by EnergyUnlimited » Wed 13 Dec 2006, 06:36:56
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Grifter', 'W')ith respect EU, I don't know that much about this subject coz it scares the pants off me, but the article talks about nukes being dropped on cities and thus burning all the wood and oil based products that can be found there. The soot from this is what is supposed to cause a global cooling effect, not the nukes themselves.
Tests are done in the middle of nowhere and there's not much around to burn.
Please do not take my posts here, as statements suggesting that nuclear war would be good.
I would not like to live through that either (even if I live in countryside myself).
The nuclear test, which I was writting about was carried out in Syberian region and much of cellulosic material had also been burned there.
Now, did you hear about Tunguska metheorite?
It released even LARGER energy than Tsar Bomba in the middle of huge syberian forests, with emmision of
really huge amounts of soot, smoke etc into a stratosphere. And no climate cooling either...
I acknowledge, that it is difficult to estimate real impact of nuclear exchanges on our biosphere, but I try to put some reasoning on the issue, not just refer to fears and stereotypes.