too bad it's unscientific propaganda

That's a good response and a good attitude about the movie.

The earth would have to collide with the moon to destoy it.

> Er... America alone has enough nukes to reduce the planet to ashes many times over. The threat of atomic radiation is very real, and so is fallout that moves along with the air currents. Not to mention that the nuclear damage to all the ecosystems would be utterly disasterous to anything that likes living.
> One atomic bomb, merely childs play by todays standard, wiped out Hiroshima and continued killing for decades. Even to this day, many mutations, often fatal, still show up in that region.

LOL, so filled with errors it's barely worth fisking, but for the humor value.

Horrible as nuclear war's results would be, MOST WERE TARGETTED AT SPECIFIC THINGS, each multiple times -- as such, while civilization in specific areas would be wiped out (and other areas seriously diminished by the interdependency of the world economy on that regions' production) much of the world -- especially that which HAS NOT developed already into a "moderd economy" would not be tremendously affected.

Yes, there would be radiation around the world but radiation is a boogeyman which has been so overblown as to be laughable.

Look at Chernobyl -- REALLY *LOOK*. The area was covered by a massive plume of radioactive CARBON -- you know, the stuff your own bodies uses *directly* as a major component of its internal working parts? There are thousands and thousands of people still living in the 50-mile swath of it initial plume, and, other than those who died quickly, most are at notable but not MASSIVE risk of death-by-cancer -- sorta like those on the crew of the 50s "Genghis Kahn" movie many of whom died of cancer 20-40 years later. Not nice, but, if I told you you were going to die in 20-40 years, would you suddenly freak and run around gibbering? No, you wouldn't -- because that would mean that most would STILL live longer than most people did 100 years ago.

As a matter of fact, the real estimates are that STRESS and FEAR are causing more physiological harm to Chernobylites than the actual radiation.

Despite Tanivein's silly claim, the incident of "mutation" at both Chernoby AND Hiroshima/Nagasaki is small and barely noticeable (by all means, Tanuvein, show us a REPUTABLE source for that claim -- a Soviet/Russian/Ukranian official report, an international atomic agency report, anything REPUTABLE -- and no, grandiose claims by Greenpeace or its self-serving offshoots are NOT Reputable by themselves unless they are quoting some other more reputable agency -- **with verifiable sources** for its quotations).

I'm not going to say take my word for it, go search for info yourselves, that's what the Internet is good for -- just use sense in listening to whom is speaking. You can't trust Greenpeace and its ilk -- they have become a multibillion dollar organization with their own agenda and issues to push. Look for published, peer-reviewed reports and journalistic rehashings of same, you'll get much closer to the truth.

> to all the ecosystems would be utterly disasterous to anything that likes living
WAAAAY Overblown.Again, Chernobyl's ecosystem has hardly been disrupted. Duh. QED.

> in the odd chance we don't reduce the planet to plasma from a nuclear war
Oh, Jeez, can you BE any *more* ridiculous? "Reduce the planet to plasma"? You REALLY, REALLY don't grasp just how trivial and miniscule the real power of humans, despite our technology, really is, do you?

Did you learn NOTHING from Katrina, which, for at least a month, brought an entire *region* of inarguably the most powerful nation on the planet to its knees and had ripple effects on that nation for months and months? That was *one* "tiny little hurricane".

The power necessary to reduce the Earth to "plasma" (as though you had ANY clue what that actually was) is not only beyond our capacity, but beyond our current power by many **orders of magnitude** -- I mean, get a grip: It took GOD a full day to go the opposite direction. We ain't GOD. We're not even gods (small-g).

Tell the truth: You watched "The Core" and actually believed it might happen, didn't you? You didn't grasp why everyone else was absolutely laughing their asses off at its absurd premise -- right?

A nuclear war would not kill everybody. It would probably not even wipe out civilization - some places would just not be nuked.

If they decided to just nuke everything, not only the country that was nuking them, then it would still not kill everyone. No matter how you spread the nukes out it would not be enough. If anything, we should build even more nukes.

That last line was a joke, but it really wouldn't wipe out all life on earth.


These cartoons are truly bizarre and frightening!
http://www.lungsfilms.cjb.net/

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa009.html, "The Social and Economic Analysis of Nuclear War" by Simon Katz and Sima Osdoby for the Cato Institute is perhaps the most recent and up-to-date discussion of the post-nuclear environment minus the hand-wringing and emotional tumult surrounding the issue.

David Martin, a peace activist and Australian researcher on stratospheric studies, has devoted considerable time to studying the actual (as opposed to the generally supposed) effects of a nuclear war on the environment in "The Global Health Effects of Nuclear War" http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82cab/

Dr. Martin does much to undo the work of "On The Beach," which assumed the nuclear arsenals of one or both sides would be cobalt-jacketed, something which turns out not to be the case for our weapons. Whether it is true of the Russian or Chinese arsenals is conjectural, of course. Even with jacketing, Nevil Shute's estimates of how comprehensively the Earth would be covered by radiation are drawn into serious question by his fellow Australian Martin's study.

Since it would take between 15 and 20 years for cobalt-60 from cobalt-jacketed warheads to decay down to minimally bearable levels, one might think that it would take a real maniac to jacket a nuke with cobalt... which narrows the field of suspects down to North Korea, Iran, possibly Saudi Arabia if there's anything to the rumors that the Saudis' financial aid to the Pakistani nuclear program involved a quid pro quo - some of the resulting nukes in exchange.

I see nothing implausible about a fanatical, ecologically illiterate cabal in charge of one of the above named countries detonating cobalt-jacketed nuclear devices on freighters located upwind of population centers in, say, Israel and the US in order to exterminate a hated enemy, regardless of the probable retaliation. It would require a ship, not a missile, because the amount of cobalt-59 required to jacket a nuclear warhead for massive radiological deaths runs into the tons.

Instead of acheiving world-wide acceptance for their sect, a group which had demonstrated its willingness to amputate the planetary ecology for purely hateful motives would literally be sowing the wind and reaping the whirlwind for themselves. (Of course, Shute's point remains - "And what IS an adequate motive for amputating the planetary ecology?")

However, Nevil Shute originally was writing both a cautionary tale and a moral story which reduced the alternatives in the nuclear age to peace or annihilation for mankind. Much of "On the Beach"'s dramatic power would have been lost had Shute's feet been held to the fire on the technical details. I understand that, and I believe that most contemporary viewers do as well.

I'm a trained radiological monitor. I've studied the specific problem of fallout radiation after a large-scale nuclear exchange half my life. And I've supplemented government training with laboratory and classroom courses in college at a major university nuclear science center.

So yes, compared to you, I AM an authority on the post-nuclear environment. The Louisiana Department of Emergency Preparedness certified me as such after I completed formal training as a radiological monitor, something I venture to say from your ignorant response, you have not done.

Propaganda?

The good old U. s. of A. conducted thousands (yes, thousands) of atomic tests over the years, both above ground and below ground, as well as on islands and in the middle of the ocean. It's a well known fact that the cumulative effects of all that testing has affected millions of people across the world, causing cancer, cell mutation, all types of horrible things to people that the US was saying it was 'protecting' by having these weapons in the first place.

Take a look at what happened with chernobyl in the 80's. That place is still a huge mess, and it will be for thousands of years. Can you imagine if all the nuclear weapon possesing countries lost it and nuked the world? The firestorms alone would kill billions, never mind the diseases, famines, plagues....

Someday, if you really want to see the kind of destruction to expect, if on a very minor scale, someday look up what happened to the city of Dresden, Germany one morning during World War Two. Our beloved country bombed the hell out of it, and the raging inferno killed thouands.

We should all be so lucky if it were only 'propaganda.

Maybe i'd be able to sleep a little easier.

C'mon people can't you see that this is a trick statement.

It's actually partly true that all the Nuclear Weapons in the world couldn't kill 'everyone' in Texas.

You've all forgotten that there is one particular Texan who is unable to be destroyed by any weapon or craft known to man.

CHUCK NORRIS!

Well, well, well. Aren't you the new Albert Einstein?
No, wait. He said "The Third World War will be fought with sticks and stones".

Anyone who imagines that Chernobyl says ANYTHING -- literally ANYTHING --about nuclear electric power generation in the West is uterly, abysmally, inexcusably ignorant ***in the extreme*** and has -nothing- worthwhile to contribute to the argument.

Just saw this movie and rather enjoyed it. I've also read this rather interesting thread. Sorry folks. I know I'll get bashed to death, but I just have to jump into this one.

First of all, I am not a nuclear physicist. But physics was my main concentration in school. And I've made a life long hobby of it. I have a large library. Nuclear physics. Quantum mechanics. High energy particle physics. And so on. So, while not a "professional", I do have significant knowledge on the subject. Actual scientific, factual knowledge. Not alarmist nonsense found on some internet web site. That's one of the interesting things about the internet. With just a little work, you can find absolute proof for any position you want to take. And then turn around and disprove it just as thoroughly. People have a bad habit of believing that anything they read on the internet is the truth. Nope. Kind of like newspapers.

And before I really jump on my soapbox, a slight detour. On the subject of obliterating the entire state of Texas with conventional weapons. Uhhhh. No. Some may recall a small little conflict back in the early 40's. Germany is significantly smaller than Texas and much more densely populated. And we dropped more conventional ordinance on that nation than the entire U.S. Air Force posesses today. For four straight years. While I wasn't around back then to witness events first hand, it does appear that a small number of Germans survived the ordeal. Look how much ordinance was dumped on Omaha Beach prior to the Normandy invasion. Only a small percentage of the defending forces were destroyed. As fearsome as today's military technology is, its silly to think that we have the capability to utterly destroy anything with conventional weapons.

Anyway, on with the show. Radiation is one of the most misunderstood topics there is. The word causes more irrational fear than anything I can think of, including the food in our cafeteria at work. I wonder what the average person would say if they were informed that their own bodies are naturally radioactive? Yes, you are. If you hold a geiger counter, it will always click, no matter where you are. And some of those clicks, come from inside you. A significant component of all animal life on earth is carbon. You can't survive without it. You breath it. You eat it. Every day. 99.9% of the carbon naturally occurring on Earth is Carbon 12. A tenth of a percent is Carbon 13. Like Carbon 12, Carbon 13 is stable. But a small percent is Carbon 14, which is unstable and radioactive. Now that only accounts for one part in a trillion. Which doesn't sound like much. But given there are many trillions of carbon atoms in your body, it makes for a measurable level of Carbon 14 in your body. That's the very basis for carbon dating techniques you hear about all the time. There are several other natural radioisotopes in your body as well. The fact is, radiation is a natural thing. We are surrounded by natural radiation sources. And not necessarily in trivial amounts. Everyone knows about Chernobyl. And while the radiation levels in the areas surrounding Chernobyl are still higher than before the accident, few people know that those radiation levels are lower than the normal background radiation in Denver, Colorado. Everyone knows that Denver is the mile high city. That means thinner air. Which means less protection from solar and cosmic radiation. What's more, the bedrock around Denver contains higher quantities of heavy elements such as Uranium, Thorium and Radium than other parts of the country. Residents in the city of Denver are regularly exposed to natural radiation levels that are much higher than what people in other areas receive. What's funny about this is Denver's cancer rate is lower than the national average. And I've been to Denver several times. Don't recall seeing any people with 4 heads or 6 arms running around. Oh, and did you British folks know that there are significant deposits of heavy elements beneath many areas of Great Britain? Many British citizens are exposed to background radiation levels, and especially radon gas, at much higher levels than the norm. Last I heard, Britain is still alive and kicking.

Is radiation hazardous? Certainly. Can radioactive substances be handled carelessly? No. But it shouldn't be a source of complete irrational fear. It's a natural thing. Think about that the next time you buy a food product that says its "all natural". Radiation is with us every day. And there is distinct scientific evidence that exposure to small doses of radiation is actually good for you. Another aspect of radiation that is rarely considered is that the more radioactive a substance is, the more quickly it decays into more stable elements. That's why even the most pessimistic predictions show radiation following a major nuclear event falling to livable levels within a few weeks. Global extinction due to radiation contamination following a nuclear exchange is a myth, fueled by simple ignorance.

The fact is, in the aftermath of a nuclear war, the affects of panic, lawlessness, breakdown of necessary services, food shortages, etc would cause far more damage than any lingering radiation. We are a soft society, accustomed to our comforts. We like our technology and our toys. We, as a society, would not fare well in the harsh conditions that would exist after a nuclear war.

While i agree with everything you said ... I wonder if you're still saying the same thing after FUKUSHIMA.

I'm sure you'll probably make a list of excuses and reasons .. but from 7 mile island onwards ... these nuclear mistakes teach us one thing about nuclear power. That is if it can go wrong it will go wrong, and if it involves 'nuclear' when it does go wrong it wont be pretty. I'm sure you'll agree that nothing is prefect and therefore nothing is perfectly safe.

He makes a rhetorical point that's actually quite correct, if over-the-top.

His main point, that a nuclear war isn't quite the boogey-man it's been made out to be, is also probably quite correct. Besides Hiroshima and Nagasaki (both of which seem to be doing ok these days) we quite literally nuclear-bombed the crap out of the south pacific and our own western deserts.

You should read the FAS (not known for being conservatives at all) website on nuclear testing, educate yourself some more.

Several folks who survived the Hiroshima blast were within 350 yards of ground zero. This means the Hirshima bomb failed to kill everyone within the immediate 1/20th of a square mile. Four square miles is an area 80 times as large, and though today's weapons are much more powerful the average one would still not kill everyone within 4 square miles. The problem is that the extra power of modern weapons is not evenly distributed over a larger blast area, but instead overpulverizes the immediate blast area. Many of the stockpiled weapons relied on imprecise delivery systems as well, which would lead to further overpulverization as some weapons hit the same area twice and other areas were missed completely.