On Apr 12, 1:20*am, Ginny > wrote:
> Stan Horwitz wrote:
> > In article >, hal wrote:
>
> >> On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 17:26:41 -0700, pyotr filipivich
> >> > wrote:
>
> >>> * *Cie l'vie. *What you have demonstrated is that you seem tonot
> >>> consider your way of life as worth transmitting to the next
> >>> generation, or advocating after a major disaster. *I wish folks like
> >>> you would wear a "donotresituate" sign, to spare scarce resources
> >>> for those who aren't living useless lives.
> >> It's always fascinating to me when reading or hearing of stories of
> >> people surviving under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. *It
> >> seems that some people have this enormous will to live to matter what,
> >> and no matter how bad things get. *And then some people simply give up
> >> and lay down an die. *It's always fascinated me that this dichotomy of
> >> human behavior existed and why.
>
> > It depends on the situation. In a post nuclear holocaust, I wouldnot
> > want to live if I was near the blast because the cancer and other
> > effects of the radiation would take me down regardless of my will to
> > live.
>
> > A hurricane or other natural disaster is an entirely different matter.
> > With a hurricane, I can get out of the way and simply return home and
> > rebuild later if necessary. That's much the case with forest fires,
> > tornadoes, etc. but with a nuclear blast, I honestly don't think I would
> > want to live in the aftermath of one of those, considering that the
> > nuclear weapons we have today make the ones dropped on Japan look like
> > dime store firecrackers.
>
> So the nuclear holocaust you're anticipating would be something like On
> The Beach? I would have to concur then but if it was more like Jericho
> then I think we would fight to live. It would depend on the degree of
> total damage and area affected in relation to us.
> --
> Ginny - In West Australia

The novel by Neville Shute was utterly unrealistic in its portrayal of
a cloud of radioactivity slowly spreading around the world.

The physics just doesn't work this way. First off, anything that is so
super-hot as to kill in a short time tends not to last very long
(decay rate is inversely proportional to lifetime, naturally). So the
cloud that drifted around the world in "On the Beach" would be quite
cool by the time it drifted around the world.

(In fact, it would be lower in activity than the clouds of radioactive
dust from large volcanic eruptions, such as Krakatoa, which ejected
thousands of cubic meters of uranium and thorium into the upper
atmosphere.....a dose in terms of megacuries which far exceeds the
total megacuries in all of the bombs in the world's arsenals. Do the
math on curies per person per year.)

Secondly, even given such a fictional fallout, there are many
solutions. Digging deep beneath the ground is one of the dumbest. Much
easier to just set up rain roofs which divert fallout into trenches
around buildings. Again, do the math.

A dozen other solutions to this fictional scenario are easy to
research.

--Tim May