no less apparent, however, that other nations, including
\nthose remote from the combat, could suffer heavily because of damage to the global environment.<\/p>\n

Finally, at least brief mention should be made of the global effects resulting from disruption of economic activities and communications.\u00a0 Since 1970, an increasing fraction of the human race has been losing the battle for self-sufficiency in food, and must rely on heavy imports.\u00a0 A major
\ndisruption of agriculture and transportation in the grain-exporting and
\nmanufacturing countries could thus prove disastrous to countries importing
\nfood, farm machinery, and fertilizers–especially those which are already
\nstruggling with the threat of widespread starvation.\u00a0 Moreover, virtually
\nevery economic area, from food and medicines to fuel and growth engendering industries, the less-developed countries would find they could not rely on the “undamaged” remainder of the developed world for trade essentials: in the wake of a nuclear war the industrial powers directly involved would themselves have to compete for resources with those countries that today are described as “less-developed.”<\/p>\n

Similarly, the disruption of international communications–satellites, cables, and even high frequency radio links–could be a major obstacle to international recovery efforts.<\/p>\n

In attempting to project the after-effects of a major nuclear war, we have
\nconsidered separately the various kinds of damage that could occur.\u00a0 It is
\nalso quite possible, however, that interactions might take place among
\nthese effects, so that one type of damage would couple with another to
\nproduce new and unexpected hazards.\u00a0 For example, we can assess
\nindividually the consequences of heavy worldwide radiation fallout and
\nincreased solar ultraviolet, but we do not know whether the two acting
\ntogether might significantly increase human, animal, or plant susceptibility to disease.\u00a0 We can conclude that massive dust injection into the stratosphere, even greater in scale than Krakatoa, is unlikely by itself to produce significant climatic and environmental change, but we cannot rule out interactions with other phenomena, such as ozone depletion, which might produce utterly unexpected results.<\/p>\n

We have come to realize that nuclear weapons can be as unpredictable as
\nthey are deadly in their effects.\u00a0 Despite some 30 years of development and
\nstudy, there is still much that we do not know.\u00a0 This is particularly true
\nwhen we consider the global effects of a large-scale nuclear war.<\/p>\n

Note 1:\u00a0 Nuclear Weapons Yield<\/strong>
\nThe most widely used standard for measuring the power of nuclear weapons is “yield,” expressed as the quantity of chemical explosive (TNT) that would produce the same energy release.\u00a0 The first atomic weapon which leveled Hiroshima in 1945, had a yield of 13 kilotons; that is, the explosive power of 13,000 tons of TNT.\u00a0 (The largest conventional bomb dropped in World War II contained about 10 tons of TNT.)<\/p>\n

Since Hiroshima, the yields or explosive power of nuclear weapons have
\nvastly increased.\u00a0 The world’s largest nuclear detonation, set off in 1962
\nby the Soviet Union, had a yield of 58 megatons–equivalent to 58 million
\ntons of TNT.\u00a0 A modern ballistic missile may carry warhead yields up to 20
\nor more megatons.<\/p>\n

Even the most violent wars of recent history have been relatively limited
\nin terms of the total destructive power of the non-nuclear weapons used.
\nA single aircraft or ballistic missile today can carry a nuclear explosive
\nforce surpassing that of all the non-nuclear bombs used in recent wars.
\nThe number of nuclear bombs and missiles the superpowers now possess runs into the thousands.<\/p>\n

Note 2:\u00a0 Nuclear Weapons Design<\/strong>
\nNuclear weapons depend on two fundamentally different types of nuclear
\nreactions, each of which releases energy:<\/p>\n

Fission, which involves the splitting of heavy elements (e.g. uranium); and
\nfusion, which involves the combining of light elements (e.g. hydrogen).<\/p>\n

Fission requires that a minimum amount of material or “critical mass” be
\nbrought together in contact for the nuclear explosion to take place.\u00a0 The
\nmore efficient fission weapons tend to fall in the yield range of tens of
\nkilotons.\u00a0 Higher explosive yields become increasingly complex and
\nimpractical.<\/p>\n

Nuclear fusion permits the design of weapons of virtually limitless power.
\nIn fusion, according to nuclear theory, when the nuclei of light atoms like
\nhydrogen are joined, the mass of the fused nucleus is lighter than the two
\noriginal nuclei; the loss is expressed as energy.\u00a0 By the 1930’s, physicists had concluded that this was the process which powered the sun and stars; but the nuclear fusion process remained only of theoretical interest until it was discovered that an atomic fission bomb might be used as a “trigger” to produce, within one- or two-millionths of a second, the intense pressure and temperature necessary to set off the fusion reaction.<\/p>\n

Fusion permits the design of weapons of almost limitless power, using
\nmaterials that are far less costly.<\/p>\n

\n

Note 3: Radioactivity<\/strong>
\nMost familiar natural elements like hydrogen, oxygen, gold, and lead are
\nstable, and enduring unless acted upon by outside forces.\u00a0 But almost all
\nelements can exist in unstable forms.\u00a0 The nuclei of these unstable
\n“isotopes,” as they are called, are “uncomfortable” with the particular
\nmixture of nuclear particles comprising them, and they decrease this
\ninternal stress through the process of radioactive decay.<\/p>\n

The three basic modes of radioactive decay are the emission of alpha, beta
\nand gamma radiation:<\/p>\n

Alpha–Unstable nuclei frequently emit alpha particles, actually helium
\nnuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons.\u00a0 By far the most massive
\nof the decay particles, it is also the slowest, rarely exceeding one-tenth
\nthe velocity of light.\u00a0 As a result, its penetrating power is weak, and it
\ncan usually be stopped by a piece of paper.\u00a0 But if alpha emitters like
\nplutonium are incorporated in the body, they pose a serious cancer threat.<\/p>\n

Beta–Another form of radioactive decay is the emission of a beta particle,
\nor electron.\u00a0 The beta particle has only about one seven-thousandth the
\nmass of the alpha particle, but its velocity is very much greater, as much
\nas eight-tenths the velocity of light.\u00a0 As a result, beta particles can
\npenetrate far more deeply into bodily tissue and external doses of beta
\nradiation represent a significantly greater threat than the slower, heavier
\nalpha particles.\u00a0 Beta-emitting isotopes are as harmful as alpha emitters
\nif taken up by the body.<\/p>\n

Gamma–In some decay processes, the emission is a photon having no mass at all and traveling at the speed of light.\u00a0 Radio waves, visible light,
\nradiant heat, and X-rays are all photons, differing only in the energy
\nlevel each carries.\u00a0 The gamma ray is similar to the X-ray photon, but far
\nmore penetrating (it can traverse several inches of concrete).\u00a0 It is
\ncapable of doing great damage in the body.<\/p>\n

Common to all three types of nuclear decay radiation is their ability to
\nionize (i.e., unbalance electrically) the neutral atoms through which they
\npass, that is, give them a net electrical charge.\u00a0 The alpha particle,
\ncarrying a positive electrical charge, pulls electrons from the atoms
\nthrough which it passes, while negatively charged beta particles can push
\nelectrons out of neutral atoms.\u00a0 If energetic betas pass sufficiently close
\nto atomic nuclei, they can produce X-rays which themselves can ionize
\nadditional neutral atoms.\u00a0 Massless but energetic gamma rays can knock
\nelectrons out of neutral atoms in the same fashion as X-rays, leaving them
\nionized.\u00a0 A single particle of radiation can ionize hundreds of neutral
\natoms in the tissue in multiple collisions before all its energy is
\nabsorbed.\u00a0 This disrupts the chemical bonds for critically important cell
\nstructures like the cytoplasm, which carries the cell’s genetic blueprints,
\nand also produces chemical constituents which can cause as much damage as the original ionizing radiation.<\/p>\n

For convenience, a unit of radiation dose called the “rad” has been
\nadopted.\u00a0 It measures the amount of ionization produced per unit volume by
\nthe particles from radioactive decay.<\/p>\n

\n

Note 4: Nuclear Half-Life<\/strong>
\nThe concept of “half-life” is basic to an understanding of radioactive decay of unstable nuclei.<\/p>\n

Unlike physical “systems”–bacteria, animals, men and stars–unstable
\nisotopes do not individually have a predictable life span.\u00a0 There is no way
\nof forecasting when a single unstable nucleus will decay.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, it is possible to get around the random behavior of an
\nindividual nucleus by dealing statistically with large numbers of nuclei of
\na particular radioactive isotope.\u00a0 In the case of thorium-232, for example,
\nradioactive decay proceeds so slowly that 14 billion years must elapse
\nbefore one-half of an initial quantity decayed to a more stable
\nconfiguration.\u00a0 Thus the half-life of this isotope is 14 billion years.
\nAfter the elapse of second half-life (another 14 billion years), only one-fourth of the original quantity of thorium-232 would remain, one eighth after the third half-life, and so on.<\/p>\n

Most manmade radioactive isotopes have much shorter half-lives, ranging
\nfrom seconds or days up to thousands of years.\u00a0 Plutonium-239 (a manmade isotope) has a half-life of 24,000 years.<\/p>\n

For the most common uranium isotope, U-238, the half-life is 4.5 billion years, about the age of the solar system.\u00a0 The much scarcer, fissionable isotope of uranium, U-235, has a half-life of 700 million years, indicating
\nthat its present abundance is only about 1 percent of the amount present
\nwhen the solar system was born.<\/p>\n

\n

Note 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation<\/strong>
\nOxygen, vital to breathing creatures, constitutes about one-fifth of the
\nearth’s atmosphere.\u00a0 It occasionally occurs as a single atom in the
\natmosphere at high temperature, but it usually combines with a second
\noxygen atom to form molecular oxygen (O2).\u00a0 The oxygen in the air we
\nbreathe consists primarily of this stable form.<\/p>\n

Oxygen has also a third chemical form in which three oxygen atoms are bound together in a single molecule (03), called ozone.\u00a0 Though less stable and far more rare than O2, and principally confined to upper levels of the
\nstratosphere, both molecular oxygen and ozone play a vital role in
\nshielding the earth from harmful components of solar radiation.<\/p>\n

Most harmful radiation is in the “ultraviolet” region of the solar spectrum, invisible to the eye at short wavelengths (under 3,000 A).\u00a0 (An angstrom unit–A–is an exceedingly short unit of length–10 billionths of a centimeter, or about 4 billionths of an inch.) Unlike X-rays, ultraviolet photons are not “hard” enough to ionize atoms, but pack enough energy to break down the chemical bonds of molecules in living cells and produce a variety of biological and genetic abnormalities, including tumors and cancers.<\/p>\n

Fortunately, because of the earth’s atmosphere, only a trace of this dangerous ultraviolet radiation actually reaches the earth.\u00a0 By the time
\nsunlight reaches the top of the stratosphere, at about 30 miles altitude,
\nalmost all the radiation shorter than 1,900 A has been absorbed by
\nmolecules of nitrogen and oxygen.\u00a0 Within the stratosphere itself, molecular oxygen (02) absorbs the longer wavelengths of ultraviolet, up to 2,420 A; and ozone (O3) is formed as a result of this absorption process.
\nIt is this ozone then which absorbs almost all of the remaining ultraviolet
\nwavelengths up to about 3,000 A, so that almost all of the dangerous solar
\nradiation is cut off before it reaches the earth’s surface.<\/p>\n

\n
\"Tic<\/a>

Tic Tac Toe, another game you can't win \u2762<\/p><\/div>\n

\n

This text is in the public domain and is retrieved from the Gutenberg project, a copy of the verbatim text used can be found from this link<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

First, as you know, Albert Einstein was wrong, Hitler did not develop nuclear weapons of mass destruction. This time I have a guest blogger, it is an analysis written by U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1975, with a foreword … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5,1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ai","category-love","category-okategoriserade"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=311"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":314,"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/311\/revisions\/314"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rolandorre.se\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}