C70:arms-d (07/31/82)
>From HGA@MIT-MC Sat Jul 31 01:20:14 1982
Arms-Discussion Digest Volume 0 : Issue 152
Today's Topics:
Clayton vs. Caldicott
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 30 Jul 1982 03:26:42-PDT
From: G.asa at Berkeley
Subject: Clayton vs. Caldicott
Although I'm neither a physician nor a physicist, I didn't find
the account of Bruce Clayton's "rebuttal" of Dr. Helen Caldicott's
NUCLEAR MADNESS very convincing. Since I haven't seen the August
issue of REASON, it's hard to determine which views are Clayton's and
which are Mr. Dietz's, so I will assume that the views expressed are
Clayton's.
Who is Clayton? "Plant ecologist" is not terribly informative.
Furthermore, it bothers me that quotations from NUCLEAR MADNESS are
pinpointed by page number, but that no references are cited (either
from Clayton's sources or from the REASON article) to support
Clayton's assertions. Which library did Clayton use for his research?
What were the sources of the "materials" he consulted?
"...most people would survive a nuclear war, and that with
concerted effort ANY person could GUARANTEE himself a near 100% chance
of survival" [emphasis added]. Jeez! You mean that when the Reds
take out the Lawrence Berkeley Lab, I'll just be able to pick myself
up, dust myself off, and start all over again (tra la)?
Clayton disputes Caldicott's assertion that "A 1000 megaton bomb
detonated in outer space could devastate an area the size of six
western states." I remember seeing this statement in 1964 in a book on
the effects of nuclear weapons, long before Dr. Caldicott made a name
for herself.
"...a 1975 study showed that people in nonwarring countries will
receive 10 rems of radiation (total) in the 30 years following a
nuclear war." Who is this study by? I've gotten very skeptical about
the casual way radiation exposure is treated in these studies -- it
all sounds so harmless, but I don't notice anybody rushing to clean
out the reactor at Three Mile Island....
If I were the Soviets and I expected to be devastated by U.S.
weapons, I'd make it a point to take out Canada, Australia, and South
Africa, to avoid attack with conventional weapons.... Sure, it's
crazy, but as long as you're launching, why not go whole hog? My
point is that to base one's decisions on hypotheses such as this is
absolute madness.
Comparing 25% of the "known world" (excluding China, India,
Africa, and North and South America, I wot) in the 1400s with 5% of
the world population in the 1980s is scarcely meaningful.
Furthermore, knowing that 20-30 million Russians died in World War II
doesn't make me feel the slightest bit better about nuclear war.
"...an attack on Los Angeles would involve 40 bombs, each about a
megaton. This would still leave a good fraction of the population
alive (granted, until fallout gets them.)" Fallout counts, son.
I'm curious as to the source for the information given on the
targeting of Russian missiles. The implication is that the Russians
haven't targeted civilian centers at all, which I don't find credible
-- surely civilians without a military are in better shape to resist
invasion than a military without civilians. As for targeting
reactors, an article in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN within the last year
pointed out that a hit by a nuclear weapon on a reactor would have
consequences far worse than either a meltdown or a bomb alone. If I
were targeting missiles, I'd find that hard to resist.
"Natural selection would weed out damaged genes over a 1000 year
period." Great. If William the Conqueror had used the bomb in 1066,
we'd still have those damaged genes with us.... While the data on the
Japanese survivors is all we've got to go on, I don't really think the
comparison is meaningful.
"...diseases are parasites, and a parasite that kills its host
also dies off." Hope the bugs figure that out in time, eh? I mean,
things are going to happen so fast that it's gonna be confusing for
awhile.
"...surface water can be filtered through ordinary dirt or a
water softener. Air will be dangerous for a short time if you are
directly downwind of a blast, but all you need is a filter to keep
dust and iodine out of the lungs." You mean after being burned,
crushed, blinded, sterilized, infected with mutant germs, deprived of
even a minimum of medical care, and surrounded by thousands of people
in the same shape I am, that I'm going to have to filter my drinking
water through DIRT? This is what Clayton calls "100% chance of
survival"?! Can't I just die instantly in the fireball instead?
"Among the crops that can tolerate this level of UV are wheat,
rye and corn. Most wild plants could survive for a few years until
the 03 builds up by growing under trees or on the north side of
hills." The question is, will enough of these plants survive to feed
the millions who exercise their 100% chance of survival option.
Frankly, I'm going to be too busy straining my water through dirt to
go looking for wild corn on the north side of hills (not that there
are a lot of hills in the San Joaquin). And if those murderous Reds
take out dams and irrigation systems (which is what I would do if I
were in their shoes), agriculture in California is going to grind to a
standstill. You say this Clayton's an ecologist? Maybe it's time for
him to take a few refresher courses....
In 1969, I heard Ernest Sternglass lecture at Brandeis on the
effects of the Almagordo tests. He found a measurable increase in
birth defects and spontaneous abortions downwind from the test site.
In a nuclear exchange, we're ALL going to be downwind from a test
site. Like the man said, you don't need a weatherman to know which
way the wind blows....
NUCLEAR MADNESS explores a number of issues besides nuclear war,
including: the hazards of mining uranium, the hazards of operating
nuclear power plants, the hazards posed by nuclear wastes, and the
hazards posed by terrorist use of plutonium. In order to "refute" Dr.
Caldicott's book, Clayton really should address these other issues.
Does he explore the question of waste disposal, for instance?
Well, no matter how you slice it, I don't think nuclear war
sounds like much fun. Dr. Caldicott may not be an expert on fireballs
or shock waves, but I think she's got the right idea. I haven't seen
anything in ARMS-D yet that makes me think otherwise.
John Hevelin ...ucbvax!G:asa
------------------------------
End of Arms-D Digest
********************