Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Alan Robock is a distinguished professor of climate science from Rutgers University’s Department of Environmental Sciences. He is also the co-author of the study in Nature Food. He claimed that World of Engineering’s estimate of two degrees Fahrenheit for two to three years was “wrong”. The effects on the climate would depend completely on the amount of smoke injected into the atmosphere. He added that the duration of the possible impact does not rely on the volume of smoke to address the question of how long they would last. For each scenario addressed, the maximum effects would last for five years.
     Robock said that the effects of increased ultraviolet (UV) light on crop varieties, people, and ecosystems are one aspect of atmospheric soot. The heating would destroy the ozone in the stratosphere. This would allow more UV radiation to reach the surface. However, the impacts would be felt instantly for even the tiniest amount of smoke. Before its effects could be felt at the surface of the Earth, the excess UV would be absorbed by the large amount of stratospheric smoke that has been accumulating for years.
      According to Robock, a nuclear war would result in lower temperatures because the soot would indeed rise high enough in the atmosphere to prevent rain from washing the soot out. The soot would then absorb sunlight which would result in turning the Earth’s surface dark and chilly. The idea that a small nuclear war would stop global warming is simply not true.
      Irrespective of whether the theory is accurate or not, it is worth noting that the World of Engineering Twitter thread warned of serious consequences of such an event. They could instead have chosen to suggest that the projected sharp decline in global temperatures would be highly beneficial to humanity.
      Even a small nuclear war would worsen the situation by sparking a brand-new climate crisis when considered in the larger context of climate change. As an example, significant crop disparities in major exporters like the U.S. and Russia would result in export restrictions. This would have an impact on the food supply for nations that rely heavily on imports.
      According to the study in Nature Food, a nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia could result in more than five billion deaths around the world. A war between Pakistan an India could result in more than two billion deaths worldwide. Other studies have also highlighted potential indirect effects of this kind of conflict. These could include significant oceanic damage, which would be likely to have further negative and less predictable effects on the environment.
     Although a small nuclear war might indeed have a temporary global cooling effect, it is not correct to state that this would end the climate crisis. This is in part due to the fact that while cooling effects would only last a short time, a nuclear winter would itself cause a climate crisis leading to a global food crisis and perhaps billions of fatalities.

The Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant must be allowed to be demilitarized livemint.com

Westinghouse to add AP1000 reactors to nuclear plant in China power-technology.com

WANO gathering ‘reinforces commitment to excellence’ world-nuclear-news.org

France says Iranian drone transfers to Russia would violate U.N. nuclear deal resolution reuters.com

 

 

Ambient office = 110 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 110 nanosieverts per hour

Red bell pepper from Central Market = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 105 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 95 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     I have seen a lot of questionable ideas about how to deal with climate change but today I am going to post about one of the most outrageous suggestions. There is an idea circulating that nuclear war might be the answer to climate change. The validity of this idea was fact-checked by Newsweek.
     International nuclear tensions have been getting a lot of attention due to the ongoing war waged by Vladimir Putin in Ukraine. There has been discussion of the potential for a small nuclear ware to cause a global cooling. Now the possibilities of such global cooling are being explored.
     Following a nuclear war, the whole Earth would be covered with a layer of soot that would prevent sunlight from reaching the surface because of smoke rising high into the atmosphere from the burning cities. After even a small nuclear war, it has been estimated that global temperatures would fall by more than two degrees Fahrenheit for two to three years. In some tropical areas, temperatures could drop from five to seven degrees Fahrenheit.
     Ron Filipkowski is a former federal prosecutor. Following the appearance of a Twitter thread about this idea, he uploaded a video of Donald Trump Jr. to Twitter. In the video, Trump Jr. is seen speaking to the camera about nuclear war. Trump Jr claims to have read a new article in the previous week that discussed how a minor nuclear conflict might help with global warming or maybe the climate crisis. Trump Jr gave no source for his claims.
     ‘Climate change’ and ‘global warming’ are neither equivalent, not interchangeable. The consensus among scientists has moved from use of climate change to climate warming. Climate warming is deemed to be more accurate and comprehensive when describing the great changes that Earth’s weather and temperature patterns are undergoing.
     Newsweek Fact Check investigated the scientific consensus on the subject in order to see if there was any research to support the claim. The is a great deal of evidence that suggests that a nuclear war would temporarily lower global temperatures. The evidence points to this being particularly true only on land, does not solve the problem of global warming or the wider climate crisis.
     Researchers from various institutions around the globe have suggested in a study that was published in the August issues of the journal Nature Food in August that a nuclear war would eject significant amounts of soot into the upper atmosphere of the Earth. This cloud of soot would then spread around the globe and “rapidly cool the planet.” The severity of the impact, of course, would depend on the size of the nuclear war.
     The study suggested that a hypothetical nuclear conflict between Pakistan and India could release from five to forty-seven million metric tons of soot into the atmosphere. A more serious conflict between the U.S. and Russia could release over one hundred and fifty metric tons of soot.
Please read Part 2 next

Elon Musk blocked Ukraine from using Starlink in Crimea businessinsider.com

France looks into increasing uranium enrichment capacity world-nuclear-news.org

Ontario Power Generation and ČEZ to collaborate on SMRs world-nuclear-news.org

Iraq postpones first nuclear power plant project iraqinews.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ambient office = 117 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 110 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Lime from Central Market = 68 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 87 nanosieverts per hour

Sizewell C nuclear plant: Truss and Macron agree cooperation bbc.com

Putting nuclear weapons to use risks escalation, impossible to control and potentially catastrophic news.sky.com

Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ warning wasn’t based on new intelligence, US says theguardian.com

No sign Putin is planning to use nukes after Biden’s ‘Armageddon’ comment poilitico.com

 

 

 

Ambient office = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 103 nanosieverts per hour

Grape from Central Market = 71 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 122 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 107 nanosieverts per hour

What can we learn from America’s historic response to a nuclear crisis? Deseret.com

Biden administration fears North Korea building up to a new nuclear test, but hampered by lack of intelligence cnn.com

License renewal sought for Comanche Peak world-nuclear-news.org

CNL invites academia to join CNRI program world-nuclear-news.org

 

 

 

 

 

Ambient office = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 110 nanosieverts per hour

English cucumber from Central Market = 91 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 113 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 101 nanosieverts per hour