The Environment

[evilkoal]

"The high temperatures of the nuclear fireball, followed by rapid expansion and cooling, cause large amounts of nitrogen oxides to form from the oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere (very similar to what happens in combustion engines). Each megaton of yield will produce some 5000 tons of nitrogen oxides. The rising fireball of a high kiloton or megaton range warhead will carry these nitric oxides well up into the stratosphere, where they can reach the ozone layer. A series of large atmospheric explosions could significantly deplete the ozone layer. The high yield tests in the fifties and sixties probably did cause significant depletion, but the ozone measurements made at the time were too limited to pick up the expected changes out of natural variations. "

 

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

 

 

and if you had taken basic chemistry, you will know that nitric oxide breaks down ozone into nitrogen dioxide.

 

 

i wont work out the math for you.

 

so, blame global warming on nuclear testing, not cow farts.

[Marxist ßastard]

A series of large atmospheric explosions could significantly deplete the ozone layer. The high yield tests in the fifties and sixties probably did cause significant depletion, but the ozone measurements made at the time were too limited to pick up the expected changes out of natural variations.

 

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

The author of that FAQ is one Carey Sublette, a computer programmer with no solid background in nuclear testing or atmospheric chemistry. What he does have, however, is an axe to grind and an abundance of free time (maybe he got put on workman's comp due to an RSI—I neither know nor care). He's just as much of a zealot as you, and I'm not going to take anything he says at face value.

 

But none of this matters anyways. You still haven't produced evidence to back up any of your original claims, instead opting to just continue building on top of them as if they were holy gospel. To reiterate:

1. There haven't been nearly as many nuclear tests as you imply, and testing peaked in the '50s and early '60s.
   
2. Most nuclear testing was done underground.
   
3. Many nuclear tests were of low-yield weapons, well below one tenth of a megaton.
   
4. No nuclear explosion has ever "punched a hole" in the ozone layer.
   
5. There are no clear holes in the ozone layer.
   
6. The only ozone layer phenomena that resemble holes couldn't have possibly been caused by nuclear testing.
   
7. Ozone depletion is not in any way a major, direct cause of global warming.
   
8. Radiation doesn't affect ozone in a completely intuitive way.
   
9. Radiation doesn't work through a self-sustaining process, like chlorine radicals do.
   
10. An understanding of atmospheric chemistry requires more than just pulling a few random chemical reactions off Google.
    

If you can't disprove these points, you have no right to do anything other than to shut your trap. Stop trying to tie your ridiculous anti-nuclear hysteria into other people's valid environmental concerns.

[evilkoal]

A series of large atmospheric explosions could significantly deplete the ozone layer. The high yield tests in the fifties and sixties probably did cause significant depletion, but the ozone measurements made at the time were too limited to pick up the expected changes out of natural variations.

 

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq5.html

The author of that FAQ is one Carey Sublette, a computer programmer with no solid background in nuclear testing or atmospheric chemistry. What he does have, however, is an axe to grind and an abundance of free time (maybe he got put on workman's comp due to an RSI—I neither know nor care). He's just as much of a zealot as you, and I'm not going to take anything he says at face value.

 

But none of this matters anyways. You still haven't produced evidence to back up any of your original claims, instead opting to just continue building on top of them as if they were holy gospel. To reiterate:

1. There haven't been nearly as many nuclear tests as you imply, and testing peaked in the '50s and early '60s.
   
2. Most nuclear testing was done underground.
   
3. Many nuclear tests were of low-yield weapons, well below one tenth of a megaton.
   
4. No nuclear explosion has ever "punched a hole" in the ozone layer.
   
5. There are no clear holes in the ozone layer.
   
6. The only ozone layer phenomena that resemble holes couldn't have possibly been caused by nuclear testing.
   
7. Ozone depletion is not in any way a major, direct cause of global warming.
   
8. Radiation doesn't affect ozone in a completely intuitive way.
   
9. Radiation doesn't work through a self-sustaining process, like chlorine radicals do.
   
10. An understanding of atmospheric chemistry requires more than just pulling a few random chemical reactions off Google.
    

If you can't disprove these points, you have no right to do anything other than to shut your trap. Stop trying to tie your ridiculous anti-nuclear hysteria into other people's valid environmental concerns.

 

i never said there was a lot of testing, just that the testing that was done is what has caused the problems that are here today.

 

many of the tests were, but look at russia's biggest above ground test, it was HUGE. what does that have to do with it? there was above ground testing. end of that point.

 

there sure were quite a few small tests, but there sure as hell were huge tests as well.

 

well no poo, its not a piece of paper. the nuclear detonations create NO which breaks down O3, and guess what happens to gases when you heat gases. they rise, and in this case they break down the ozone into NO2.

 

you dont need to even go on the internet to know that. if you had attended basic chemistry in high school, you would know this.

 

i dont have time to search sift hundreds of pages of bullshit to find you a credible person who will have said the same thing

 

i have nothing against nukes, i think they are a great weapon that needs to be used more often.

i also have nothing against the advancement of nuclear technology either, it is something that is and should be looked into.

 

i am not here to convince you anyway :)

i was just telling you what the cause of the problems actually is.

 

 

"[*]Ozone depletion is not in any way a major, direct cause of global warming." jesus christ, yep, you are absolutely right! the suns radiation doesn't heat up anything at all, especially when the thing that stopped it from heating things up in the first place is now been turned into NO2.

[Marxist ßastard]

Have I given you permission to speak?

[evilkoal]

haha :)

 

 

EDIT: see, your rebuttal made me laugh :)