orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (09/15/86)
> > "Farnham's Freehold" is hardly a realistic view of the effects of > > nuclear war whatsoever. For example, because an all-out nuclear war > > would destroy the ozone layer, animals and humans without their > > eyes shielded would soon be blinded. Then of course there is the > > likelihood of the Nuclear Winter effect. Heinlein could be excused > > Speaking of pseudo-science, what Archangel handed you this privy > information about what would happen after an all-out nuclear war? > Would I be wrong to surmise the source's politics are to the left > of, say, Edward Teller? Does he say "millions and billions" a lot > and publish most of his articles these days in that world-famous > technical journal called PARADE Magazine? > > OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO S. Luke Jones (...ihnp4!mtung!slj) Well, Mr. Jones, the findings by Carl Sagan and a team of a hundred scientists of a "Nuclear Winter Effect" have just been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS study projected less of a temperature drop than the TTAPS study but it still projected a pronounced Nuclear Winter effect. So far the Nuclear Winter effect has yet to be effectively refuted by any knowledgeable scientific group. tim sevener whuxn!orb
bill@sigma.UUCP (William Swan) (09/18/86)
In article <1247@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >>[...] >Well, Mr. Jones, the findings by Carl Sagan and a team of a hundred >scientists of a "Nuclear Winter Effect" have just been confirmed >by the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS study projected >less of a temperature drop than the TTAPS study but it still >projected a pronounced Nuclear Winter effect. >[...] Wan't this the study where they termed the results a "Nuclear Autumn", that is, the nuclear winter _effect_ was there, but orders of magnitude less?