QUOTE(IndecisiveMan @ Apr 1 2005, 12:56 AM)
Gosh you are getting annoying. Fine I will repost what you say once and for all.
Not throwing your 'weight' around again are ya? And I'm getting annoying... Ah, that's a laugh!

And I'm gonna split this post to ease my answer and prob'ly preventing you to say that you don't understand where I'm heading.
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Now this is STRAIGHT out of YOUR link that YOU provided. Your argument was that a nuclear disaster would cause a global effect. Well take a look at your own stuff. Might I highlight something for a second. "IT WAS NOT A GLOBAL ONE." Hmm did you see that? OK then. So by your own ersources you have been brought down. If you don't shut up after this I don't know when you would. Clearly right there your part is wrong. A nuclear war wouldn't affect the earth, only the people and such.
Bah! You're playing stupid aren't you?
QUOTE(Partial quote from Global Impact from WikiPedia.org)
...
One can argue that while the Chernobyl accident was a local disaster, it was not a global one.
They were refering to the
Chernobyl disaster and not to
Nuclear Winter. I also had presented that here already. And if you do read as you state that you do it wouldn't be dragged for so many time as it's goin' now. Hey so what's new... and it only has been the 3rd time (give or take a few) that you evaded to reply the
Nuclear Winter arguement. I shouldn't be amazed by now, but wth it still makes me cringe when you act to pretend ignorance. Same goes for the rest of my post #47.
QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Hmm I wonder if you need more of this so called "evidence"(that apparently proves the provideer wrong...

) so I will give you some. In case you didn't know a nuclear war has alreayd somewhat happeend. Back in 1945 a country called the United States of America dropped two atomic bombs on the country of Japan. They hit two citires called Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Anyways onto the evidence. Here are some stories of what would happen.
In 1945 there was some initial speculation among the scientists developing the first nuclear weapons that there might be a possibility of igniting the earth's atmosphere with a large enough nuclear explosion. This was, however, quickly shown to be mathematically unlikely enough to be considered impossible, though the notion has persisted as a rumor for many years.
Two nukes isn't considered "large scale". And we already went through this one before... and what else is new? Nothing. You're repeating yourself over again (circular logic).
*Rants* Get some new excuses (read arguements) out of that mofo closet of yours, please.

QUOTE(IndecisiveMan)
Here is the link that you should read
link. It goes over all the global effects of a nuclear war. Nowhere in there does it say the environment will die out, or the earth will spin off course, or any of that otehr bullcrap people are trying to say. Now I am guessing after this you will just stop posting here. I think it would be best since you yourself have not provided anything beyond "Refer back to such and such...". Well I read your little link and it proved you wrong. Now read mine and stop posting.
[right][snapback]177305[/snapback][/right]
Woah... It was 'bout time! Something new coming from that end.
A site that refers to an outdated study from 1975 (and in a *.txt file)!?!
*Proceeds reading none the less* Eh, just decided to highlight a part of your link to show ya that it affects the environment when it's absorbed in our food chain. Or that even your accessment of the nuke bombs used in 1945 is wrong and outdated by today's standards.
Go, inquisitive mind of mine... And as you can see it isn't enough to throw massive reading material at me, just in an attempt to shut me up (and a void one it was).
*Smirks*QUOTE(Some paragraphs taken out of your link (LogicSouth.com))
...
All present nuclear weapon designs require the splitting of heavy elements
like uranium and plutonium. The energy released in this fission process is
many millions of times greater, pound for pound, than the most energetic
chemical reactions. The smaller nuclear weapon, in the low-kiloton range,
may rely solely on the energy released by the fission process, as did the
first bombs which devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The larger
yield nuclear weapons derive a substantial part of their explosive force
from the fusion of heavy forms of hydrogen--deuterium and tritium. Since
there 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. However, the fission process is still
necessary to achieve the high temperatures and pressures needed to trigger
the hydrogen fusion reactions. Thus, all nuclear detonations produce
radioactive fragments of heavy elements fission, with the larger bursts
producing an additional radiation component from the fusion process.
The nuclear fragments of heavy-element fission which are of greatest
concern are those radioactive atoms (also called radionuclides) which decay
by emitting energetic electrons or gamma particles. (See "Radioactivity"
note.) An important characteristic here is the rate of decay. This is
measured in terms of "half-life"--the time required for one-half of the
original substance to decay--which ranges from days to thousands of years
for the bomb-produced radionuclides of principal interest. (See "Nuclear
Half-Life" note.) Another factor which is critical in determining the
hazard of radionuclides is the chemistry of the atoms. This determines
whether they will be taken up by the body through respiration or the food
cycle and incorporated into tissue. If this occurs, the risk of biological
damage from the destructive ionizing radiation (see "Radioactivity" note)
is multiplied.
Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a
half-life of 30 years. 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.
Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28
years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days. Strontium-90
follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the
bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from
cows consuming contaminated forage. Iodine-131 is a similar threat to
infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland.
In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives.
A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs,
where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.
Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus)
and has a half-life of 24,000 years.
To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a
weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an
electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron
emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years. Both are taken up through the
food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter.
...
A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumulative per capita
dose to the world's population up to the year 2000 as a result of
atmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the study) will be the
equivalent of 2 years' exposure to natural background radiation on the
earth's surface. For the bulk of the world's population, internal and
external radiation doses of natural origin amount to less than one-tenth
rad annually. Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a
severe radiation threat in global terms. But a nuclear war releasing 10 or
100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far
greater worldwide threat.
The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been
calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences. Based
on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear
testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease
per million live births in the next generation. 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. 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
post-test generation.
...
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. The nuclear fireball and
the air entrained within it are subjected to great heat, followed by
relatively rapid cooling. These conditions are ideal for the production of
tremendous amounts of NO from the air. It has been estimated that as much
as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear
explosive power.
What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into the stratosphere by
an all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,000 megatons of
explosive force in the northern hemisphere? According to the recent
National Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide produced by the
weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hemisphere by as much
as 30 to 70 percent.
To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back to the earth's
surface less heat than would normally be the case, thus causing a drop in
temperature--perhaps enough to produce serious effects on agriculture.
Other changes, such as increased amounts of dust or different vegetation,
might subsequently reverse this drop in temperature--but on the other hand,
it might increase it.
Probably more important, life on earth has largely evolved within the
protective ozone shield and is presently adapted rather precisely to the
amount of solar ultraviolet which does get through. To defend themselves
against 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.
It is possible, however, that a major increase in solar ultraviolet might
overwhelm the defenses of some and perhaps many terrestrial life forms.
Both direct and indirect damage would then occur among the bacteria,
insects, plants, and other links in the ecosystems on which human
well-being depends. This disruption, particularly if it occurred in the
aftermath of a major war involving many other dislocations, could pose a
serious additional threat to the recovery of postwar society. The National
Academy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the ecological
systems would have essentially recovered from the increase in ultraviolet
radiation--though not necessarily from radioactivity or other damage in
areas close to the war zone. However, a delayed effect of the increase in
ultraviolet radiation would be an estimated 3 to 30 percent increase in
skin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere's mid-latitudes.
...
QUOTE(IndeciseveMan on post #88)
What the heck is that all about? Biased? Heh. If you aren't going to read pure evidence then don't argue your point back. We are talking about the affects on the EARTH, not some little crop field down the corner. We alreayd know radiation can carry and yadda yadda yadda. What we are debating is the global affect(i.e. the idea that maybe something gigantic will happen causing the earth to change its normal orbit, climate, etc.). And of course a Tsunami will affect weather. What kind of...*sighs*.
As you can see by now, I even used your ol' link provided to support my point, even if it has 30 years upon it's shoulders now.
And hasn't our technology rate surpassed those and made new, improved studies about nuclear impact or even new bombs with a more efficient rate of destruction? Yup, both those were made. All I can really say about your 'evidence' is that is a
biased one that won't do ya credit.

Next time really read and/or study what you present at folks, that's my friendly advice.
