Malthus-Spark Impact Turn

Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
1
Nuclear Malthus 1NC

First is Uniqueness nuclear war and civilization collapse due by 2050
1. Nuclear war is inevitable

a. Growing proliferation and lowered security
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical

Statistics, 1999
(Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research Corporation, June 6 with
minor corrections November 21 2000,
http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm)
The breakup of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War have reduced the risk of a deliberate nuclear
Looking at the world

as a whole, however, the situation is more dangerous than ever before . The number of
nations possessing nuclear weapons has increased by two, with the addition of Pakistan and India. The
level of control over the weapons of the former Soviet Union has been reduced.
The level of control over fissionable material from which nuclear bombs can be
made has also been reduced. With each passing year, the amount of
fissionable material in the world increases. With each passing year, the
resentment of the worlds poor nations and cultures for the rich nations
increases, as they realize that they will never catch up . With each passing year,
the anger of Islamic nations and cultures against Western culture grows. Terrorism is increasing .
Although the risk of a large-scale ballistic missile war may have decreased, the likelihood of a small
nuclear war appears to have increased dramatically. Motive, means, and
opportunity. All three prerequisites for action are set . The atomic bomb was
used as soon as it was available. In fact, it was used by the US at a point in World War II when
war between the United States and Russia, since much of the animosity is gone.
the war was clearly won. In view of the fact that a moral nation such as the US had no compunctions about
using nuclear weapons just to bring the war to an end a little quicker, it is obvious that any nation that is in
serious danger of losing a war would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against its enemies, if it had them.
The seven nuclear powers US, Russia, Britain, France, China, India, and Pakistan possess
thousands of nuclear weapons among them. The following table is taken from the Natural
Resources Defense Councils publication, Taking Stock: Worldwide Nuclear Deployments 1998, by William M.
Arkin, Robert S. Norris, and Joshua Handler. Country No. of Warheads United States12,070 Russia 22,500
Britain 380 France 500 China 450 Total 36,000 In addition, it is now estimated (Janes Intelligence Review)
India has 20-60 nuclear weapons, and Pakistan between 6 and 12. India is
estimated to have sufficient commercial reactor fuel to build at least 390
nuclear weapons and perhaps as many as 470. As discussed earlier, it is now
an easy matter for any motivated group to assemble an atomic bomb. It is
just a matter of time before nuclear weapons are used, either in a
formally declared war or in a terrorist attack.
that
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
2
b. Envious nations
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

1999
What are the odds that a minimal-regret war will occur, and a minimal-regret population established? Im
not sure about the odds that a minimal-regret population will be established, but I believe strongly that a
nuclear war is inevitable. The reason for this conviction is the politics of
envy the desire of a have-not group to destroy an opponent who is better off, even if by doing so his
own position is unchanged or even worsened. The politics of envy is a principal motivation
of terrorist groups who attack the United States. With the proliferation of
nuclear-weapon technology and weapons-grade fissionable material, it is just
a matter of time until a terrorist group decides to use nuclear
weapons against US cities. The US has lost control of its borders, and has accepted
immigrants from all cultures into all levels of its society. It is very vulnerable. Under the
politics of greed the use of politics to acquire more for yourself regardless of the effect on your
opponent, it may be in the best interest of all groups to avoid nuclear war . That
was the basis for the decades-long Cold War, in which neither the US nor the Soviet Union used nuclear
weapons. Both would lose more than they gained. Under the politics of greed, mutually
assured destruction (MAD) works as a deterrent to war. Under the politics of

envy, MAD is essentially irrelevant. What matters most is destruction of the
opponent, at any cost. MAD will not save the US now that the nuclear jinn is
out of the bottle, and the world is filled with unhappy have-nots with access
to nuclear technology.
2. Total collapse of industrial civilization inevitable with the exhaustion of fossil fuels by
2050 continuing industrial civilization only means further destruction of the biosphere
and extinction
Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in

Mathematical Statistics, 2003
(Joseph George, What Oil Can Do to Tiny States and Big Ones, Too! February 3,
http://www.foundation.bw/WhatOilCanDo.htm)
What The Economist article fails to point out is that what happens to small states when their national oil
By the
year 2050, global oil reserves will be exhausted, and industrial civilization will
collapse worldwide. But there is a very significant and very tragic difference between the situation
when small states run out of oil and when the world runs out of oil. When small states run out of
oil, the population will simply return to what they did before , or they will migrate, or
they will beg for food from the rest of the world. Life goes on, for them and the rest of the planet, pretty
reserves run out is much the same as will happen to big states when global oil reserves run out.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
3
When the world runs out of oil, however, global human population
will collapse and, unless a significant intervention occurs, the biosphere will
have been destroyed by the petroleum age . As the energy inputs of oil
(mechanization, irrigation, insecticides and other modern high-energy inputs) cease to flow, there
will be a massive drop in global food production. World human population will
drop from over six billion people to a few hundred million , since that is all that the
much as before.
current-solar-energy budget of the planet will support in the long term. The death of more than six billion
The great tragedy is

that oil-fed global industrialization is destroying the biosphere causing the
extinction of an estimated 30,000 species a year. If industrial civilization
continues until global oil supplies run out, what will remain will be a ruined
planet, with far less biological diversity than before oil. Because of global
warming, the petroleum age may even cause a greenhouse death of the
planet, with the extinction of mankind along with all other large plant and
animal species. Mankind is now in the process of causing the extinction of all
kinds of large animals tigers, rhinoceros, beluga sturgeon, pandas, apes, orangutans, lemurs,
chimpanzees just to name a few. When the petroleum age is over, many of these
species will be gone forever. When the world returns to a current-solar-energy-supported
lifestyle, if mankind survives at all it will inhabit a desolate place, devoid of the
wonderful variety of other large animals. Because of oil and global
industrialization, African and Asian populations have exploded, and the current
generation of Africans and Asians is now killing all of the other primates, to eat
as bush meat, or to use their habitat for firewood or farmland, or to sell as
pets to animal collectors or zoos in other parts of the world . When the
industrial age is over and Africa and Asia return to a current-solar-energy
lifestyle, they will find it a lonely place to be for the next several billion years .
people is not the real tragedy, however, since everyone must someday die.
And who killed cock robin? It was the petroleum age, it was technology, it was industrialization, it was
A 100-year drunken binge of

incredibly profligate production and consumption made possible by the onetime windfall of fossil fuel -- will have caused the death of nature as we know
it, as it evolved over billions of years .
economic development it was civilization that killed cock robin.
Second is the link nuclear war now is key to sustaining the population
1. Nuclear war ensures a minimal population and mindset shift
CALDWELL, 2003. [Joseph George,. A Brief Guide to Planetary Management.]
human civilization will destroy itself in a global nuclear war, or

some other catastrophic event brought on by mankinds exploding population
(e.g., a disease similar to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), but more easily transmitted ). It is
It is believed that current
perhaps in
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
4
intended to establish a minimal-regret population after that event.
The current planetary

system of government is best described as anarchic it consists of about 200 independent states, each
striving for large populations and high levels of industrial output, each striving to out-produce and outconsume the other, regardless of consequences to the planets biosphere. The momentum and power
of the worlds industrial society is currently so great , however, that there is no point to
attempting to establish a minimal-regret population at the present time . Any attempt to
do so now would be ridiculed at best and quashed at worst. In the wake of global nuclear war, the
survivors will see first-hand the folly of the worlds current way of global
industrialization, and they will be very receptive to a promising alternative. It is at that
time that steps will be taken to establish and maintain a minimal-regret population .
2. Major war ensures the end of industrial civilization

CALDWELL 2000. [Joseph George, Can America Survive? Vista Research
Corporation. P. http://www.foundationwebsite.org/canam4x.htm.]
mankind
does not have the foggiest idea about why it exists and what its purpose is. If the
minimal-regret war succeeds, large-scale industrial activity will come to an immediate
halt, and the planets biosphere will be able to continue as it has for millions of years.
What has caused mankind to get into such a predicament? The problem would appear to be that
Without the minimal-regret war, it would appear that mankind will exterminate itself rather soon, and we
shall never have the answer to the question, What Are People For? With the war, and with a thousand
years of meditation, it is perhaps possible that mankind will have some time to reflect and may be able to
figure out what it is all about. Was mankind created simply to destroy the planet and itself? Or does it have
a higher purpose? All civilizations come to an end, and the civilization that results from a
minimal-regret war will come to an end as well. Current civilization is madly racing to
destroy the planet for no reason at all. A minimal-regret population will give mankind
time to figure out what its purpose is, before all of nature is gone.
Third are the net benefits war now is better than war later
1. The sooner war happens the more species will survive

A. Industrial society kills 30,000 species a year
CALDWELL, 2001. On Saving the Environment, and the Inevitability of Nuclear
War. www.foundation.bw.
The destruction of the planet's environment and biodiversity may coincidentally be halted
by global war, but saving biodiversity or the environment will not be the cause of
global war. Less and less of nature remains with each passing year of the current "global peace" of global
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
5
The longer global war is delayed, the less of nature (species, biodiversity) will
remain after its occurrence. The large human population has been made possible because of access
industrialization.
to fossil fuel. The planet can support only a small fraction of its current human population on recurrent solar
energy (which includes hydroelectric, biomass, and wind power). Global petroleum and natural gas deposits
will not be exhausted until about 2050 (and coal somewhat later), so the world's current fossil-fuel-driven
economy can hypothetically continue for some time to come. If industrialized human society
continues to destroy other species at the current rate (estimated 30,000 per year) until
fossil fuels are exhausted, little will remain of the planet's natural environment as we
know it. Mankind is hurtling toward disaster -- the biosphere's and its own -- and there is nothing that will be
done to stop it. Industrial development has sewn the seeds of its own destruction. The situation is out
of control. The human population explosion has already occurred , and the resultant
destruction -- first of the environment and then of industrial society and then, perhaps, of the human race
itself -- is at hand. Mankind has chosen its destiny, and is well along the path to its realization.
B. DRAMATIC reductions in human population key now the longer industrial

civilization survives the more likely it will lead to total global destruction

1999
World Resources 1998-1999 presents a table, Atmospheric Concentrations of Greenhouse and Ozone-
the concentration of carbon dioxide has

risen from the preindustrial level of 260.0 parts per million (ppm) to 319.9 ppm in
1965 biodiversity left to save. As Walt Kellys cartoon character Pogo once observed, We
have met the enemy, and he is us! What is causing the severe problems in
the Earths biosphere is mans presence in large numbers . The human species,
with economics as a catalyst, has infested the planet. It has grown like a cancer to the point
where it is killing many species and, if it continues, will kill both itself and the
rest of the biosphere. It is a parasite killing its host. The time to treat this
disease is long overdue. and 362.6 ppm in 1996. This concentration is increasing
at the rate of almost .5% per year. Carbon dioxide concentrations are caused by burning of
fossil fuels and forests. Each year the concentration of this greenhouse gas
increases, as the human species continues its relentless destruction
of irreplaceable fossil fuels and wildlife habitat . This destruction will
not stop until a dramatic reduction is made in human population and
industrial activity. Mankinds industrial activity is causing changes at
a horrific rate. The rate of change will increase even faster as undeveloped
countries industrialize. In view of the fact that the consequences of these changes will be
catastrophic, as radical as it may seem, human population and industrial activity must be
reduced dramatically and immediately in order for the planet to survive . There
is no known reason for waiting. With every passing year there is less
Depleting Gasses, 1965-96. This table indicates that
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
6
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
7
Ethics
Allowing nuclear war is more moral than allowing the destruction of

the earth through overpopulation mass nuclear war is the only way
to ensure survival

1999
If the morality of nuclear war is to be considered, the morality of destroying a

planet and all its species by overpopulation and industrialization must also be
considered. Works on this subject include Fritz Schumachers books and the plethora of books on
environmentalism, including Healing the Planet by Paul and Anne Ehrlich, Rescue the Earth! by Farley Mowat,
Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth by J. E. Lovelock, The End of Nature by Bill McKibben, Silent Spring by
Rachel Carson, Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management by Norman Myers, ed., and many more, some of which
Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill

almost six billion people, that must be balanced against the very real
possibility that not having such a war may not only result in the
deaths of six billion people, but also the extinction of mankind and
the extinction of all other species on the planet (from the greenhouse effect). If
the human race is made extinct by the greenhouse effect, millions of people
will have been denied life for every year of the next four billion years that the
solar system is expected to last. If the Earth can support ten million people
indefinitely, that represents forty quadrillion person-years of life. Is that
amount of human life inconsequential compared to the lives of the mere six
billion that occupy the planet today?
are listed in the bibliography.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
8
Uniqueness carrying capacity exists

Carrying capacity exists human activity is currently causing
overpopulation and species extinction, critics ignore this and their
arguments are vacuous.
Caldwell 99, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics

economists argue that the world can easily support even more
people than it currently does, at a good level of living. Their arguments are vacuous, in
view of the fact that the number of desperately poor people in the world has risen
dramatically in the past half-century, despite Herculean efforts by the World Bank,
UN and other development agencies to accomplish otherwise. Economist Lyndon LaRouche
(candidate for the 1988 US presidential race) argued strongly for a substantially higher global
human population than presently exists. In his book, There Are No Limits to Growth, he
Julian Simon and other
states that our planet could sustain a population of tens of billions of persons, and at an average standard
of living higher than that for the United States during the early 1970s. In the article, The World Needs 10
Billion People, Steven Bardwell argued that a nuclear-powered, high-technology human civilization that is
capable of colonizing the solar system cannot function with fewer than 10 billion of us ( Fusion, September
1981). He observed that as population increases, the division of labor allows for more efficient use of human
resources and hence greater productivity. The fact that physical scientists estimate that the
world is losing 50-150 species or more per day because of human activities such as
deforestation, pollution, pesticides, and urbanization is of little or no concern to
economists such as Simon and LaRouche. They routinely pooh-pooh such observations about
human-caused destruction of the world environment and ecosystem as erroneous, unfounded, overblown, or
of no consequence. That we may all be as crowded as the people of Japan, or Singapore, or
Hong Kong, and live in a world devoid of tigers, pandas, eagles, and whales is of no
significance, as long as economic productivity increases!
The US has already passed its carrying capacity collapse

inevitable with out population cuts
Abernethy, Ph.D, 1993

(Virginia, Population Politics, Carrying Capacity Network,
http://dieoff.org/page58.htm)
Depletion of soil, water, and fuel at a much faster rate than any of
these can be replenished suggests that the carrying capacity of the United
Now for the bad news.
States already has been exceeded. David and Marcia Pimentel (1991) of the College of
Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, take these three factors into account to estimate that,
at a
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
9
standard of living only slightly lower than is enjoyed today , the sustainable
population size for the United States is less than half its present
number. Beyond this, we abuse the carrying capacity and should expect sudden shocks
that will massively drive down the standard of living. The Pimentels embrace the desirability
and potential for a transition to clean, renewable energy sources as substitute for most uses of oil. The very
breadth of their approach leads to their addressing all present and potential energy sources. They find:
Evaluating land, energy, and water, the Pimentels conclude that the United States is
rapidly depleting its nonrenewable or very slowly renewable resources and
overwhelming the capacity of the environment to neutralize wastes. The present level of
resource use is probably unsustainable in even the minimal, physical sense. If population increase and
the present per capita use of resources persist, a crash becomes likely.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
10
Uniqueness energy = finite

The amount of energy on earth is finite abundance of energy is
responsible for all benefits of society including technology, nothing
except a massive decrease in consumption can save energy

1999
The current explosive growth in the human population has been made possible by the
availability of a large amount of cheap energy. Some people mistakenly believe that the
Technology
without energy is useless. On the other hand, energy without technology is also useless (for
current large population and high standard of living (for some people) is due to technology.
To use energy it is necessary to have

an energy source (e.g., the sun, uranium) and the technology to harness it. The human
population will continue to grow as long as cheap energy is abundantly available.
When fossil fuels run out and cheap energy is no longer available, the human
population will decline markedly. All the technology in the world is of no
avail (for industrial activity) without a source of energy. The availability of large amounts
of energy is responsible not only for the explosive growth in the human population, but
for virtually every material, social, and economic benefit of human
industrial applications, not for natural biological processes).
society. Appendix F presents a number of graphs that show the relationship of a variety of social and
economic indicators to commercial energy use. These graphs show that, on average, the citizens of a
country enjoy a high quality of life (e.g., high life expectancy, low infant mortality, high literacy rates) when
the per capita commercial energy consumption exceeds 2,500 kilograms of oil equivalent (koe). As the
energy consumption falls below that level, the quality of life falls accordingly. The level
2,500 koe is the minimal energy level required for a country to be able to provide a
good standard of living for its citizens. The main implication of this observation is that the
provision of a minimum of 2,500 koe per capita per annum to all human inhabitants of
Earth will require either a dramatic increase in the amount of energy available, or a
dramatic decrease in the human population size. The following paragraphs show some of the
calculations underlying the situation.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
11
Uniqueness resource gone by 2050
Fossil fuels will be used up oil and gas will be gone by 2050, coal
will be gone by 2200 but will leave devastating climate changes
behind

1999
it is projected that oil and gas reserves

will be exhausted in the next 50 years, and coal reserves within about 200 years. People
argue about just exactly what the true size of the reserves is, but the point is that before very long
industrialized man will have exhausted the fossil fuels. These projections are somewhat
conjectural, since the burning of all of the oil, gas, and coal reserves, accompanied by the
burning of much of the worlds forests, would add such a large amount of carbon
dioxide to the atmosphere that some sort of major climatic change would be expected
to occur before exhaustion of the reserves.
These tables show that even at current rates of production,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
12
Uniqueness industrialization increasing

The damage from industrialization is increasing exponentially we
use more resources to maintain civilization and hundreds of species
go extinct every day

1999
because of
technological advances, the dollar cost of extracting resources from the natural
environment falls year after year. As a result, the planets mineral, plant, and animal
resources are plundered at an ever-increasing rate. It has been estimated a dead Bengal tigers
The bleakest picture of all is painted by economist Julian Simon. He observes that,
parts now fetch a million dollars. Some time ago, it was speciously argued that if the price of animal
products rose sufficiently, steps would be taken to preserve this valuable resource it just made economic
sense to do so. The falseness of this proposition has been demonstrated over and over again. So few
tigers exist in the wild that they are now considered effectively extinct as a wild
species. Similar exterminations of the black rhino, the musk deer, the panda, and other
animals have been caused directly by human overpopulation . While some of the rampant
destruction of mammals is direct killing, much species loss is an inevitable consequence of destruction of
wildlife habitat, such as forests and wetlands. The planet is undergoing the greatest mass
extinction since the time of the dinosaurs, 65 million years ago. Although nobody knows for
sure, it has been estimated ( ) that we are losing between 50 and 100 species a day (mostly
from habitat destruction) from the 5-30 million species thought to exist . Some scientists estimate the
extinction rate at 150 species per day (W. V. Reid and K. R. Miller, , World Resources Institute,
1989). In 1970 there were 65,000 black rhinos in Africa; in 1993 there were just 2,000. The global
population of tigers has dropped by 95% in this century, to about 5,000. As of 1994, only a few dozen
remained in China. The Caspian, Balinese, and Javan tigers became extinct over a decade ago. The
population of Sumatran tigers has dropped to 650, and the Siberian Amur has declined to 200. (See , March
28, 1994, Tigers on the Brink.) The alarming fact is that the destruction of the Earths
environment is increasing, not decreasing. The level of industrial activity is increasing,

not decreasing, and the destruction of the environment is continuing apace .
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
13
Uniqueness Civilization Collapse Now Key

Each year industrial civilization is prolonged means more species
extinction and further destruction of the biosphere the sooner we
end civilization the more likely we avoid extinction

2003
(Joseph, The End of the World, 6 March,
http://foundation.bw/TheEndOfTheWorld.htm#_Toc34744202)
The state of the world is disastrous. The planet is currently experiencing the greatest
mass extinction of species since the time of the dinosaurs , 65 million years ago, and it is
being caused solely by mankinds massive numbers and industrial

activity. Most of the species extinction is being caused by rampant destruction of forests and wildlife
habitat. In other cases, species are being deliberately singled out for destruction, as in the case of rhinoceros
horn (for Yemeni dagger handles), or tigers (for Chinese medicine), or whales (for Japanese whale-meat
shops). Industrial gasses are poisoning the atmosphere to such an extent that the ozone
layer that protects all biological life from extreme radiation is being destroyed . These
gasses are contributing to global warming. Signs of global warming are dramatic and ubiquitous;
see the web site http://www.climatehotmap.org for a description of the global-warming picture. Mankinds
large numbers and industrial activity are causing such great changes to the
atmosphere that it is conceivable that all life on the planets surface could be
extinguished in a relatively short time. Apart from the possibility that present human
numbers and activity risk catastrophic destruction of the planets biosphere, the
human species is at the very least causing a tremendous change in the planets
biodiversity. Of the estimated 5-30 million species on the planets surface, an estimated 30,000 are being
exterminated every year. The naturalist Edward O. Wilson has estimated that if the current rate of extinction
continues, half the Earths plant and animal species will disappear by the end of the twenty-first century.
With each passing year, the world becomes a less and less varied and interesting place
to be. With each passing year, mankind is disturbing to a greater
degree the balance of nature in the biosphere in which it evolved over

millions of years, increasing the risk of precipitating major planetary
changes and its own extinction.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
14
Civilization Unsustainable overpop and resources

Civilizations collapse is inevitable when overpopulation and
resource use become too much - the longer we let industrial
civilization continues the greater the risk of extinction from
resource wars, species extinction, massive climate changes and
overpopulations. Ending industrial civilization key.

1999
the world human population has skyrocketed, from about half a

billion people to six billion at the present time . Population projections from various sources
suggest that, barring a major change of some kind, the population will continue to soar,
to nine billion or more by the year 2050. In the past half-century less than a lifetime -- the
population of the US has exploded from about 150 million to over 270 million . This
explosive growth occurred despite the fact that fertility rates in the US dropped to low
levels it is the result of uncontrolled immigration. The tremendous global population increase
has been brought about by the development of technology to utilize the energy stored
in fossil fuels, such as petroleum, natural gas, and coal. Petroleum and gas reserves will be
exhausted, however, by about 2050, and coal reserves will not last much beyond that date if
industrial development continues to expand worldwide. Look around you. If you live in the
In the past four centuries,
US or other economically developed country, every man-made thing you see or see happening is a product
of the expenditure of energy, and most of that energy is derived from fossil fuels. To establish and
maintain our present lifestyle requires prodigious amounts of energy an amount

equivalent to about 8,000 kilograms of oil annually for each man, woman, and child living in the country.
Pre-agricultural man lived off the land, consuming only the bounty of nature.
Agricultural man could produce about 10 calories of energy with the expenditure of
about one calorie of energy. Industrial man, it has been estimated, uses over ten
calories of energy to produce a single calorie of food ! The present system is not only
exquisitely wasteful, but it is completely unsustainable . Most of what you see in the industrial
world is a transitory illusion made possible by a one-time windfall supply of energy from fossil fuels that were
accumulated over millions of years. When the fossil fuel reserves deplete in about 50 years,
the modern world will simply disappear along with them . Whatever age you are, if you were
raised in a town or a small city, go back to where you lived as a child and observe what has happened to the
nearest natural field you played in. Chances are it is now urban sprawl pavement, concrete, and steel. For
each immigrant admitted to the US legal or illegal about an acre of natural land is
permanently destroyed, by roads, buildings, parking lots, houses, schools, and other structures that
take the land out of production both for wildlife and for agriculture. Last year the US admitted 1.2
million more immigrants. That represents the complete destruction of another .6
million acres of farmland, forest, and pastureland. Who cares? Certainly not the people in charge
they want more people because it makes more money, and they are not particularly concerned with the
concomitant destruction of the environment! Industrial activity at the massive scale of the
present is causing substantial changes to Earths environment . By now, everyone knows that
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
15
the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and other gases produced by
industrial activity is increasing substantially every year, and that the planets climate
and weather are controlled by these concentrations . Large-scale industrial activity is causing
substantial changes to the planets environment land, air, water, and ecology. In view of the
established relationship of the planets climate and ecosystem to these concentrations,
it is possible that mans industrial activity could cause dramatic changes in the sea
level, and trigger another ice age or create a lifeless hothouse . And for what good reason?
What is the good purpose of burning all the planets fossil fuels as
fast as possible, when it risks the destruction not only of mankind but
of much other life on the planet as well? The answer is None. This
activity cannot continue at current levels without risking dire
consequences, even apart from the issue of depletion of fossil fuel
reserves and other nonrenewable resources. To continue to do so is
the height of folly.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
16
Civilization Unsustainable waste products

Waste produced by industrial civilization makes it unsustainable
the ecosystem cannot sustain industrialization

1999
Having an adequate energy supply is just half of the problem. The other half of the problem
is what to do about the waste. In the natural ecosystem, energy is obtained from the
sun each day, and continuously converted by living creatures into waste that is
completely consumed by other living creatures. Mankind, however, uses energy to
produce waste that cannot be consumed by living creatures . For industrial man to continue
to survive, i.e., to be sustainable, it is necessary (although not sufficient) for him to
eliminate all of the waste that his industrial activity produces. Present day
man does not do this. He simply dumps most of the waste toxic, radioactive, or other
into the environment. In order for man to survive in the ecosystem as we know it, it
must be the case that all of his waste is reprocessed. Otherwise there is no balance of
nature. Biological creatures do not have to worry about reprocessing their waste;
evolution and the balance of nature have taken care of that. Industrial creatures
such as man must worry very much about this, or they will soil their nest and
make it unlivable. For every joule of energy that is used by man, he must insure that the
waste produced by it is reprocessed (completely). In order for mankind to continue
indefinitely with any level of industrial activity, its production of nonbiodegradable or
nonrecyclable waste must stop. Either the production of nonbiodegradable items must
cease, or energy must be expended to transform the industrial products into biodegradable
ones. Virtually all industrial products end up as waste, within a few years. This
includes all of our appliances, containers, clothes, furniture, cars, buildings, and
infrastructure (roads, bridges, power lines, sewage treatment plants). Transforming
nonbiodegradable substances into biodegradable ones requires energy, and usually lots of
it. In some cases, nonbiodegradable items can be reprocessed and reused, e.g.,
used aluminum cans into new aluminum cans. In some cases, highly toxic materials
must be burned at high temperatures to break them down. Radioactive materials
cannot be destroyed (except in a nuclear reaction). To date, the approach to industrial
waste has largely been to ignore it, i.e., to sweep it under the rug by transporting to
landfills, or by dumping in rivers, lakes, or oceans. This approach is not sustainable, and
in fact cannot continue for very long at all at todays high rates of industrial activity . At
some point sufficient energy must be expended to convert all industrial waste into
useful products or biodegradable products. Data are not readily available on how
much energy will be required to do this. If it is (optimistically?) assumed that the
same amount of energy is required to dispose of industrial products as was
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
17
expended to create them in the first place, then the amount of energy required per
capita doubles. In this case, the planets solar energy budget could not support one billion
industrial human beings, but only 500 million. It is quite possible that a significant
population of industrial human beings can never be sustained on the
planet. Prior to industrial man, all of the plant and animal waste production from
the entire solar energy supply was 100% recycled all of the waste from one
species was food for another. Industrial mankind produces waste that is toxic to the
ecology, and that is not recycled at all. By relying on energy sources other than solar (such
as nuclear), man also generates much more waste than is possible under a current solar
energy budget. At some industrial activity level, the planets ecosystem will simply be
unable to reprocess the industrial waste generated by man on a long-term basis. It is quite
conceivable that the planets ecosystem (as we currently know it) can survive in the long
run only as a photosynthetic system on a current solar energy budget, without massive
input of energy (and toxic waste) from other sources. If this is the case, there is no
place for industrial man on the planet at all.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
18
Current Population Unsustainable (1/2)
Current levels of resource consumption and production will not be

able to sustain population growth

1999
The current commercial energy consumption of all countries in the world is about 8,000
megatons (million tons) of oil equivalent (International Energy Agency, Energy Statistics
and Balances of Non-OECD Countries, 1993-1994, p. 61). This means that at current
production levels, the average energy consumption per person worldwide is 6 billion
people divided by 8 billion tons of oil equivalent, or about 1.333 tons of oil equivalent
(toe) = 1,333 koe (the official figure for 1995 is 1,474 koe, according to World
Development Report 1998/99). For each of the worlds current six billion people to have
access to 2,500 kilograms (2.5 tons) of oil equivalent annually would require a total
production of 15 gigatons (billion tons) of oil equivalent (6 billion people x 2.5 toe per
person). That is about double current production. When the world
population reaches nine or twelve billion, the amount required will be 22.5 gigatons or 30
gigatons, respectively, or three or four times current production. When

compared to the energy that will be available from current solar sources, the
comparisons are even starker. Pimentel et al. estimate that a maximum of 200 quads
(quadrillion BTU, where quadrillion means one million million) of energy might be
available for human use from solar sources, or about five billion tons of oil equivalent (toe).
This is about five gigatons of oil equivalent (Gtoe). (See Appendix B for factors for
converting from BTUs to other energy units.) That is, the amount of energy that would
be required to provide twelve billion people with 2.5 toe (i.e., 30 Gtoe) is about six times
that available from solar energy (i.e., 5 Gtoe). What does this mean? Well, China and
India intend to raise the standard of living for their two billion people to a level comparable
to the rest of the world. At a level of 2.5 tons of oil equivalent (toe) per person, that
will require 5 billion toe of energy, or all of that available from solar energy. This
means that, when the oil, gas and coal run out, China and India will require the entire solar
energy budget for the planet, just for their people alone . This means either that there will be
an awful lot of nuclear power being used, or the rest of us will just have to go ! And the
problem is not just China and India. Figures 26-28 of Appendix F summarize the
distribution of commercial energy use for the countries of the world. These figures
show that the vast majority of countries (about 55%) have per capita commercial energy
consumptions of 1,000 koe or less, and that only 25% have per capita energy consumptions
of 2,500 koe or more. In other words, in the world of today, relatively few countries have
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
19
per capita energy use levels that enable a high standard of living. Most of these countries
have no access to nuclear power, and it is unlikely that they ever will. When oil, gas, and
coal run out, there are going to be a lot of very unhappy people around .
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
20
Current Population Unsustainable (2/2)
Current population levels unsustainable massive wars inevitable

1999
World peace in an absolute sense meaning the total absence of organized

conflict is evidently an unachievable goal for mankind . A more realistic goal may be
some sort of semi-stable equilibrium involving a controlled level of conflict. All plant
and animal species have birth rates that exceed replacement levels, else they would soon
become extinct. The population sizes of all species would explode were it not for the
balance of nature that keeps population sizes in equilibrium. Any species that
proliferates is doomed to a rapid, edsxzcatastrophic population

collapse. Technological man can temporarily upset the balance of nature and fill the planet
with billions of human beings, but this cannot last. If natures other species do not keep
the human population in check, then mankind will perform this function itself,
through war (organized conflict collective killing for a collective purpose, in the
words of John Keegan). In the absence of natural control of mankinds numbers,
war is inevitable. And as the human population explodes, the likelihood and the magnitude
of war must explode as well. War, war, and more war that is what is in mankinds future .
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
21
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
22
Nuclear War Inevitable
The end of mutual deterrence makes nuclear war and nuclear

technology development inevitable

1999
The chance of a large-scale ballistic missile nuclear

war may have lessened, but because of the lessening of control over nuclear weapons,
technology, and materials (following the disintegration of the Soviet Union), the odds of a smallscale nuclear war would appear to have increased substantially. India and Pakistan recently
The situation is now quite different.
conducted nuclear-bomb tests, and are now members of the nuclear club. Their relations are antagonistic.
With the decreased level of control over nuclear weapons, technology, and materials,
the chance that a rogue nation or terrorist group could bomb one or even many cities
using small suitcase-sized nuclear bombs has probably increased substantially. In any
event, the means and opportunity for a small nuclear attack are growing every year. The
only consolation is that such an attack would probably not be large (like a full-fledged ballistic-missile
attack). The state of the world with respect to nuclear war was dangerous during the Cold War, and it
remains so. While the odds of a large-scale ballistic-missile war may have decreased, the odds of a smallscale nuclear war have increased.
Nuclear War Inevitable envious nations

1999
What are the odds that a minimal-regret war will occur, and a minimal-regret population established? Im
not sure about the odds that a minimal-regret population will be established, but I believe strongly that
nuclear war is inevitable. The reason for this conviction is the politics of envy
the desire of a have-not group to destroy an opponent who is better off, even if by doing so his own
position is unchanged or even worsened. The politics of envy is a principal motivation of
terrorist groups who attack the United States. With the proliferation of nuclear-weapon
technology and weapons-grade fissionable material, it is just a matter of time until a
terrorist group decides to use nuclear weapons against US cities. The US has lost control of
its borders, and has accepted immigrants from all cultures into all levels of its society. It is very
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
23
vulnerable. Under the politics of greed the use of politics to acquire more for yourself
regardless of the effect on your opponent, it may be in the best interest of all groups to avoid
nuclear war. That was the basis for the decades-long Cold War, in which neither the US nor the Soviet
Union used nuclear weapons. Both would lose more than they gained. Under the politics of greed,
mutually assured destruction (MAD) works as a deterrent to war. Under the politics of
envy, MAD is essentially irrelevant. What matters most is destruction of the opponent ,
at any cost. MAD will not save the US now that the nuclear jinn is out of the bottle , and
the world is filled with unhappy have-nots with access to nuclear technology .
Nuclear War Inevitable envious nations, desire to save the planet

and diminishing resources

2003
It would appear that global nuclear war is inevitable, for several reasons. A major factor
is the politics of envy the desire for the have-nots of the world to destroy what
the haves have. The gap between the industrialized west and the rest of the world is
widening, and the hatred and envy are growing as the poorer nations realize that they will
never catch up. Each year, millions more human beings are born into direst poverty,
overcrowding, misery and hopelessness. The realization is dawning that it is

global industrialization that is the root cause of human misery, and the
motivation to bring that inhumane system to an end is growing as fast as
the global human population. With the proliferation of plutonium from nuclear
reactors, terrorists and rogue nations will soon have the capability to produce thousands of
suitcase-sized nuclear bombs, and deliver them to any cities in the world . As mentioned
earlier, no missiles or airplanes or submarines are required. Another reason why global
nuclear war appears inevitable is the fact that nuclear war dominates all other proposed
solutions as a means of stopping the ongoing species extinction . No other alternative
accomplishes this. As long as this situation holds, it is just a matter of time

until the global-nuclear-war solution is implemented, since continuing on
the present course leads to a dead planet. It would appear that global
nuclear war will happen very soon, for two main reasons, alluded to above. First,
human poverty and misery are increasing at an incredible rate. There are now three
billion more desperately poor people on the planet than there were just forty years
ago. Despite decades of industrial development, the number of wretchedly poor
people continues to soar. The pressure for war mounts as the population explodes.
Second, war is motivated by resource scarcity -- the desire of one group to acquire
the land, water, energy, or other resources possessed by another. With each passing
year, crowding and misery increase, raising the motivation for war to higher levels.
There is also a third factor motivating global war, and that involves timing. With the passage
of time, less and less benefit accrues to the winner. If anyone is motivated to wage global
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
24
nuclear war and has the means to do so, sooner is very likely better than later. If delayed too
long, there may be nothing left to gain. With each passing year, the planet's
biodiversity decreases, another two percent of the planet's remaining petroleum

reserves are consumed, and the risk of biospheric extinction (e.g., from a
greenhouse effect) increases.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
25
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
26
Impact deforestation
Maintaining industrial civilization causes massive deforestation

leading to plant and animal extinction

1999
L
Over the last century the world has lost half its original forest area, and much so-called
reforestation is simply replacing ecologically diverse forests with monoculture tree
plantations. Each year, man destroys another 16 million hectares of ecologically diverse
forest. In the article, A Non-Fuzzy Earth Day, in the May 3, 1999 issue of Time,
Pranay Gupte (editor and publisher of The Earth Times) summarizes the situation. In
the past 20 years, forests have disappeared in 25 countries , and over 95% of the forests
have disappeared in 18 countries. There were an estimated 60 billion hectares of forest on
the planet just before World War II; now, because of logging, cutting for firewood, and
desertification, there are 3.6 billion. (Figures from the World Commission on Forests and
Sustainable Development). The World Conservation Union estimates that this forest
decline threatens 12.5% of the worlds 275,000 species of plants and 75% of its mammals.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
27
Impact - environment
Overpopulation is the root cause of environmental destruction continuing
population explosion resulting from industrial society will ultimately lead to
extinction

1999
The root cause of all of the environmental and ecological problems facing the planet is
twofold: the very large human population, and the extraordinarily high levels of toxic waste
produced by industrial activity. The planet can and has harbored a large number of
human beings for very long periods in the past. It has been estimated that the human
population has been approximately 2-20 million for the past hundred thousand years , while
mankind existed in a hunting-gathering mode, increasing to about 200-300 million
after the advent of the agricultural revolution (10,000 years ago). Human population
growth is often depicted in a famous curve called Deevys curve, after the man
who first presented it (Edward S. Deevy, The Human Population, Scientific
American, vol. 203, no. 9, September 1960, pp. 195-204). This curve is shown, for
example, on p. 95 of Cohens How Many People Can the Earth Support, or p. 101 of
Piels Only One World. It shows three main population surges: one when man invented
weapons and tools (three million years ago); one when man developed agriculture
(about 10,000 years ago); and one when the industrial revolution began, less than 500
year ago. The three levels of population for these surges are global populations of
about 2-20 million human beings (preagricultural Stone Age), 200-300 million
(preindustrial agriculture), and the present time. The population surge for the present
time has not yet leveled off, but it will, very soon. The total land area of Earth is 148.9
million square kilometers, of which 14.2 million is Antarctica and 11 million is
desert. This leaves about 125 million square kilometers of habitable land . A total
population size of say, 5 million, hence represents a density of about 4 people every
100 square kilometers. At that low level of population, with no industrial activity, mankind
did not materially affect the balance of nature . (The term balance of nature refers to
the fact that all of the waste products produced by one species are food for other
species and the overall system is in a state of relative equilibrium (slow evolutionary
change).) The net production of unreprocessed waste is effectively zero. The only
significant ecological change attributed to mankind over the millions of years of his huntergatherer existence was the extinction of most large mammals (mammoths, mastodons,
giant camels, and the like) at the end of the last ice age, about 10,000 years ago,
and there is even doubt that mankind accomplished that. When mankind began to
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
28
use agriculture, about 10,000 years ago, a lot of forest was cleared, and many local
species were exterminated. The rise of civilization was responsible, for example, for the
extermination of the black Atlas-mountain lion, and for the elimination of lions in general
from the area occupied by the Roman Empire . Agricultural man could produce about 10
calories of food energy for the expenditure of one calorie of food energy. This meant
that a single man could produce enough food for his immediate family, and still
have a surplus that could support a nonagricultural urban civilization. Conversion of
much of the land area to agriculture allowed the human population to grow substantially, to
the level of a few hundred million at the time of the Roman Empire. Until about the year
1500, the size of the human population did not change much . Overall, agricultural yields
were low perhaps 1/10 of current yields. Another reason for lack of population growth
was limited access to energy resources. About 1500, however, mankind started using coal
instead of wood as a major source of energy. The difficulties in extracting coal led to
technological advances such as the development of an efficient steam engine. These
developments enabled man to utilize much larger amounts of energy . Technological
development followed technological development, leading ultimately to mans

ability to produce much larger amounts of food. The human population explosion was
on! The population increased to about a billion in 1800, to two billion in 1925, three billion in
1960, four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, and to six billion today (1999). Human
population is exploding at the rate of about 80 million a year, or a billion every twelve years .
As discussed at length in the references of the preceding chapter, mankinds large
population size and industrial activity are literally destroying the ecological environment on
which he depends for his very existence. Since the human population
explosion threatens our existence, one would think that this topic would receive
more attention than any other. Incredibly, this is not the case. Although a number of
perceptive books have been written on the subject, they represent a miniscule
proportion of all literature.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
29
Impact overpopulation => nuke war
Overpopulation leads to proliferation of nuclear reactors and

nuclear war

1999
The basic approach to the energy problem (i.e., the depletion of fossil fuels in a few
decades) by the world governments is to ignore it. There is much talk of alternatives to
fossil fuels and fission nuclear energy, such as solar energy and fusion energy, but it
is just talk. Despite much investment and research, alternative technologies have not been
developed. They are in the realm of science fiction or new age literature. Isaac
Asimov conceived a universe parallel to our own with which energy could be
exchanged. Edgar Cayce describes crystal power plants in Atlantis that collected
energy from the sun and other sources. Alan F. Alford ( Gods of the New Millennium,
Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1996) describes pyramid-energy sources in the
ancient world. These alternatives are not too promising, to say the least! Clearly, mankind
is facing some difficult decisions. Either reduce global population size to a level that is
supportable by the annual budget of solar energy, or use nuclear fission to generate energy,
thereby producing long-lasting radioactive waste and the material used to produce nuclear
bombs. Since no steps are being taken by world governments to accomplish the
former (i.e., a human population of size that can be supported by solar energy), it is
pretty clear where we are headed: more people and more nuclear energy. Human population
will continue to expand, and mankind will continue to use nuclear energy and generate
nuclear waste. Industrial man will not be denied energy, or he will cease to exist. The
fact that nuclear reactors generate radioactive waste and waste heat will not deter
mankind in the least from using them. But the fact that the most promising type of
nuclear reactor the fast breeder reactor generates large amounts of plutonium will have
a significant Impact on mans future. The availability of large amounts of
plutonium significantly increases the likelihood of nuclear war.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
30
Impact framework save biosphere first
The primary goal of population control should be to minimize the

chance of biosphere collapse all other factors are irrelevant

1999
The criterion of minimal regret specifies that if one of several different possible decisions
(courses of action) must be made, then select the one that, no matter what happens, the
regret is least. "Regret" is loosely defined as the likelihood that mankind and the planet's
biodiversity are destroyed. This approach may result in a result quite different from
the usual approach of determining optimal population size. The objective in

determining the optimal population size is to identify the largest possible population
that can achieve a particular lifestyle, with the constraint that it be sustainable,
i.e., not cause so much damage to the environment that it cannot continue
indefinitely. The very serious drawback of the optimal-population-size approach is that it
does not address the issue of how much stress the environment can sustain without
collapsing. It is simply hypothesized that, if there is sufficient solar or nuclear energy and
land to support one billion people, that the environment can take it, and will take it
indefinitely. If the environment cannot take it, the whole human race is destroyed. From
the viewpoint of long-term survival of the human race, this is an incredibly absurd approach.
The approach of determining optimal population size is an attempt to maximize the number
of human beings on the planet, while completely ignoring the possibility that mankinds
economic activity may destroy all life on the planet. It is a horribly flawed approach in
which a major possibility global destruction is permitted. The possibility of
planetary destruction is willfully recognized and accepted, and conspiratorially ignored. In
contrast, the minimal-regret approach addresses the issue of planetary destruction head on,
and takes it fully into account .
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
31
Impact Oceans
The ocean is on the brink overfishing destroys resiliency,
outweighs any other alternate causalities
Greenpeace 2008
July, Pushed to the brink - The oceans and climate change

oceans are being systematically degraded and
subjected to multiple human-induced stressors, most seriously
overfishing, the resilience of the oceans and their consequent ability to adapt to change is
decreasing. Yet it is this very resilience that scientists argue is vital if the oceans are to
survive the onslaught of global climate change. Current threats The most immediate and
significant threat to the oceans is overfishing. The demand for fish is exceeding the
oceans ecological limits with devastating impacts on marine ecosystems. Scientists are warning that
It is a matter of grave concern, therefore, that the
are in decline. Already
overfishing results in profound changes in our oceans, perhaps permanently. Despite some alterations to the
way fisheries are managed, there is little ground for optimism; 77% of all fish stocks are now either
fully or over-exploited 1; fishermen are bringing home smaller and smaller catches despite
technological advances; fish-size, abundance and genetic diversity has plummeted ;
high-value species are being replaced by so-called trash fish; and habitat degradation is
widespread and increasing2. Destructive practices and overfishing have diminished the seas ability
to renew its resources, with consequences for the more than one billion people in the world who rely on fish
as their primary source of protein. The reality of modern fishing is an industrialisation that far outstrips
natures ability to replenish. Ships operate as floating factories, containing fish processing and packing
plants, huge freezing systems and powerful engines to drag enormous fishing gear through the oceans
everything required to suck as much fish out of the oceans as quickly as possible and to despatch it for
consumption. This wholesale damage and destruction is compounded by many other stressors exerted on
the ocean from pollution to extraction. The cumulative result is that the resilience of the oceans both
individually and as a global network providing major services to the planet is degenerating.
Overfishing overwhelms resiliency

CSM 08
(Christian Science Monitor, Moises Velasquez-Manoff, Staff Writer, How Overfishing

Can Alter An Entire Ecosystem, June 19,
http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2008/06/19/how-overfishing-can-alteran-ocean%E2%80%99s-entire-ecosystem/)
around the world. Overfishing has shifted
entire ecosystems with often surprising, and occasionally unpleasant, results. In the tropics, seaweed
Scientists have documented versions of this story
often dominates where coral once reigned. Around the world, jellyfish and algae proliferate where finfish
previously dominated. With big predators often gone or greatly depleted, organisms lower
on the food web grow more abundant, reducing their own prey in turn. Some say this is
worrisome evidence of a greatly changed and simplified marine ecosystem. Like investment portfolios with
few holdings, simple ecosystems are prone to collapse ; and collapsed or rearranged
ecosystems dont necessarily provide what humans expect. Increasingly mindful of marine
ecosystems complexity and wary of their collapse some people are calling for a holistic approach to
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
32
managing ecosystems, one that aims to manage for the health of the entire system rather than that of a
single stock. Just 4 percent of the worlds oceans remains free from human impact, according to a 2008
study in the journal Science. Forty percent of this is heavily impacted.
Overfishing is the largest factor in ocean destruction

Craig, 3
Associate professor of law, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, IN., 2003
(Robin Kundis, "Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection?" 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155, Winter)
Declines in fishing stocks and the economic chaos that results when a fishery collapses have driven much of
the interest in restoring the oceans - or at least in restoring the fishing stocks. Restoration efforts, however,
depend on identifying the cause of the degradation. Although anthropogenic stresses to the oceans
are many - pollution, destruction of habitat for coastal construction, and global
warming - scientists consistently identify overfishing as the primary cause of [*163]
both
depleted fisheries stocks and destruction of ecosystem biodiversity generally. n27 As for fishery stocks, more
than two-thirds of the commercially fished stocks worldwide are currently either overfished or
on the brink of becoming overfished. n28 Moreover, many commercially important stocks of marine species
have suffered spectacular collapses, leaving economic chaos in their wakes. Some famous examples include
salmon in the United States's Pacific Northwest; n29 cod in the northeastern United States, eastern Canada,
and Scandinavia; n30 whales throughout the world; n31 and sea turtles in the Caribbean and Hawaii. n32
However, intensive fishing worldwide has also affected marine ecosystems more generally. In the fished
stocks, "fish diminish in size and number or disappear altogether." n33 When so reduced, these
species cannot properly perform their roles in the ecosystems they inhabit, a condition
known as ecological extinction. n34 Most directly, the reduction in number and size of commercially
important species affects marine food webs: species that the overfished species consumed tend to increase
in number, while species that consumed the overfished species tend to decrease in number n35 or shift their
diets. When hunters came close to exterminating sea otters from the northern Pacific kelp forests, for
example, the orcas that had formerly preyed on otter turned their attention to seals and sea lions, "which
are in drastic decline" as a result. n36
Extinction
Craig, 3
Associate professor of law, Indiana University School of Law, Indianapolis, IN., 2003
(Robin Kundis, "Taking Steps Toward Marine Wilderness Protection?" 34 McGeorge L.
Rev. 155, Winter)
The world's oceans contain many resources and provide many services that humans consider valuable.
"Occupy[ing] more than [seventy percent] of the earth's surface and [ninety-five percent] of the biosphere,"
n17 oceans provide food; marketable goods such as shells, aquarium fish, and
pharmaceuticals; life support processes, including carbon sequestration , nutrient

cycling, and weather mechanics; and quality of life, both aesthetic and economic, for millions of
people worldwide. n18 Indeed, it is difficult to overstate the importance of the ocean to humanity's wellbeing: "The ocean is the cradle of life on our planet, and it remains the axis of existence, the
locus of planetary biodiversity, and the engine of the chemical and hydrological cycles
that create and maintain our atmosphere and climate." n19 Ocean and coastal ecosystem
services have been calculated to be worth over twenty billion dollars per year, worldwide. n20 In addition,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
33
many people assign heritage and existence value to the ocean and its creatures, viewing the world's seas as
a common legacy to be passed on relatively intact to future generations. n21 Traditionally, land-bound
humans have regarded the ocean as an inexhaustible resource and have pursued consumptive and
extractive uses of the seas, such as fishing, with little thought of conservation. n22 In the last two or three
centuries, however, humanity has overstressed the world's oceans, proving that the ocean's productivity is
limited. n23 Degradation of the marine environment is becoming increasingly obvious: Scientists have
mounting evidence of rapidly accelerating declines in once-abundant populations of cod, haddock, flounder,
and scores of other [*162] fish species, as well as mollusks, crustaceans, birds, and plants. They are
alarmed at the rapid rate of destruction of coral reefs, estuaries, and wetlands and the sinister expansion of
vast "dead zones" of water where life has been choked away. More and more, the harm to marine
biodiversity can be traced not to natural events but to inadequate policies. n24
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
34
Impact A-Life
A-life is coming to kills us all
A. It will be here in 9 years

Mulhall, is the author of Our Molecular Future: How Nanotechnology, Robotics,
Genetics, and Artificial Intelligence Will Transform Our World, and co-author of The
Calcium Bomb: The Nanobacteria Link to Heart Disease and Cancer. He managed a
scientific environmental institute for many years and co-founded one of the early
South American institutes devoted to recycling technology, 06
this forecast made by Vernor Vinge in 19931:
"Within thirty years, we will have the technological means to create superhuman
intelligence. Shortly after, the human era will be ended." That was thirteen years ago.
Many proponents of super-intelligence say we are on track for that deadline, due to the
rate of computing and software advances. Skeptics argue this is nonsense and that we're still
Most students of artificial intelligence are familiar with
decades away from it. But fewer and fewer argue that it won't happen by the end of this century. This is
because history has shown the acceleration of technology to be exponential, as explained in well-known
works by inventors such as Ray Kurzweil and Hans Moravec, some of which are elucidated in this
genome,
progress in the late stages of a multi-year project that critics wrongly predicted
volume of essays. A classic example of technology acceleration is the mapping of the human
which achieved most of its
would take decades.
B. Unlimited destruction
Bostrom, Philosophy professor Oxford and Director of the Oxford Future of
Humanity Institute, 06
<Nick, Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence Ethical Issues in Advanced Artificial Intelligence, Review
of Contemporary Philosophy, forthcoming, August 2006.>
The risks in developing superintelligence include the risk of

failure to give it the supergoal of philanthropy. One way in which this
could happen is that the creators of the superintelligence decide to build it
so that it serves only this select group of humans, rather than
humanity in general. Another way for it to happen is that a well-meaning team
of programmers make a big mistake in designing its goal system. This
could result, to return to the earlier example, in a superintelligence
whose top goal is the manufacturing of paperclips, with the
consequence that it starts transforming first all of earth and
then increasing portions of space into paperclip manufacturing
facilities. More subtly, it could result in a superintelligence realizing a state of affairs
that we might now judge as desirable but which in fact turns out to be a false utopia,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
35
in which things essential to human flourishing have been irreversibly lost. We need to
be careful about what we wish for from a superintelligence, because we might get it.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
36
Impact - Nanotech
Nanotech is a bad idea
A. An unregulated boom coming soon.

Center for Responsible Nanotechnology 1/24/04
http://crnano.typepad.com/crnblog/what_we_believe/ January 21 04
nanotechnology manufacturing will arrive suddenly, perhaps within the next

certainly within the next twenty. If it takes the world by
surprise, we will not have systems in place that can deal with it effectively.
No single organization or mindset can create a full and appropriate policy
and inappropriate policy will only make things worse. A combination of
separate policy efforts will get in each other's way, and the risks will slip
through the cracks.
Molecular
ten years, and almost
B. ends the universe

ETC 03 <Action Group on Erosion, Technology and Concentration Atomtech:
Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale January 2003
http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf>
What if nanobots start building chairs and dont stop? The selfreplicating and assembly processes could go haywire until the world is
annihilated by nanobots or their products. Gray Goo refers to the obliteration of
life that could result from the accidental and uncontrollable spread of
selfreplicating assemblers. Drexler provides a vivid example of how quickly the damage could pile
up beginning with one rogue replicator. If the first replicator could assemble a copy of
itself in one thousand seconds, the two replicators could then build two
more in the next thousand seconds, the four build another four, and the eight build another
GRAY GOO
eight. At the end of ten hours, there are not thirty-six new replicators, but over 68 billion. In less than a day,
they would weigh a ton; in less than two days, they would outweigh the Earth; in
another four hours, they would exceed the mass of the Sun and all the
planets combined.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
37
More Nanotech Impacts

Nanotech leads to planetary destruction via grey goo
Freitas, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, 200 1
(Robert A. Jr., The Gray Goo Problem, March 20,
http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0142.html)
Perhaps the earliest-recognized and best-known danger of molecular nanotechnology is the

risk that self-replicating nanorobots capable of functioning autonomously in the natural
environment could quickly convert that natural environment (e.g., "biomass") into replicas
of themselves (e.g., "nanomass") on a global basis, a scenario usually referred to as
the "gray goo problem" but perhaps more properly termed "global ecophagy." As
Drexler first warned in Engines of Creation [2]: " Plants" with "leaves" no more efficient
than today's solar cells could out-compete real plants, crowding the biosphere with an
inedible foliage. Tough omnivorous "bacteria" could out-compete real bacteria: They could
spread like blowing pollen, replicate swiftly, and reduce the biosphere to
dust in a matter of days. Dangerous replicators could easily be too tough,
small, and rapidly spreading to stop--at least if we make no preparation.
We have trouble enough controlling viruses and fruit flies. Among the cognoscenti of
nanotechnology, this threat has become known as the "gray goo problem." Though
masses of uncontrolled replicators need not be gray or gooey, the term "gray goo"
emphasizes that replicators able to obliterate life might be less inspiring than a single
species of crabgrass. They might be superior in an evolutionary sense, but this need not
make them valuable. The gray goo threat makes one thing perfectly clear: We cannot afford
certain kinds of accidents with replicating assemblers . Gray goo would surely be a
depressing ending to our human adventure on Earth, far worse than mere fire or ice,
and one that could stem from a simple laboratory accident.
Nanotech leads to extinction destroys carbon making life

impossible
However, the primary ecophagic concern is that runaway nanorobotic replicators or

"replibots" will convert the entire surface biosphere (the ecology of all living things on
the surface of the Earth) into alternative or artificial materials of some type--especially,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
38
materials like themselves, e.g., more self-replicating nanorobots. Since advanced
nanorobots might be constructed predominantly of carbon-rich diamondoid materials [4],
and since ~12% of all atoms in the human body (representative of biology generally) are
carbon atoms [6], or ~23% by weight, the global biological carbon inventory may support
the self-manufacture of a final mass of replicating diamondoid nanorobots on the order of
~0.23 Mbio, where Mbio is the total global biomass. Unlike almost any other natural
material, biomass can serve both as a source of carbon and as a source of power for
nanomachine replication. Ecophagic nanorobots would regard living things as
environmental carbon accumulators, and biomass as a valuable ore to be mined for carbon
and energy. Of course, biosystems from which all carbon has been extracted
can no longer be alive but would instead become lifeless chemical sludge.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
39
Nanotech Possible
Traditional diamondoid nanomachinery designs [4] have employed 8 primary chemical

elements, along with the associated atmospheric abundances [46] of each element.
(Silicon is present in air as particulate dust which may be taken as ~28% Si for
crustal rock [5], with a global average dust concentration of ~0.0025 mg/m3). The
requirement for elements that are relatively rare in the atmosphere greatly constrains the
potential nanomass and growth rate of airborne replicators. However, note that at least
one of the classical designs exceeds 91% CHON by weight. Although it would be very
difficult, it is at least theoretically possible that replicators could be constructed almost
solely of CHON, in which case such devices could replicate relatively rapidly using only
atmospheric resources, powered by sunlight . A worldwide blanket of airborne replicating
dust or "aerovores" that blots out all sunlight has been called the "gray dust" scenario [47].
(There have already been numerous experimental aerial releases of recombinant

bacteria [48].)
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
40
Impact Accelerators
The next generation of accelerators will create mini black holes that end the earth
Blodgett,
Risk Evaluation Forum, 03 <James, November 16, 2003, http://www.risk-evaluationforum.org/cnsdrtns.htm Collider mini black holes: Loss of protective considerations>
the next generation of heavy ion colliders may

create mini black holes. (A large collider that will be thirty times more powerful than
current models is under construction at CERN.) It is thought that mini black holes will dissipate via
Hawking radiation. But Hawking radiation has never been seen nor tested . If Hawking
radiation does not work, a mini black hole could swallow the earth. This risk seems a
Recent developments in physics suggest that
classic case for being careful, for what risk analysts call "the precautionary principle." Unfortunately it
appears that this principle is not yet being applied.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
41
1NC Posthumanism
The emergence of posthumans will result in a genocidal war with

WMD -- leads to extinction
Annas et al 2 (George, Utley Professor and Chair of Health Law at Boston University School of Public
Health, Lori Andrews, Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent, and Rosario Isasi, Health Law and Bioethics Fellow at
Boston University School of Public Health, American Journal of Law & Medicine, THE GENETICS REVOLUTION:
CONFLICTS, CHALLENGES AND CONUNDRA: ARTICLE: Protecting the Endangered Human: Toward an
International Treaty Prohibiting Cloning and Inheritable Alterations, 28 Am. J. L. and Med. 151, L/N)
cloning will inevitably lead to attempts to modify the

somatic cell nucleus not to create genetic duplicates of existing people, but "better"
children. 36 If this attempt fails, that is the end of it. If it succeeds, however, something like the scenario
envisioned by Silver and others such as Nancy Kress, 37 will unfold: a new species or subspecies of
humans will emerge. The new species, or "posthuman," will likely view the old
"normal" humans as inferior, even savages, and fit for slavery or slaughter. The
normals, on the other hand, may see the posthumans as a threat and if they can, may
engage in a preemptive strike by killing the posthumans before they themselves are
killed or enslaved by them. It is ultimately this predictable potential for genocide that
makes species-altering experiments potential weapons of mass destruction, and
makes the unaccountable genetic engineer a potential bioterrorist . It is also why
cloning and genetic modification is of species-wide concern and why an international treaty to
Specifically, the argument is that
address it is appropriate. 38 Such a treaty is necessary because existing laws on cloning and inheritable
genetic alterations, although often well-intentioned, have serious limitations.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
42
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
43
1NC Posthumanism
Posthumanism risks a destruction of genetic and cultural diversity

which is critical for human survival
Wang 1 (Andrea, J.D. Candidate at Colorado, Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and
Policy, Regulating Human Cloning Within an Environmental Human Rights Framework, 12 COLO. J. INT'L
ENVTL. L. & POL'Y 165, L/N)
Genetic diversity in humans helps to alleviate prejudice against out-groups because

there is no one standard of "normal." The remainder of this section shows that if the eugenic
ends discussed above 161 come to fruition, we will become a more genetically
homogenized society. Because of the expense, cloning will be utilized by the wealthy,
dominant class and the stigmatizing effect will be felt by poorer, marginalized groups.
162 Thus, an increase in the use of cloning for genetic control will further solidify a
societal definition of "normalcy." As the class of "normal" becomes more and more narrow, parents
who belong to out-groups may even choose, for the sake of their children, to have clones that will fit the
societal definition of normalcy. 163 "Individual choices are not made in a social vacuum, and unless changes
in social attitudes keep pace with the proliferation of genetic tests, we can anticipate that many future
prospective parents, acting to avoid misery for potential children, will have to bow to social attitudes they
[*186] reject and resent." 164 Examples of minority group member parents who concede to the dominant
culture because of perceived advantages for their children have come up in other areas of reproductive
technology. For example, a black South African woman (with a white husband) who could not conceive with
her eggs, requested that the egg donor be white. 165 She did so because she felt that a white child would
have a better life than would a child of a mixed race. 166 The more this standard of "normal" is reinforced,
the greater the psychological injury to members of out-groups. 167 In addition to the psychological injury of
being deemed inferior as a function of genetic traits, is the concomitant discrimination at a societal level.
Once certain traits are identified as desirable from a utilitarian and aesthetic framework, those who lack
these traits will likely be discriminated against both in educational and employment settings. 168 Scientist
Judith Swazey, in the context of "genetic health," has articulated this concern: "some of the uses of genetics
reflect, and reinforce, a value system that contains an intolerance of "imperfection.'" 169 With a focus on an
individual's genetic makeup, comes a shift to a greater acceptance of notions of biological determinism. 170
This theory provides the background for the justification of stereotype use and the resulting discrimination.
Nelkin and Tancredi warn of the social power of biological information and speculate on its misuse: "What is
to be defined as normal or abnormal, able or disabled, healthy or diseased? And whose yardstick should
prevail? ... We risk increasing the number of people defined as unemployable, uneducable, [*187] or
uninsurable. We risk creating a biological underclass." 171 2. Biodiversity - Socio-Cultural Ramifications
Genetic diversity, in addition to ameliorating the marginalization and oppression of out-groups , also
benefits humans as a whole. Genetic diversity aids society through "endowing people with
physical and behavioral differences that enrich social interactions , political debates, literary
works and music." 172 Such a cultural exchange has been deemed necessary for human
survival: Each individual owes his survival and general well-being partly to his own limited assortment of
characters and partly to the benefits received through cultural interchange with other individuals
representing other assortments... Every man in a sense must become his brother's keeper, but the emphasis
is on keeping and expanding what both hold in common, not on converting one brother to the ideal image
held by the other. 173 The Rio Declaration, which emphasizes the intrinsic value of biodiversity, indicates the
extent to which the international community recognizes these "fruits" as essential to the enjoyment of the
right to life: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, ... working towards
international agreements which respect the interests of all and protect the integrity of the global
environmental and developmental system, recognizing the integral and interdependent nature of the Earth,
our home, proclaims that: ... States should cooperate to strengthen endogenous capacity-building for
sustainable development by improving scientific understanding through exchanges of scientific and
technological knowledge, and by enhancing the development, adaptation, diffusion and transfer of
technologies, including new and innovative technologies. 174 Biodiversity as an essential
component to the right to life 175 comes not only from the need for human
consumption of biodiversity in non-human life forms (i.e. sources of nutritional, pharmaceutical,
and [*188] agricultural resources), but also from a recognition of the value of diversity in the
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
44
human population. 176 International environmental law has recognized biodiversity as intrinsically
valuable. 177 The Council of Europe has linked this diversity with freedom: "[because] a naturally occurring
genetic recombination is likely to create more freedom for the human being than a predetermined genetic
make up, it is in the interest of all persons to keep the essentially random nature of the composition of their
own genes." 178 3. Biodiversity - Biological Advantages Even if one believes that a homogenous gene pool
will not lead to tolerance problems or a loss of variation in cultural and technological innovations, one area
where diversity does have an indisputable effect is in the genetic fitness of a population. 179 " Genetic
diversity within and among populations plays a key role in the health and development
of the species." 180 This phenomenon has been demonstrated in nearly all forms of
life. 181 Accordingly, "preserving genetic diversity is important, because the prevalence of
one particular genotype would make humans more susceptible to disease, rendering
the species susceptible to the risk of extinction caused by a plague of global
proportions." 182 As parents are able to exercise their genetic preference, and the genetic diversity of
humans decreases, so too does the fitness of our population.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
45
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
46
2NC Racism Impact
Posthuman tech gives rise to eugenic authoritarianism

Lynn 1(Richard, Prof. Psychology at the Economic and Social Research Institute @ Ulster, Eugenics: A
Reassessment, p. 302-303, 306)
Cloning could be used to considerable effect by authoritarian eugenic states as a

means of reproducing their scientific, military, and political elites. As compared with embryo
selection, one advantage of cloning is that a eugenic state could attempt to reproduce its elites immediately,
with a fair chance of success. The cloning of elites would not require any knowledge of the genes and alleles
responsible for intelligence or the complex set of personality traits necessary for creativity and high-level
achievement, such as would be required before embryos selection could be used for eugenic purposes. All
that cloning requires is the perfection of the techniques, and now that a number of
mammals have been cloned, this should be relatively straightforward for humans . It has
sometimes been objected that cloning has encountered a large number of failures before a success is
achieved and that this rules out the cloning of humans. This objection is not persuasive because the eugenic
state could afford a number of failures. In any case, technological progress in cloning is likely to reduce the
failure rate. Eugenic states would be expected to confine cloning to the reproduction of
quite small numbers of their scientific, military, and political elites . We cannot envision the
scenario set out by Aldous Huxley (1932) in Brave New World in which the whole population was reproduced
by cloning. For most of the population, embryo selection would be a preferable eugenic technique because it
would enable nearly the whole population to have their own biological children with more desirable genetic
combinations than those of either of their parents. This would retain the goodwill of the population more
effectively than cloning the best individuals in each occupation and having them reared by adoptive parents.
For the quite small numbers of its elites that eugenic states could be expected to reproduce by cloning, it
would be necessary to find couples willing to rear the clone. In some cases, these would be the couples from
one of whom the clone was taken. These couples would give the clones the advantages of their own
knowledge and experience. Most of the clones would be reared by adoptive parents ho would be selected as
likely to provide good rearing environments. Suitable women would have to be found who were willing to
have the cloned embryos implanted, to carry them to term, and to rear them. This should not be a problem
for the eugenic state. Only a few thousand children would be likely to be required for an elite cloning
program. Sufficient numbers of women willing to bear and rear clones could probably be recruited as
volunteers from enthusiasts for the eugenic program. If this proved not to be the case, they could be
sufficiently well paid for this service to produce the required number of women. The cloning of elites would
give eugenic states a large advantage over the Western democracies in the development of national
economic, scientific, and military power. Important scientific advances are typically made by small numbers
of highly gifted individuals who have hitherto appeared as a result of very unusual combinations of genes
and favorable environmental conditions. Authoritarian eugenic states could produce hundreds
or thousands of replicas of these highly gifted individuals by cloning and could have
them reared in the most favorable family and educational environments . The cloning
of political and military elites would make it possible for power to be transmitted from
capable elites to their clones and would solve the succession problem that has so
frequently led to the downfall of oligarchies. The cloning of elites would give authoritarian eugenic states considerable advantages because, as
noted in Chapter 19, it cannot be envisioned that elites would be cloned in the Western democracies.He ContinuesIn general terms, the situation is similar
to that in the 1930s when nuclear physics had developed to the state at which it
became feasible to construct an atom bomb . Once this point had been reached, it became
inevitable that some country or countries would embark on a research program to make the bomb and
would then use it, or threaten to use it, to gain a military advantage. In the event, it was the United States
that developed the bomb and used it in 1945 to force Japan to surrender. For the next four years, until the
Soviet Union developed the bomb, the United States was the only country to possess the atom bomb and
could have used it to take control of the world. It was inevitable that it made no attempt to take advantage
of this opportunity because in a democracy the internal opposition to an endeavor of this kind is too strong
for it to be politically feasible. Authoritarian states are not constrained by internal opposition, which can
easily be suppressed. An authoritarian eugenic state that used its genetically enhanced
population to develop a decisive military advantage would be likely to use it to

establish world domination.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
47
Rejecting racism is a moral imperative
Memmi 2000 (Albert, Professor Emeritus of Sociology @ U of Paris, Naiteire, Racism,
transl. Steve Martinot, p. 163-165, GAL)
The struggle against racism will be long difficult without intermission, without
remission, probably never achieved. Yet for this very reason, it is a struggle to be
undertaken without surcease and without concessions. One cannot be indulgent
toward racism; one must not even let the monster in the house, especially not in a
mark. To give it merely a foothold means to augment the bestial part in us and in other
people, which is to diminish what is human. To accept the racist universe to the slightest
degree is to endorse fear, injustice and violence. It is to accept the persistence of the
dark history in which we still largely live. It is to agree that the outsider will always be
a possible victim (and which [person] man is not [themselves] himself an outsider
relative to someone else?). Racism illustrates in sum, the inevitable negativity of the
condition of the dominated; that is, it illuminates in a certain sense the entire human
condition. The anti-racist struggle, difficult though it is, and always in question, is
nevertheless one of the prologues to the ultimate passage from animality to humanity.
In that sense, we cannot fail to rise to the racist challenge. However, it remains true that
ones moral conduct only emerges from a choice; one has to want it. It is a choice
among other choices and always debatable in its foundations and its consequences. Let
us say, broadly speaking, that the choice to conduct oneself morally is the condition for
the establishment of a human order for which racism is the very negation . This is
almost a redundancy. One cannot found a moral order, let alone a legislative order, on
racism, because racism signifies the exclusion of the other and his or her subjection to
violence and domination. From an ethical point of view, if one can deploy a little religious
language, racism is the truly capital sin. It is not an accident that almost all of
humanitys spiritual traditions counsel respect for the weak, for orphans, widows, or
strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical counsel respect for the weak, for
orphans, widows, or strangers. It is not just a question of theoretical morality and
disinterested commandments. Such unanimity in the safeguarding of the other suggests
the real utility of such sentiments. All things considered, we have an interest in
banishing injustice, because injustice engenders violence and death. Of course, this is
debatable. There are those who think that if one is strong enough, the assault on and
oppression of others is permissible. But no one is ever sure of remaining the strongest.
One day, perhaps, the roles will be reversed. All unjust society contains within itself
the seeds of its own death. It is probably smarter to treat others with respect so that
they treat you with respect. Recall, says the bible that you were once a stranger in
Egypt, which means both that you ought to respect the stranger because you were a
stranger yourself and that you risk becoming once again someday. It is an ethical and
practical appeal indeed, it is a contract, however implicit it might be. In short, the
refusal of racism is the condition for all theoretical and practical morality. Because, in
the end, the ethical choice commands the political choice, a just society must be a
society accepted by all. If this contractual principle is not accepted, then only conflict,
and destruction will be out lot. If it is accepted we can hope someday to live in peace.
True, it is a wager, but the stakes are irresistible.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
48
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
49
A2: The Singularity
All of our future weapons bad arguments are offense against tech development -prefer our scenarios on timeframe -- these systems will be developed in the next 20
years, long before tech enables immortality.
21st century tech will threaten human survival

Joy 2000 /Billy, cofounder and Chief Scientist of Sun Microsystems, was
cochair of the presidential commission on the future of IT research, Why
the future doesn't need us., Wired 8.04, April/
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
The 21st-century technologies - genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics (GNR) - are so powerful that they
can spawn whole new classes of accidents and abuses. Most dangerously, for the first time, these accidents
and abuses are widely within the reach of individuals or small groups. They will not require large
facilities or rare raw materials. Knowledge alone will enable the use of them. Thus we have the possibility not just
of weapons of mass destruction but of knowledge-enabled mass destruction (KMD), this destructiveness hugely
amplified by the power of self-replication. I think it is no exaggeration to say we are on the cusp of the
further perfection of extreme evil, an evil whose possibility spreads well beyond that which weapons of mass
destruction bequeathed to the nation-states, on to a surprising and terrible empowerment of extreme individuals.
Tech development wont be benign -- it cant be controlled -- regulations and

spinoffs will independently cause extinction
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
idea is to erect a series of shields to defend against each of the dangerous
technologies. The Strategic Defense Initiative, proposed by the Reagan administration, was an attempt to
design such a shield against the threat of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. But as Arthur C.
Clarke, who was privy to discussions about the project, observed: "Though it might be possible,
at vast expense, to construct local defense systems that would 'only' let through a few percent
of ballistic missiles, the much touted idea of a national umbrella was nonsense. Luis
Alvarez, perhaps the greatest experimental physicist of this century, remarked to me
that the advocates of such schemes were 'very bright guys with no common sense .'"
Another
Clarke continued: "Looking into my often cloudy crystal ball, I suspect that a total defense might indeed be
possible in a century or so. But the technology involved would produce, as a by-product,
weapons so terrible that no one would bother with anything as primitive as ballistic
missiles." 10 InEngines of Creation, Eric Drexler proposed that we build an active
nanotechnological shield - a form of immune system for the biosphere - to defend
against dangerous replicators of all kinds that might escape from laboratories or
otherwise be maliciously created. But the shield he proposed would itself be extremely
dangerous - nothing could prevent it from developing autoimmune problems and
attacking the biosphere itself. 11 Similar difficulties apply to the construction of shields
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
50
against robotics and genetic engineering. These technologies are too powerful to be
shielded against in the time frame of interest; even if it were possible to implement
defensive shields, the side effects of their development would be at least as dangerous
as the technologies we are trying to protect against . These possibilities are all thus either
undesirable or unachievable or both. The only realistic alternative I see is relinquishment: to
limit development of the technologies that are too dangerous, by limiting our pursuit of
certain kinds of knowledge.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
51
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
52
A2: The Singularity
The technological drive for immortality is life-denying and anti-ethical -- only

abandoning the scientific project allows for happiness -- our ev cites the Dalai Lama
Neither should we pursue near immortality without considering the costs, without
considering the commensurate increase in the risk of extinction . Immortality, while
perhaps the original, is certainly not the only possible utopian dream. I recently had the good fortune to
meet the distinguished author and scholar Jacques Attali, whose bookLignes d'horizons (Millennium, in the English translation) helped inspire the
Java and Jini approach to the coming age of pervasive computing, as previously described in this magazine. In his new bookFraternits, Attali
"At the dawn of societies, men saw their passage

on Earth as nothing more than a labyrinth of pain, at the end of which stood a door
leading, via their death, to the company of gods and to Eternity. With the Hebrews and then the
Greeks, some men dared free themselves from theological demands and dream of an
ideal City where Liberty would flourish. Others, noting the evolution of the market society,
understood that the liberty of some would entail the alienation of others, and they
sought Equality." Jacques helped me understand how these three different utopian goals exist in tension
in our society today. He goes on to describe a fourth utopia, Fraternity, whose foundation is
altruism. Fraternity alone associates individual happiness with the happiness of others,
affording the promise of self-sustainment. This crystallized for me my problem with Kurzweil's
dream. A technological approach to Eternity - near immortality through robotics - may
not be the most desirable utopia, and its pursuit brings clear dangers. Maybe we
should rethink our utopian choices. Where can we look for a new ethical basis to set our course? I have
describes how our dreams of utopia have changed over time:
found the ideas in the book Ethics for the New Millennium, by the Dalai Lama, to be very helpful. As is
perhaps well known but little heeded, the Dalai Lama argues that the most important thing is for us to
conduct our lives with love and compassion for others, and that our societies need to develop a stronger
notion of universal responsibility and of our interdependency; he proposes a standard of positive ethical
conduct for individuals and societies that seems consonant with Attali's Fraternity utopia . The Dalai Lama
further argues that we must understand what it is that makes people happy, and
acknowledge the strong evidence that neither material progress nor the pursuit of the
power of knowledge is the key - that there are limits to what science and the scientific
pursuit alone can do. Our Western notion of happiness seems to come from the Greeks, who defined it
as "the exercise of vital powers along lines of excellence in a life affording them scope." 15 Clearly, we
need to find meaningful challenges and sufficient scope in our lives if we are to be
happy in whatever is to come. But I believe we must find alternative outlets for our
creative forces, beyond the culture of perpetual economic growth; this growth has largely
been a blessing for several hundred years, but it has not brought us unalloyed happiness, and we must
now choose between the pursuit of unrestricted and undirected growth through
science and technology and the clear accompanying dangers .
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
53
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
54
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
55
nuclear war key
Absent massive war industrial civilization will continue to destroy

the biosphere

2003
At the present time, about one-sixth of the planets population has a high level of
industrial production, and the rest of the population is striving to achieve high levels
also. What this means is that, in the absence of war or other phenomena to
reduce industrial capacity and activity, the level of industrial

production will continue to increase even if the human population
tapers off. The annual GDP per capita of the richest nations is on the order of about $25,000 (GNP per
capita, purchasing-power-parity (PPP), current international $), whereas for poor countries it is about $2,000
per year. The world average is about $6,000. At a growth rate (in industrial production) of three
percent a year, it would take the rest of the world about fifty years to catch up to
where the developed countries are today. This means that even if the human
population were to level off by 2050, global industrial production would continue to
increase throughout this period, even if the developed nations stood still and the
poorer nations just tried to catch up. Given the commitment of all nations to the increased
global industrial
production is bound to continue to soar as poor countries strive to
become rich, even if population levels off. Under the current world order,
standards of living associated with increased industrial production,
industrial production will continue to soar to higher and higher levels, and the massive
destruction of the environment that is caused by industrial activity will intensify . In
summary, even under the wildest assumptions about decreasing fertility rates, human
population levels will continue to rise, and industrial activity will soar exponentially, for
generations to come. The destruction to the biosphere will continue unabated. The
planets biosphere and biodiversity already reeling from mankinds assault are doomed.
Unless
radical change happens.
Massive nuclear war is the only way to stop industrial civilization

from completely destroying the environment and causing total
extinction

2003
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
56
War could wipe out mankind. Not small wars, such as the scores of small
conflicts that continue year after year. Not even big wars, such as the First and Second
World Wars. But a really big war, involving thousands of nuclear weapons . That can
make a real difference. Furthermore, it can bring an immediate halt to the high level
of industrial activity that is destroying the planet. It can reduce human numbers to the
point where they no longer have a significant Impact on the planets ecology . The famous
And war.
astronomer and writer Sir Fred Hoyle once observed that mankind will have only one chance to do
something worthwhile with the energy from fossil fuel and the minerals at the Earths surface: if it ends up
Global industrialization is
causing the destruction that Hoyle referred to. Global nuclear war
could bring that process to a halt. This section has identified a number of phenomena that
destroying the planet it will never have a second chance.
might bring a halt to mankinds destruction of the biosphere. Some of them, such as asteroids or volcanoes,
are beyond mankinds control, and their occurrence has nothing to do with its large numbers and high
industrial production / energy use. Of the anthropogenic factors that might reduce mankinds
destruction of the biosphere famine, plague, and war it appears that famine and plague
would have little effect on stopping the mass species extinction. They may cause a
temporary reduction in human numbers, but the population would rebound, and high
levels of industrial production would continue, and damage to the biosphere would
continue. The industrial nations of the world, which account for most of the global energy use, would likely
continue in numbers and in industrial activity pretty much as before. These eventualities would do
little to stop the destruction of the biosphere and the mass species extinction. But war
is different. The main difference is not that it may reduce human numbers faster or to a
greater degree than famine or plague, but that it can cause a catastrophic decrease in
the level of industrial production, which is the major cause of environmental
destruction. Also, it can occur at any time it does not have to wait until fossil fuels run out, after many
more species have been destroyed. It can occur tomorrow, and prevent the species loss that would
otherwise occur over the last half century of the petroleum age. By reducing industrial activity
by a
large amount, it could reduce the current horrific rate of consumption of fossil fuels,
leaving some for many future generations to take advantage of to use for mankinds
benefit, rather than for a few generations mindless pleasure . (Of course, economics does not
distinguish between production spent on war or video games or tourism or religion or art or philosophy, and
the discounted present value of things in the far distant future is negligible, so this argument is of little
consequence in todays world.) And the likelihood of its occurrence is increasing fast. The next two sections
will discuss the likely damage from global nuclear war, and the likelihood of its occurrence.
Nuclear war NOW key each year more species go extinct risking
total biosphere collapse

2003
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
57
Once gone, these resources -- the very reasons for waging war -- are gone forever. Extinct
species will never return, and the planet's fossil fuel reserves, once exhausted, are
gone forever. In the past 50 years, human industrial activity has consumed about half the world's
reserves of petroleum and has led to the extinction of perhaps one million species. In another 50 years,
human industrial activity will consume all of the remaining petroleum reserves and
destroy millions of species more, including the larger animal species . For those
tempted to wage war, the time to strike is now -- in fifty years there
will be nothing left to win. With each passing year, 30,000 more species are
exterminated by mankind's epidemic numbers and industrial activity (pollution, habitat
loss). Many large-animal species are in danger of extinction, becoming so small in number that they are
effectively extinct. Each passing year sees a rise in the number of species made extinct,
never to roam the Earth again. If global war happens this year, no more species will be
made extinct from the habitat destruction and pollution of an exploding industrial
human population. If global war happens next year, another 30,000 species are lost --
If global war happens in ten years, another 300,000 species are

extinct. Delay simply leads to the loss of more species and increases
the likelihood of a hothouse destruction of the biosphere. If a
global nuclear war happens now, the production of greenhouse gases
stops.
forever.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
58
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
59
caldwell = qualified
Prefer our evidence Caldwell is an expert in every relevant subject

1999
The author of this book has a career that includes both military defense analysis and
economic development. He worked for about fifteen years in defense applications and about
fifteen years in social and economic applications. His work in military applications
includes ballistic missile warfare, nuclear weapons effects, satellite ocean

surveillance, naval general-purpose forces, tactical air warfare, air/land battle
tactics, strategy, civil defense, military communications-electronics, and electronic
warfare. His work in social and economic development applications includes tax
policy analysis, agricultural policy analysis, trade policy analysis, health, human resource
development, demography, development of systems for planning, monitoring and
evaluation of social and economic programs, and educational management information
systems. He has lived and worked in countries around the world. He holds a PhD degree in
mathematical statistics and is an expert in mathematical game theory, statistics, operations
research, and systems and software engineering. The analysis presented in this book is
derived from years of experience related to, and years of analysis of, the population
problem.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
60
A/T malthus wrong

Critics are wrong human activity is already causing damage, critics
refuse to acknowledge the coming catastrophe
Bartlett, Department of Physics at the University of Colorado, Boulder, 200 1

(Alber A., The Massive Movement to Marginalize the Modern Malthusian Message,
April 31, http://dieoff.org/page147.htm)
There is an abundant literature dealing with the non-believers . Some non-believers assert
that the predictions of Malthus have not come to pass, that the world population in 1998
is much larger than Malthus could have ever imagined, therefore the world
population can continue to grow essentially forever. This is an example of the "flying
leap syndrome" in which a person leaps from the top of a very high building. The free-fall is
exhilarating. After each of the first few seconds of free-fall, the person concludes that all is
well, and soon reaches the ( logical ? ) conclusion that free-fall forever is a viable
option. The end comes when the person strikes the ground. The ground is a
boundary condition, a limit that was built into the falling persons total environment;
a limit that the person ignored at great expense. (Bartlett 1980) The non-believers
seem unaware of, or ignore, the fact that human activities have already caused great
change in the global environment. May observes that ( May 1993 ): ... the scale and
scope of human activities have, for the first time, grown to rival the natural processes that
built the biosphere and that maintain it as a place where life can flourish. Many facts testify
to this statement. It is estimated that somewhere between 20 and 40 percent of the earth's
primary productivity, from plant photosynthesis on land and in the sea, is now appropriated
for human use.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
61
A/T technology
Energy cant be saved by technology nothing is ever 100% efficient

meaning energy is wasted

1999
It is also important to recognize that each time energy is converted from one form to
another, energy is lost in the form of wasted heat. To get the most out of the suns energy, it
is important to avoid energy conversions. For example, it is much more efficient to use a
windmill directly to pump water (as in remote ranches in the western US) than to use
the windmill to drive an electric generator to generate electricity that is then stored in an
electric storage battery, and then used to drive an electric motor to pump the water. Or, it is
much more efficient to use heat direct from the suns rays to heat water, than to harvest
biomass, ferment it to produce alcohol, and then either burn the alcohol or use it to generate
electricity which is in turn used to power electric heaters. The 200 quads of energy
mentioned earlier is a mix of low-grade and high-grade energy (e.g., some from
direct heating, some from biomass, some from hydroelectric, some from wind). It is
not at all the equivalent of 200 quads of oil or 200 quads of electrical energy.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
62
A/T alternative energy sources
Alternative energy sources are unlikely but even if they are

discovered it will only prolong the destruction of the biosphere
must dramatically reduce population and industrial activity

2003
There is continuing debate over whether a suitable energy alternative might be

found to replace the energy from oil, as it runs out. As discussed in Reference 1,
there is little evidence, and certainly no compelling evidence, that a
comparable substitute will be found. Moreover, from the point of view of the
health of the biosphere, it would be very unfortunate if a substitute energy
source were found. The mass species extinction started in full force at about the
beginning of the petroleum age (ca. 1950), i.e., when mankind, numbering in the
billions and armed with modern high-energy-consumption technology, started using
vastly more energy than was available from the daily solar energy flux. The
biosphere as we know it evolved with nature using the energy contained in the daily
solar energy flux. The Garden-of-Eden biosphere in which we evolved cannot survive if
mankind continues to utilize vastly more energy than this amount . The destruction of the
biosphere and the mass species extinction are being caused by large human numbers and
high industrial production / energy use, and this destruction will not stop until human
numbers and energy use drop back to the low levels that prevailed prior to the start of the
destruction. The lie that species extinction can be stopped even though high
levels of energy use and industrial production continue has been

disproved over and over and over again, year after year after year. Each
year that global industrialization continues spells more destroyed forests;
tens of thousands more species are made extinct, and more portions of
our biosphere sustain permanent, irreversible damage. The ecological
carnage of global industrialization will not stop until either global
industrialization comes to an end or the biosphere is destroyed. So, from the
point of view of what might stop the ongoing destruction of the biosphere, it does not really
matter whether fossil fuels exhaust by 2050 or whether an energy replacement for them is
found. The destruction of the biosphere and the mass species extinction began when
mankinds numbers and energy use reached its present high levels, and it will continue as
long as those levels remain high, whatever the energy source may be. This section of this
article is not concerned, however, with the issue of whether an energy replacement
for oil will or will not be found. The purpose of this section is to identify events that
might halt the destruction of the biosphere and mass species extinction that is
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
63
being caused by large human numbers and industrial activity, i.e., to identify events
that would reduce human numbers and industrial activity / energy use. One such
event is the exhaustion of fossil fuels, but the biosphere will have been seriously
damaged and possibly destroyed long before that, if the present rate of fossil-fuel
consumption continues. We are hence more concerned here with events that might
reduce human numbers and industrial activity before the end of the petroleum /
fossil-fuel age.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
64
A/T nuclear energy fission
Nuclear energy is limited not a long term solution

1999
As the reactor operates, the U235 decays and forms other products that interfere with the
nuclear reaction. It is hence necessary to stop operation of the reactor before all of the U235
is used up. The spent fuel may be removed and discarded (i.e., stored, since it is
highly radioactive), or it may be reprocessed back to 2-3% concentration of U235.

Whether the spent fuel is discarded (with some U235 still in it) or reprocessed is a matter
of economics. For some reactors reprocessing has been economically worthwhile, whereas
for others it has not. The two main waste products of the thermal reactor are depleted
uranium, U238, and plutonium Pu239. Since thermal reactors convert U235 to U238, after
some time all of the available U235 is used up. With current extraction technology, the
worlds reserves of uranium are sufficient to provide about 100 years of nuclear power using
thermal reactors. Clearly, the thermal reactor is not the solution to the industrial
worlds energy problem.
Nuclear power produces heat waste which will destroy the aquatic
ecosystem

1999
Another problem associated with nuclear energy is that it produces prodigious amounts
of waste heat, which is disposed of in our aquatic systems (rivers and lakes). It is
estimated (Pimentel et al.) that a fifteen-fold increase in the number of nuclear
power plants in the US would increase the temperature of our aquatic ecosystems by 10
degrees Celsius, with dire consequences for these systems.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
65
Radioactive waste from nuclear fission destroys the environment
and makes it too inefficient to use

1999
Unlike fusion, fission nuclear energy has been used commercially for decades to
generate electricity. Fission nuclear energy, however, is also extremely problematic.
First, it generates large amounts of radioactive waste. Fission reactors work by splitting
uranium atoms into other atoms. Just as with fusion, some matter is converted to
energy in this process, resulting in the production of large amounts of energy.

Unfortunately, the atoms produced by the fission process are highly radioactive. No
solution to the problem of disposing of the radioactive waste from nuclear fission has ever
been found. There are now large amounts of radioactive waste from nuclear reactors
stored in temporary storage facilities around the world. These waste products require
extremely long times, e.g., tens of thousands of years, to deteriorate into harmless
products. Unless a solution is found to the problem of disposing of nuclear waste,
continued use of fission is causing an environmental disaster of large proportions . In fact,
because the cost of eliminating the radioactive waste (or storing it for thousands of
years) is not known, it is not known whether nuclear fission has an energy yield of greater
than one. It may well be the case that the current generation is imposing on
future generations an energy cost (for storage of radioactive waste from nuclear fission) that
far exceeds the amount of energy that we are obtaining from nuclear fission . Mankinds
current generation has clearly discounted the cost to future generations to

essentially zero, or it would not use nuclear fission until a method was found for
eliminating the radioactive waste.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
66
A/T nuclear energy fusion
Nuclear fusion is unusable its inefficient, destroys the

environment and cannot be sustained

1999
There are two basic types of nuclear energy: fusion and fission. Todays nuclear
reactors are all fission reactors, i.e., they generate energy by splitting atoms. Fusion
nuclear energy is generated by joining together, or fusing, hydrogen atoms into helium
atoms. When this fusion takes place, some matter is converted to energy, in
accordance with Einsteins famous e=mc2 equation. Fusion energy is the type of
energy produced by the sun. The sun is, in effect, simply a large helium factory. The
problem with fusion is that it is extremely difficult to start and maintain a fusion reaction.
Although the technical feasibility of producing a fusion reaction has been established, the
goal of maintaining a fusion reaction for a long time and developing a commercial fusion
reactor has remained elusive. Despite the expenditure of billions of dollars and
decades of time, it is not clear that a commercial fusion reactor will ever be developed.
Even if it is, fusion reactors are problematic. First, they are very inefficient. They consume a
great deal of energy in order to produce just a little more than that consumed. They
generate large amounts of heat, which is disposed into the aquatic environment. Finally, the
fusion reaction eventually makes the entire fusion reactor radioactive, resulting in a massive
and never-ending environmental problem of radioactive waste disposal. In view of the
extremely serious drawbacks of nuclear fusion, and the failure to develop it despite
massive investment, it would be folly to count on nuclear fusion as an alternative to
fossil fuels.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
67
A/T human rights/demo promo
Promotion of human rights and democracy are the cause of the

population crisis attempting to avoid war only makes ecosystem
destruction worse

1999
Everything is a matter of alternatives. Before embarking on any course of action, it is

prudent to consider a wide range of alternatives and select the best one. A minimal-regret
strategy represents a potential solution that is not perfect. It has advantages and
disadvantages. To date, the present strategy the tolerant, pluralistic,

permissive approach of letting each of the 229 nations of Earth do its own
thing has been a disaster. It is a terrible strategy that is destroying the
biosphere, the human species, and other species. Time is running out for the human
race. It is high time to consider other alternatives that afford a better chance of long-term
survival. For the past 50 years, the situation has been talk, talk, talk. Current
population policies are a disaster. The international development agencies (UN, World
Bank) and developed countries have not contributed to the solution of the
population problem and environmental destruction, but have exacerbated

it. That is understandable. UN, World Bank, and other development officials are paid
fat salaries to attend meetings and talk; there is no incentive to accomplish
anything. The economic incentive is to create an ever more complex system of
rights, with more monitoring, reporting, evaluation, analysis, and bureaucracy. They
attend a never-ending stream of meetings and international conferences. They talk
and talk about womens rights, gender issues, childrens rights, minority rights, refugee
rights, and democracy while the world disintegrates around them. They thrive on poverty
and misery, and do nothing about it. Well, there arent going to be any womens
rights or childrens rights or minority rights after a nuclear war, and a

nuclear war is just around the corner. There isnt going to be any democracy when
the world political system collapses. These people our leaders and advisors to leaders
-- are living in an ephemeral, chimerical, imaginary dream world that has existed for
a few decades, but it cannot and will not continue. They are not facing reality and
dealing with the problem. They feed on peoples fear of war. They propose peace at any
cost. They are living in la-la land, telling fairy tales and singing lullabies that people
want to hear. This pap may be pleasant to hear, but it does nothing to solve the
problem. As Malcolm X said, This is part of whats wrong with you. You do too much
singing. Today its time to stop singing and start swinging. The situation will not
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
68
improve until it is accepted that the current course is leading to disaster, and war is declared
against the enemy uncontrolled human population and unconstrained industrial
development. The situation will not improve until a stand is taken, and war is
declared against this enemy of the biosphere. The American government has no
desire to stop economic growth it is committed, dedicated, devoted and addicted
to it. It has sacrificed the future of the world to the religion of economics, to the god
Mammon. Moreover, the US government no longer has the will to wage war, because wars
cause casualties, and the US is no longer willing to sustain casualties. As noted in the
January 2, 1999 issue of The Economist, Some American officers, especially the
older ones, have their misgivings. They say that a system of war built on a wish to
destroy the enemy without yourself suffering any significant number of casualties is
inherently dangerous. but the men will still need to be there, to occupy some vital hilltop
or essential building, and they will have to be prepared to take the consequences ."
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
69
A/T individual freedom

Protection of freedom makes resource exploitation inevitable
restrictions of liberty key
Hanson, 1997
(Jay, The Fatal Freedom, 8/29, http://dieoff.org/page79.htm)
It is now obvious to anyone brave enough to look, that our continuing self-deception
and exploitation no longer contribute to the survival of the species . If we are to survive, we
must now recognize the necessity of giving up the fatal freedom to exploit the commons .
Locke's temporary war of all-against-nature must now come to an end. When a
society is free to rob banks, it is less free, not more so. When individuals mutually agreed
(passed laws) not to rob banksgave up the freedom to rob banks they became more
free, not less so. Only by giving up our fatal freedom can we free ourselves from the
inexorable, deadly logic of the commons. Only then can we become free to establish a new
organizing principle for humanity .
Individual freedom unsustainable total state control inevitable

when scarcity comes
Hanson, 1997
(Jay, The Fatal Freedom, 8/29, http://dieoff.org/page79.htm)
"And because the condition of man . . . is a condition of war of every one against every
one, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can
make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies ; it
followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one
another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing
endureth, there can be no security to any man . . . " "To this war of every man against
every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust . The notions of right
and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power,
there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal
virtues." Every social phenomenon, according to Hobbes, is based upon a drive for
power that emerges when individuals compare themselves to other individuals. The
result is that the objects one seeks to obtain are not pursued for their own sake, but
because someone else also seeks to obtain them. "Scarcity" is the relationship between
unlimited desire and limited means. For Hobbes, scarcity is a permanent condition of
humanity caused by the continuous, innate drive for power. Society becomes a lifeboat in
which all the passengers are fighting each other. In order to escape universal ruin, men will
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
70
create a great Leviathan, a semi-absolute state that controls its subjects and prevents
permanent scarcity from developing into a war of "all-against-all ."
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
71
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
72
***Nuclear War =/=

Extinction***
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
73
A/T: Nuclear Winter

Nuke winter theory is flawed -- its empirically denied, their models
are deliberately biased and ignore crucial factors like
photochemistry and weather
Seitz 6 /Russell, Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International
Affairs, The' Nuclear Winter ' Meltdown, December 20/
http://adamant.typepad.com/seitz/2006/12/preherein_honor.html
"Apocalyptic predictions require, to be taken seriously, higher standards of evidence than do assertions on
other matters where the stakes are not as great." wrote Sagan in Foreign Affairs , Winter 1983 -84. But that
"evidence" was never forthcoming. 'Nuclear Winter' never existed outside of a computer
Yet Sagan
predicted "the extinction of the human species " as temperatures plummeted 35 degrees C and
the world froze in the aftermath of a nuclear holocaust. Last year, Sagan's cohort tried to
reanimate the ghost in a machine anti-nuclear activists invoked in the depths of the Cold War, by
re-running equally arbitrary scenarios on a modern interactive Global Circulation
Model. But the Cold War is history in more ways than one. It is a credit to post-modern computer
climate simulations that they do not reproduce the apocalyptic results of what Sagan
oxymoronically termed "a sophisticated one dimensional model." The subzero 'baseline
case' has melted down into a tepid 1.3 degrees of average cooling- grey skies do not a
Ragnarok make . What remains is just not the stuff that End of the World myths are
made of. It is hard to exaggerate how seriously " nuclear winter "was once taken by policy analysts who
except as air-brushed animation commissioned by the a PR firm - Porter Novelli Inc.
ought to have known better. Many were taken aback by the sheer force of Sagan's rhetoric Remarkably,
Science's news coverage of the new results fails to graphically compare them with the old ones Editor
Kennedy and other recent executives of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, once
proudly co-authored and helped to publicize. You can't say they didn't try to reproduce this Cold War icon.
Once again, soot from imaginary software materializes in midair by the megaton , flying
higher than Mount Everest . This is not physics, but a crude exercise in ' garbage in,
gospel out' parameter forcing designed to maximize and extend the cooling an
aerosol can generate, by sparing it from realistic attrition by rainout in the lower
atmosphere. Despite decades of progress in modeling atmospheric chemistry , there
is none in this computer simulation, and ignoring photochemistry further extends its
impact. Fortunately , the history of science is as hard to erase as it is easy to ignore. Their past mastery
of semantic agression cannot spare the authors of "Nuclear Winter Lite " direct comparison of their new
results and their old. Dark smoke clouds in the lower atmosphere don't last long enough
to spread across the globe. Cloud droplets and rainfall remove them. rapidly washing
them out of the sky in a matter of days to weeks- not long enough to sustain a global
pall. Real world weather brings down particles much as soot is scrubbed out of power plant
smoke by the water sprays in smoke stack scrubbers Robock acknowledges this- not even a
single degree of cooling results when soot is released at lower elevations in he
models . The workaround is to inject the imaginary aerosol at truly Himalayan
elevations - pressure altitudes of 300 millibar and higher , where the computer model's vertical
transport function modules pass it off to their even higher neighbors in the
stratosphere , where it does not rain and particles linger.. The new studies like the old
suffer from the disconnect between a desire to paint the sky black and the vicissitudes
of natural history. As with many exercise in worst case models both at invoke rare
phenomena as commonplace, claiming it prudent to assume the worst. But the real
world is subject to Murphy's lesser known second law- if everything must go wrong,
don't bet on it. In 2006 as in 1983 firestorms and forest fires that send smoke into the
stratosphere rise to alien prominence in the modelers re-imagined world , but i the
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
74
real one remains a very different place, where though every month sees forest fires
burning areas the size of cities - 2,500 hectares or larger , stratospheric smoke injections
arise but once in a blue moon. So how come these neo-nuclear winter models feature
so much smoke so far aloft for so long? The answer is simple- the modelers intervened.
Turning off vertical transport algorithms may make Al Gore happy- he has bet on reviving the credibility
Sagan's ersatz apocalypse , but there is no denying that in some of these scenarios human
desire, not physical forces accounts for the vertical hoisting of millions of tons of
mass ten vertical kilometers into the sky.to the level at which the models take over ,
with results at once predictable --and arbitrary. This is not physics, it is computer
gamesmanship carried over to a new generation of X-Box.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
75
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
76
Nuclear Winter Extension
Nuclear winter was invented in a science fiction story called Torch

in the 80s. It should have stayed there. Extend the Seitz 6
evidence:
1. Bias scientists fling millions of tons of mass ten vertical

kilometers into the sky with absolutely no explanation. This causes
bad results: it avoids rain, increases the lifespan of aerosols and
leads to global distribution of smoke. This is the input part of the
equation even if the models are awesome, theyre getting bad
data.
2. Burden of proof Sagan admits that nuclear war causes

extinction arguments require a high level of proof the claims are
outlandish and counterintuitive. Uncertainty means you default to
us.
3. Worst case planning studies rely on rare events becoming

common place and everything going wrong in exactly the right way,
vanishingly low probability. Even the President of the Council for a
Liveable World called these argument absurd.
4. Nature disproves forest fires the size of cities occur all the time,
they never lead to stratospheric injections. No reason that smoke
from fires would materialize in the upper atmosphere without
getting washed out.
5. No extinction. Sagans 7,000 degree day has shrunk to a one

point three degree drop in global temperatures not nearly enough
to cause extinction. That number isnt based on skeptics, its what
modern advocates of nuclear winter claim.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
77
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
78
Krakatoa Proves
Nuclear winters false Krakatoa was bigger, meteor impacts prove

Nyquist, 99 [J.R., Is Nuclear War Survivable? May 20, WorldNetDaily.com,
www.antipas.org/protected_files/news/world/nuclear_war.html ]
Nuclear war would not bring about the end of the world, though it would be horribly
destructive. The truth is, many prominent physicists have condemned the nuclear winter
hypothesis. Nobel laureate Freeman Dyson once said of nuclear winter research, "It's an
absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record straight."
Professor Michael McElroy, a Harvard physics professor, also criticized the nuclear winter hypothesis.
McElroy said that nuclear winter researchers "stacked the deck" in their study , which was titled
"Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions" (Science, December 1983). Nuclear winter is the theory that the mass use of nuclear weapons would create
enough smoke and dust to blot out the sun, causing a catastrophic drop in global temperatures. According to Carl Sagan, in this situation the earth would freeze. No crops could be
natural disasters have frequently produced smoke and

dust far greater than those expected from a nuclear war. In 1883 Krakatoa exploded with a
blast equivalent to 10,000 one-megaton bombs, a detonation greater than the combined nuclear arsenals of planet
earth. The Krakatoa explosion had negligible weather effects. Even more disastrous, going
back many thousands of years, a meteor struck Quebec with the force of 17 .5 million one-megaton
bombs, creating a crater 63 kilometers in diameter. But the world did not freeze. Life on earth was not
extinguished. Consider the views of Professor George Rathjens of MIT, a known antinuclear activist, who
said, "Nuclear winter is the worst example of misrepresentation of science to the public
in my memory." Also consider Professor Russell Seitz, at Harvard University's Center for International
Affairs, who says that the nuclear winter hypothesis has been discredited. Two researchers, Starley
Thompson and Stephen Schneider, debunked the nuclear winter hypothesis in the summer 1986 issue of
Foreign Affairs. Thompson and Schneider stated: "the global apocalyptic conclusions of
the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of
probability."
grown. Humanity would die of cold and starvation. In truth,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
79
Krakatoa Extension
Extend Nyquist 99 Krakatoas explosion was bigger than all

existing nuclear weapons, didnt alter the climate, disproves nuclear
winter. Even worse, the geological record proves major asteroid
impacts dont cause nuclear winter despite being millions of times
bigger.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
80
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
81
Krakatoa Extension A2: Multiple Points
1. Dumb your study didnt have multiple injection points

Russell, Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, The
Melting of 'Nuclear Winter'
Setiz, 1986
Nuclear Winter never existed outside of a computer, except as a painting commissioned by a PR firm .
Instead of an earth with

continents and oceans, the TTAPS model postulated a featureless, bone-dry billiard ball. Instead of nights and days,
it postulated 24-hour sunlight at one- third strength. Instead of realistic smoke emissions, a 10-mile-thick soot cloud
magically materialized, creating an alien sky as black as the ink you are reading. The model dealt with such complications as
geography, winds, sunrise, sunset and patchy clouds in a stunningly elegant manner they were ignored. When later computer
models incorporated these elements, the flat black sky of TTAPS fell apart into a pale and broken shadow that traveled less far and dissipated
more quickly.
2. Our Seitz evidence impact turns this the larger an individual

explosion, the higher the chance of a stratospheric smoke injection,
which is the internal link to global cooling. At best, multiple
injection points helps nuclear winter spread globally, they cant
prove even regional cooling occurred.
3. More evidence the faster the smoke injection, the bigger the
cooling. Krakatoa was worse than a nuclear war.
Thompson and Schneider, 1986
Starley L, atmospheric scientist and climate theorist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) Stephen H., atmospheric scientist and public policy analyst, is Deputy
Director of the Advanced Study Program at NCAR, Foreign Affairs, Nuclear Winter
Reappraised
The land surface temperature of the 30-50''N latitude zone for two cases having different assumed war
durations, each of which produces a total of 60 million tons (teragrams. Tg) of smoke. The "one-day"
war, allowing for some delay in fires, actually produces smoke over two days. The "ten-day"
protracted war produces smoke continually over ten days, but at a lower rate than the oneday case. Despite the fact that smoke is continually being removed in each case, the
slower rate of smoke input in the ten-day case actually worsens the climatic effects when
compared to the faster war.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
82
A2: Robock
Extend the Stiez 6 evidence a one or two degree drop in

temperature does not a ragnorok make. Nuclear winter studies
have been revised down to nuclear autumn. This means modern
advocates of nuclear winter dont think the impact claims are true.
Nuclear winter causes extinction cards assume the massive drop in
temperature found by Sagans study years of sub-freezing
summers. Their nuclear winter is true cards say that there will be a
slight cooling.
More evidence - the terminal impact of Robocks study is a 1 degree

drop in temperatures, not a nuclear winter
Cosmos, Oct 13, 2008 nuclear autumn
Robock, also of Rutgers University, calculate that the average global
temperature would dip by more than 1.1 C and would stay below normal for a decade. Rainfall
Overall, he and Alan
would also decline, by about 10 per cent.That might not sound like a large temperature change, but it's more
than the cumulative effect of global warming since the dawn of industrial civilisation. It's enough, Robock
says, to have a radical effect on growing seasons in regions like Europe and the American Midwest. Even
countries that didn't participate in the war could see their growing seasons reduced by 10 to 30 days a
major factor because farmers wouldn't have planted the right crops for the new conditions. Even in the
tropics, the change would strain agricultural productivity. " This would not be nuclear winter,"
Robock said, "but it would be a substantial disruption."
Their impact evidence assumes a 20 degree drop in temperature

Sagan and Turco, 90 (Carl and Richard, astrophysicist and astronomer at Cornell University, and
founding director of UCLA's Institute of the Environment, A Path Where No Man Thought: Nuclear Winter
and the End of the Arms Race, pg 22)
Life on Earth is exquisitely dependent on the climate (see Appendix A). The average surface
temperature of the Earth averaged, that is, over day and night, over the seasons, over latitude, over land
and ocean, over coastline and continental interior, over mountain range and desertis about 13C, 13
Centigrade degrees above the temperature at which fresh water freezes. (The corresponding temperature on
the Fahrenheit scale is 55F.) It's harder to change the temperature of the oceans than of the continents,
which is why ocean temperatures are much more steadfast over the diurnal and seasonal cycles than are the
temperatures in the middle of large continents. Any global temperature change implies much larger local
temperature changes, if you don't live near the ocean. A prolonged global temperature drop of a
would be a disaster for agriculture; by 10C, whole ecosystems would be imperiled; and
by 20C, almost all life on Earth would be at risk.* The margin of safety is thin.
few degrees C
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
83
No Ozone Change - Chemicals
Chemical changes in the atmosphere wont cause a significant climate change

Martin, 1982 (Brian, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society at the
University of Wollongong, The Global Health Effects of Nuclear War, Current Affairs, December 7,
www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82cab/index.html#explosive)
decreases in ozone or increases in oxides of nitrogen levels in the

stratosphere, caused by nuclear war, could lead to climatic change. A reduction in ozone
levels by a factor of two could cause a decrease in surface temperature of one half to
one degree Centigrade, but including oxides of nitrogen in the calculation reduces this
effect. Whether or not a change in temperature at the earth's surface by this amount for a few years could
Another possibility is that
cause irreversible climatic change is hard to assess. The National Academy of Sciences study concluded that
the effects of dust and oxides of nitrogen injection into the stratosphere 'would
probably lie within normal global climatic variability, but the possibility of climatic changes of a
more dramatic nature cannot be ruled out'.[39] Since the Academy assumed a nuclear war with
the explosion of many more high-yield weapons than are presently deployed, the
danger of climatic change from dust or oxides of nitrogen is almost certainly less than
assessed in their report.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
84
A2: Radioactivity
Radioactivity doesnt affect the climate

Time 9 Jan. 22,Interview of Alan Robock, Professor in the Department of Environmental
Sciences at Rutgers University, Regional Nuclear War and the Environment
Your study predicts mass cooling. With all the heat and radioactivity of the explosions, why
wouldn't nuclear war warm the planet? It has nothing to do with the radioactivity of the
explosions although that would be devastating to nearby populations. The explosions would set
off massive fires, which would produce plumes of black smoke . The sun would heat the
smoke and lift it into the stratosphere that's the layer above the troposphere, where we live where
there is no rain to clear it out. It would be blown across the globe and block the sun. The effect would not be
a nuclear winter, but it would be colder than the little ice age [in the 17th and 18th centuries] and the
change would happen very rapidly over the course of a few weeks.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
85
Authors Indict
Extend Seitz 6 even supporters of the nuclear winter hypothesis

have critiqued 80s era studies and revised their predictions. Heres
the newest evidence from their authors nuclear winter wont cause
extinction.
Time 2009 Jan. 22, Interview of Alan Robock, Professor in the Department of Environmental
Sciences at Rutgers University, Regional Nuclear War and the Environment
And what would the results be for humanity? We calculated that there would be a
shortening of the growing season in the mid-latitudes that includes Europe and America in
the Northern Hemisphere by a couple of weeks. The growing season is defined as the period
between the last frost in spring and first frost in the fall. Some crops that need the whole growing season
would not reach fruition and there would be no yield. Others would grow more slowly and produce a small
yield. In addition there would be less precipitation and it would be darker , also damaging yield.
You compound that with [the shutdown of] the current global network of food trading
countries would likely stop shipping food and focus on feeding their own populations and it's a big
crisis. We don't have the resources to do detailed analyses on the impacts of crops in different farming
regimes but this suggests it could be a very serious problem. How confident are you that your modeling is
correct? We used ModelE, designed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and one of the
The model
does an excellent job of simulating climate change that resulted from volcanic
eruptions in the past. That gave us confidence. What's more, a group repeated the
calculations for the Pakistan-India scenario with a different model at the National Center for
Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., and the results almost exactly agreed. Their research
models used to produce the results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
showed how the smoke from the fires would open up holes in the ozone, which would cause even more
problems for humanity. We'd like other people to test the calculations with their models, but we're pretty
confident that they'll get the same answer. So we get a clue of the climatic effects of nuclear war from
volcanic eruptions? Yes. 1816 was known as the "year without summer." It followed the
Tambora Volcano eruption in Indonesia in 1815. It was sudden climate change on a similar
scale, and it resulted in a severe famine in Europe, food riots and mass emigrations. Volcanic
aerosols have a lifetime of about a year in the stratosphere. The lifetime of soot from nuclear fires is about
five years. It's obviously much harder for a society to recover from such an extended cooling.
That means theyre based on Sagans study makes no scientific

sense, contaminated by worst-case assumptions, failed peer review
Russell, Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, The
Seitz, 1986
Instead of an earth with continents and oceans, the TTAPS model postulated a
featureless, bone-dry billiard ball. Instead of nights and days, it postulated 24-hour
sunlight at one- third strength. Instead of realistic smoke emissions, a 10-mile-thick soot cloud
magically materialized, creating an alien sky as black as the ink you are reading. The model dealt with
such complications as geography, winds, sunrise, sunset and patchy clouds in a stunningly
elegant manner they were ignored. When later computer models incorporated these
elements, the flat black sky of TTAPS fell apart into a pale and broken shadow that traveled less
far and dissipated more quickly. The TTAPS model entailed a long series of conjectures : if this
much smoke goes up, if it is this dense, if it moves like this, and so on . The improbability of a string
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
86
of 40 such coin tosses coming up heads approaches that of a pat royal flush .
Yet it was
represented as a "sophisticated one- dimensional model" -- a usage that is oxymoronic, unless applied to
Twiggy. To the limitations of the software were added those of the data. It was an unknown and very
complex topic, hard data was scant, so guesstimates prevailed. Not only were these educated guesses
rampant throughout the process, but it was deemed prudent , given the gravity of the subject, to lean
toward the worst-case end of the spectrum for dozens of the numbers involved. Political
considerations subliminally skewed the model away from natural history, while seeming to make
the expression "nuclear freeze" a part of it. "The question of peer review is essential. That is why we have
delayed so long in the publication of these dire results," said Carl Sagan in late 1983. But instead of going
peer-review process, the TTAPS study had been conveyed by Mr. Sagan
to a chosen few at a closed meeting in April 1983. Despite Mr. Sagan's claim of
responsible delay, before this peculiar review process had even begun , an $80,000 retainer was
paid to Porter-Novelli Associates, a Washington, D.C., public-relations firm. More money was spent in
the 1984 fiscal year on video and advertising than on doing the science. The meeting did not
go smoothly; most participants I interviewed did not describe the reception accorded the Nuclear Winter
through the ordinary
and his colleagues
theory as cordial or consensual. The proceedings were tape recorded, but Mr. Sagan has repeatedly refused
to release the meeting's transcript. (The organizers have said it was closed to the press to avoid
sensationalism and premature disclosure.) According to Dr. Kosta Tsipis of MIT, even a Soviet scientist
said, "You guys are fools. You can't use mathematical models like these to
model perturbed states of the atmosphere. You're playing with toys."
at the meeting
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
87
A2: Soviets
Soviets conclusively disproved one of the basic assumptions of

nuclear winter in the 70s and then called take backs when they
figured out how much it scared the US
Kearny 87 Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the
Panama Mobile Force, demolitions expert in the Office of Strategic Services, research
analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked with Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning,
Nuclear War Survival Skills: Updated and Expanded
Soviet propagandists promptly exploited belief in unsurvivable "nuclear winter" to
increase fear of nuclear weapons and war, and to demoralize their enemies. Because
raging city firestorms are needed to inject huge amounts of smoke into the
stratosphere and thus, according to one discredited theory, prevent almost all solar heat from
reaching the ground, the Soviets changed their descriptions of how a modern city will
burn if blasted by a nuclear explosion. Figure 1.6 pictures how Russian scientists and civil
defense officials realistically described - before the invention of "nuclear winter" - the
burning of a city hit by a nuclear weapon. Buildings in the blasted area for miles around
ground zero will be reduced to scattered rubble - mostly of concrete, steel, and other nonflammable
materials - that will not burn in blazing fires. Thus in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory translation
(ORNL-TR-2793) of Civil Defense. Second Edition (500,000 copies), Moscow, 1970, by Egorov, Shlyakhov, and
Alabin, we read: "Fires do not occur in zones of complete destruction . . . that are
characterized by an overpressure exceeding 0.5 kg/cm2 [- 7 psi]., because rubble is scattered

and covers the burning structures. As a result the rubble only smolders, and fires as
such do not occur."
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
88
A2: Robock - Soot
The study assumed that smoke is made of soot, it wouldnt happen

that way, invalidates the results
New Zealand Herald 6, Dec 15,
Nuclear winter alert updated
The studies, presented at an American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco, were described as the
first to document in detail the climatic effects of a nuclear war on a regional scale.Some climate experts
questioned some of its assumptions. For example, the studies

assume smoke is made up mostly of soot. But other organic particles could cause
smoke to scatter, lessening the impact, said scientist Steve Ghan of the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory.
not connected with the research
These assumptions are deliberate the team faked the results

Rocky Mountain News 6, December 12,
Even limited nuclear war would have global effects, CU prof says
Ghan, a federal researcher who has studied the aftermath of nuclear war, said
that the team's findings push the edges of plausibility."For example, they make an
assumption about how much smoke would be injected into the atmosphere that is on
the high side of the plausible range ," said Ghan, who works at the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory in Richland, Wash. "They chose assumptions that would produce a large effect."
Steve
Toon and his colleagues concluded that the nuclear blasts would trigger firestorms emitting more than 5
million metric tons of soot. Climate models showed that a large fraction of the soot would linger in the upper
atmosphere for up to a decade - far longer than researchers had previously thought possible, according to
co-author Alan Robock of Rutgers University.
Steve Ghan
Climate Physics, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Ph.D., Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
M.S., Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
B.S., in Atmospheric Science (cum laude), University of Washington
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
89
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
90
A2: Smoke
Predictions based on smoke are absurd default to us, nuclear winters impossible
Crichton 3, January 17, Michael, Harvard degree in anthropology, MD from Harvard
medical, speech at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Aliens cause Global Warming
The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the
variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by
mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the
remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be
generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one
knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into
the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so
on. And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the
underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be
reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but
concluded they were catastrophic. According to Sagan and his co-workers, even a limited
5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35
degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we
know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed
global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any
ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.
No stratosphere smoke injection has ever occurred or caused

cooling, despite more smoke being produced by Hamburg, Dresden
and Tokyo.
Kearny, 87 Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the
Firestorms destroyed the centers of Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo. The old-fashioned
buildings of those cities contained large amounts of flammable materials, were ignited by
many thousands of small incendiaries, and burned quickly as standing structures well supplied with air. No
firestorm has ever injected smoke into the stratosphere, or caused appreciable cooling
below its smoke cloud.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
91
TAPPS Bad - Frontline
1. Your cards are ancient:

A. Science changes rapidly in the 80s, climate modeling had
barely been invented. Seitz evidence is conclusive models are
better, advances in atmospheric chemistry and optic effects all
invalidate cards written in the 80s
B. New Study done in 2005 modern day advocates of Nuclear

Winter have thoroughly debunked Sagans temperature estimates,
not even your side thinks your cards are true.
2. The TTAPS study was blind guesswork that produced absurd

results
Crichton 3, January 17, Michael, Harvard degree in anthropology, MD from Harvard
medical, speech at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Aliens cause Global Warming
The similarity to the Drake equation is striking. As with the Drake equation, none of the
variables can be determined. None at all. The TTAPS study addressed this problem in part by
mapping out different wartime scenarios and assigning numbers to some of the variables, but even so, the
remaining variables were-and are-simply unknowable. Nobody knows how much smoke will be
generated when cities burn, creating particles of what kind, and for how long. No one
knows the effect of local weather conditions on the amount of particles that will be injected into
the troposphere. No one knows how long the particles will remain in the troposphere. And so
on. And remember, this is only four years after the OTA study concluded that the
underlying scientific processes were so poorly known that no estimates could be
reliably made. Nevertheless, the TTAPS study not only made those estimates, but
concluded they were catastrophic. According to Sagan and his co-workers, even a limited
5,000 megaton nuclear exchange would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35
degrees Centigrade, and this change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we
know of changed world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed
global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times greater than any
ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute.
TTAPS failed peer review, was made up, used the worst model ever
Seitz 86 Russell, Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs,
The Melting of 'Nuclear Winter'
Instead of an earth with continents and oceans, the TTAPS model postulated a
featureless, bone-dry billiard ball. Instead of nights and days, it postulated 24-hour
sunlight at one- third strength. Instead of realistic smoke emissions, a 10-mile-thick soot cloud
magically materialized, creating an alien sky as black as the ink you are reading. The model dealt with
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
92
geography, winds, sunrise, sunset and patchy clouds in a stunningly
elegant manner they were ignored. When later computer models incorporated these
elements, the flat black sky of TTAPS fell apart into a pale and broken shadow that traveled less
far and dissipated more quickly. The TTAPS model entailed a long series of conjectures : if this
much smoke goes up, if it is this dense, if it moves like this, and so on . The improbability of a string
of 40 such coin tosses coming up heads approaches that of a pat royal flush . Yet it was
such complications as
represented as a "sophisticated one- dimensional model" -- a usage that is oxymoronic, unless applied to
Twiggy. To the limitations of the software were added those of the data. It was an unknown and very
complex topic, hard data was scant, so guesstimates prevailed. Not only were these educated guesses
rampant throughout the process, but it was deemed prudent , given the gravity of the subject, to lean
toward the worst-case end of the spectrum for dozens of the numbers involved. Political
considerations subliminally skewed the model away from natural history, while seeming to make
the expression "nuclear freeze" a part of it. "The question of peer review is essential. That is why we have
delayed so long in the publication of these dire results," said Carl Sagan in late 1983. But instead of going
peer-review process, the TTAPS study had been conveyed by Mr. Sagan
to a chosen few at a closed meeting in April 1983. Despite Mr. Sagan's claim of
responsible delay, before this peculiar review process had even begun , an $80,000 retainer was
paid to Porter-Novelli Associates, a Washington, D.C., public-relations firm. More money was spent in
the 1984 fiscal year on video and advertising than on doing the science. The meeting did not
go smoothly; most participants I interviewed did not describe the reception accorded the Nuclear Winter
through the ordinary
and his colleagues
theory as cordial or consensual. The proceedings were tape recorded, but Mr. Sagan has repeatedly refused
to release the meeting's transcript. (The organizers have said it was closed to the press to avoid
sensationalism and premature disclosure.) According to Dr. Kosta Tsipis of MIT, even a Soviet scientist
said, "You guys are fools. You can't use mathematical models like these to
model perturbed states of the atmosphere. You're playing with toys."
at the meeting
Nuclear winter wont happen the model it was based on was absurdly bad
Thompson and Schneider 86 Starley L, atmospheric scientist and climate theorist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Stephen H., atmospheric scientist and
public policy analyst, is Deputy Director of the Advanced Study Program at NCAR, Foreign
Affairs, Nuclear Winter Reappraised
the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial
nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low level of
probability. Thus the argument that nuclear winter provides the sole basis for drastic strategic arms
We intend to show that on scientific grounds
reductions has been greatly weakened. But, at the same time, there is little that is thoroughly understood
about the environmental effects of a nuclear war. In particular, we do not think that all environmental effects
should once again be considered as "secondary." Important environmental and widespread societal effects of
nuclear war remain quite probable and do suggest further scientific and policy considerations. Our current
understanding of environmental effects will be reviewed and then used to bolster arguments for
strengthened strategic stability, not necessarily excluding newer strategic systems, but at significantly
reduced levels of arsenals. It is reasonable to ask why the scientific basis of the theory of nuclear winter still
provokes such divergent scientific opinions. The answer involves both the complexity of the problems and
the severity of predicted effects. It is important to remember that the widespread radioactive fallout and
ozone effects, although substantial, were never really thought by knowledgeable researchers to have a
doomsday potential. In contrast, the original nuclear winter results showed truly catastrophic consequences
arising from general war scenarios in the best available calculations. Thus, this new hypothesis could not be
readily dismissed. Moreover, the problem of nuclear winter involves more scientific disciplines and more
crucial areas of uncertainty than the earlier environmental problems. In particular, estimates of smoke
production cannot be made from old nuclear test data and cannot be well bounded theoretically. Initially,
the scientific basis of nuclear winter rested exclusively with the TTAPS group and their
first calculations.'** After the original discovery that smoke could pose the most serious environmental
threat of a nuclear war," the TTAPS group began to use a computer model to study the effects of war
The model was one-dimensional; that is, it did not

take into account north south and east-west directions , but instead treated the earth
generated smoke and dust on the earth's climate.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
93
as a homogeneous all-land sphere having a temperature that depended only on the up-down
direction (atmospheric altitude). Thus, the model had no geography, no winds, no seasons,
instantaneous spread of smoke to the hemispheric scale, and no feedback of
atmospheric circulation changes on the rate of smoke washout by rainfall. Despite these
limitations, the TTAPS calculations did offer state-of-the-art estimates of the sunlight and infrared radiation
absorption of a given amount of smoke and dust in a vertical column of the atmosphere.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
94
No, Youre Biased
Your evidence is the result of a propaganda campaign, multiple

reasons rebuttal took too long to prevent the myth of Nuclear
Winter from becoming common sense
Kearny 87 Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the
The theory that smoke from burning cities and forests and dust from nuclear
explosions would cause worldwide freezing temperatures was conceived in 1982 by the
German atmospheric chemist and environmentalist Paul Crutzen, and continues to be promoted by a
worldwide propaganda campaign. This well funded campaign began in 1983 with televised
scientific-political meetings in Cambridge and Washington featuring American and Russian scientists. A
barrage of newspaper and magazine articles followed, including a scaremongering article by Carl Sagan in
the October 30, 1983 issue of Parade, the Sunday tabloid read by millions. The most influential article was
featured in the December 23,1983 issue of Science (the weekly magazine of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science): "Nuclear winter, global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions," by five
scientists, R. P. Turco, O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan. Significantly, these activists
listed their names to spell TTAPS, pronounced "taps," the bugle call proclaiming "lights out" or the end of a
military funeral.Until 1985, non-propagandizing scientists did not begin to effectively refute the numerous
errors, unrealistic assumptions, and computer modeling weakness' of the TTAPS and related "nuclear winter"
hypotheses. A principal reason is that government organizations, private corporations, and
most scientists generally avoid getting involved in political controversies, or making

statements likely to enable antinuclear activists to accuse them of minimizing nuclear
war dangers, thus undermining hopes for peace. Stephen Schneider has been called a fascist by
some disarmament supporters for having written "Nuclear Winter Reappraised," according to the
Rocky Mountain News of July 6, 1986. Three days later, this paper, that until recently featured accounts of
unsurvivable "nuclear winter," criticized Carl Sagan and defended Thompson and Schneider in its lead
editorial, "In Study of Nuclear Winter, Let Scientists Be Scientists." In a free country, truth will out - although
sometimes too late to effectively counter fast-hitting propaganda. Effective refutation of "nuclear
winter" also was delayed by the prestige of politicians and of politically motivated
scientists and scientific organizations endorsing the TTAPS forecast of worldwide doom.
Furthermore, the weakness' in the TTAPS hypothesis could not be effectively explored
until adequate Government funding was made available to cover costs of lengthy,
expensive studies, including improved computer modeling of interrelated, poorly
understood meteorological phenomena.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
95
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
96
Government Studies
US Defense Nuclear Studies Manuel says that worst case nuclear

war wouldnt cause extinction
Johnston 3 /Wm. Robert, doctoral student in physics at the University of Texas at
Dallas, The Effects of a Global Thermonuclear War 4th edition: escalation in 1988,
August 18/
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html
The following is an approximate description of the effects of a global nuclear war. For
the purposes of illustration it is assumed that a war resulted in mid-1988 from military conflict between
the Warsaw Pact and NATO. This is in some ways a worst-case scenario (total numbers of strategic
warheads deployed by the superpowers peaked about this time; the scenario implies a greater level
of military readiness; and impact on global climate and crop yields are greatest for a
war in August). Some details, such as the time of attack, the events leading to war, and the winds
affecting fallout patterns, are only meant to be illustrative. This applies also to the global geopolitical
aftermath, which represents the author's efforts at intelligent speculation. There is much public
misconception concerning the physical effects of nuclear war--some of it motivated by

politics. Certainly the predictions described here are uncertain: for example, casualty figures in the U.S.
are accurate perhaps to within 30% for the first few days, but the number of survivors in the U.S. after one
year could differ from these figures by as much as a factor of four. Nonetheless, there is no reasonable
basis for expecting results radically different from this description --for example, there is
no scientific basis for expecting the extinction of the human species . Note that the most
severe predictions concerning nuclear winter have now been evaluated and discounted
by most of the scientific community. Sources supplying the basis for this description
include the U.S. Defense Nuclear Agency manual on nuclear weapon effects, scientific papers
describing computer simulations of long-term effects published by groups ranging from
the U.S. government to left-leaning scientific organizations, and research by a similar
variety of groups on weapons characteristics and strategy.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
97
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
98
A2: Pro-Nuclear Bias
This argument is used to aggressively discredit opposition. Were

not militarists, we just know what were talking about and were in
good company
Seitz 86 Russell, Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, The
Rather than "higher standards of evidence," Mr. Sagan merely provided testimonials. He had sent return
mail questionnaires to the nearly 100 participants at the April meeting, and edited the replies down to his
favorite two-dozen quotations. What became of the hard copy of the less enthusiastic reports remains a
mystery, but it is evident from subsequent comments by their authors that TTAPS received less than the
unanimous endorsement of "a large number of scientists." Prof. Victor Weisskopf of MIT, sized up the matter
in early 1984: "Ah! Nuclear Winter! The science is terrible, but, perhaps the psychology is good." Many
scientists were reluctant to speak out, perhaps for fear of being denounced as
reactionaries or closet Strangeloves. For example, physicist Freeman Dyson of the Institute for
Advanced Studies at Princeton was privately critical in early 1984. As he put it, "It's ( TTAPS) an
absolutely atrocious piece of science, but I quite despair of setting the public record
straight....Who wants to be accused of being in favor of nuclear war ?" Most of the
intellectual tools necessary to demolish TTAPS's bleak vision were already around then, but not the will to
use them. From respected scientists one heard this: "You know, I really don't think these
guys know what they're talking about " (Nobel laureate physicist Richard Feynman); "They
stacked the deck" (Prof. Michael McElroy, Harvard); and, after a journalist's caution against
four-letter words, "'Humbug' is six [letters]" (Prof. Jonathan Katz, Washington University). In 1985, a
series of unheralded and completely unpublicized studies started to appear in learned journals -- studies
that, piece by piece, started to fill in the blanks in the climate-modeling process that had previously been
patched over with "educated" guesses. The result was straightforward: As the science progressed and more
authentic sophistication was achieved in newer and more elegant models, the postulated effects headed
downhill. By 1986, these worst-case effects had melted down from a year of arctic darkness to warmer
temperatures than the cool months in Palm Beach! A new paradigm of broken clouds and cool spots had
emerged. The once global hard frost had retreated back to the northern tundra. Mr. Sagan's elaborate
conjecture had fallen prey to Murphy's lesser known Second Law: If everything MUST go wrong, don't bet on
it. By June 1986 it was over: In the Summer 1986 Foreign Affairs, National Center for Atmospheric Research
(NCAR) scientists Starley Thompson and Stephen Schneider declared, "...on scientific grounds the global
apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishingly low
level of probability." Yet the activist wing of the international scientific establishment had already announced
the results of the first generations of interdisciplinary ecological and climatological studies based on Nuclear
Winter. Journalists paid more attention to the press releases than the substance of these already
obsolescent efforts at ecological modeling, and proceeded to inform the public that things were looking
worse than ever. Bold headlines carried casualty estimates that ran into the proverbial "billions and billions."
This process culminated in the reception given the 1985 report of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).
Stressing the uncertainties that plagued the calculations then and now, it scrupulously excluded the
expression "Nuclear Winter" from its 193 pages of sober text, but the report's press release was prefaced
"Nuclear Winter...'Clear Possibility.'" Mr. Sagan construed the reports to constitute an endorsement of the
theory. But in February 1986, NCAR's Dr. Schneider quietly informed a gathering at the NASA-Ames
Laboratory that Nuclear Winter had succumbed to scientific progress and that, "in a severe" 6,500-megaton
strategic exchange, "The Day After" might witness July temperatures upwards of 50- plus degrees Fahrenheit
in mid-America. The depths of Nuclear Winter could no longer easily be distinguished from the coolest days
of summer.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
99
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
100
Nuclear Autumn
Nuclear winters discredited all real scientists call it nuclear autumn

Kearny 87 Cresson H., two degrees
in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the

analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked with Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning ,
Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter"
frozen
surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be

if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite
cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight
and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures,
even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species
of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt! Facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear
winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional
millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by
ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving. Non-propagandizing
scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of
even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects
repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by
all the involved Soviet scientists. Conclusions reached from these recent, realistic calculations are
summarized in an article, "Nuclear Winter Reappraised", featured in the 1986 summer issue of Foreign
Affairs, the prestigious quarterly of the Council on Foreign Relations. The authors, Starley L. Thompson and
Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They
showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear
winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability." Their
models indicate that in July (when the greatest temperature reductions would result) the
average temperature in the United States would be reduced for a few days from about
70 degrees Fahrenheit to approximately 50 degrees. (In contrast, under the same conditions
Carl Sagan, his associates, and the Russian scientists predicted a resulting average
temperature of about 10 degrees below zero Fahrenheit, lasting for many weeks!)
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
101
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
102
Nuclear Autumn - Compare
The worst case impact is nuclear autumn, not nuclear winter. Our
evidence is compares our studies
Thompson and Schneider 8 Starley L, atmospheric scientist and climate theorist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Stephen H., atmospheric scientist and
public policy analyst, is Deputy Director of the Advanced Study Program at NCAR, Foreign
Affairs, Nuclear Winter Reappraised
perhaps the single most uncertain area of the nuclear winter
problem is the determination of how much smoke would be produced, how "black" the
smoke would be, and how much would be rained out immediately. Studies are in progress
now to narrow these uncertainties. One recent estimate indicates that the amount of smoke initially
produced in a major nuclear war may have been overestimated by roughly a factor of
two to four in the NAS report.'*^' The blackness of the smoke (determined by the percentage of black
Given a plausible war scenario,
carbon soot in the smoke), however, can be just as important as the amount of smoke in determining
atmospheric effects. Indeed, an effective amount of smoke can be defined as the product of the total
amount of smoke and the smoke blackness. It is possible that current appraisals underestimate the
blackness of typical smoke from urban fires. This potential error could substantially compensate for a
downward revision in estimates of total smoke produced. Potential rainout of smoke near the fires
(like the "black rain" that followed the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and the subsequent conflagration)
controls the amount of smoke that can eventually spread and cause climatic effects.
The estimates of rapid rainout of smoke in large thunderstorms associated with city fires are very
problematic, but ambitious recent calculations indicate that even under ideal rainout conditions a substantial
amount of smoke would probably remain in the atmosphere. ^"^ State-of-the-art assessments of the
are based on results from fully three-dimensional models

that simulate the evolving patterns of global weather on an earth having realistic
geography.^^ The simulations recently performed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research have
climatic effects of nuclear winter
used a model which resolves the atmosphere from the surface to about 30 kilometers altitude (the middle
stratosphere) and which resolves geographic features at about 5 latitude by 7 longitude resolution.^'*
The model includes transport by winds, removal of particles from the atmosphere by
rainfall and other processes, and detailed calculations of sunlight transmission and infrared
"greenhouse" effectsall for both smoke and dust, although smoke is by far the larger contributor to
climatic effects. In contrast, recall that the TTAPS calculations had no geographic
resolution, and hence could not adequately predict the global spread or removal of smoke from the
atmosphere. Of course, even the most sophisticated models include simplifying internal assumptions; thus
we anticipate that present quantitative results will change somewhat as improvements continue to be made.
In the recent NCAR research, we have not adopted any particular detailed war scenario other
than the obvious assumption that the smoke and dust would come from the NATO and Warsaw Pact
countries.^^ In fact, there is no general consensus on the amount and blackness of smoke that would exist
in the atmosphere a few days after the start of a major nuclear exchange like the 6,500-megaton war the
NAS study used as a baseline. Given this large range of uncertainty, we have used three different
amounts of moderately black smoke20, 60 and 180 million tonsto bracket what is currently
thought to be a reasonable range of smoke amount and blackness for a large nuclear war. It should be
pointed out that the NAS baseline smoke amount estimate (180 million tons) now appears
to
lie closer to the plausible upper limit of effective smoke amount than it once was thought to.
The war is assumed to take place during a typical day in July, with smoke generated for the first two days.^
The land surface temperatures produced by the three smoke cases are shown in Figure 1. This figure shows
that the average temperature changes for the northern hemisphere mid-latitudes are considerably
smaller than the original estimates of one-dimensional models, and are about two-thirds of the temperature
changes found in our original three-dimensional calculations. These temperature changes more closely
describe a nuclear "fall" than a nuclear winter.
The reasons for the moderation of temperature
compared to the original calculations are well understood: first, the
oceans have a large heat
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
103
capacity, which ameliorates the cooling over land. Second, about three-fourths of the
smoke is removed from the model's atmosphere over the course of 30 days . Third, the
infrared "greenhouse" effect of the smoke, which was not included in earlier threedimensional models, does produce a significant mitigation of the surface cooling .^^ We
must stress that our results are for July, the month in which the temperature changes are
likely to be largest. Similar calculations for January show much less effect simply because at that time it
is already winter in the northern hemisphere.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
104
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
105
Nuclear War = Warming
Newest research proves soot clouds would be outweighed by co2 from burning stuff
Duncan Clarke 9, Jan 2 environment consultant to the Guardian, co-director of the GreenProfile
book imprint, manager of GoGreenLights, The carbon footprint of nuclear war
Just when you might have thought it was ethically sound to unleash a nuclear attack on a nearby city, along
comes a pesky scientist and points out that atomic warfare is bad for the climate. According to a new
paper in the journal Energy & Environmental Science, even a very limited nuclear exchange,
using just a thousandth of the weaponry of a full-scale nuclear war, would cause up to 690m tonnes
of CO2 to enter the atmosphere more than UK's annual total. The upside (kind of) is that
the conflict would also generate as much as 313m tonnes of soot. This would stop a great deal of
sunlight reaching the earth, creating a significant regional cooling effect in the short and medium
terms just like when a major volcano erupts. Ultimately, though, the CO2 would win out and
crank up global temperatures an extra few notches. The paper's author, Mark Z Jacobson, a
professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University, calculated the emissions of such a
conflict by totting up the burn rate and carbon content of the fabric of our cities. "Materials have the
following carbon contents: plastics, 3892%; tyres and other rubbers, 5991%; synthetic fibres, 6386%;
woody biomass, 4145%; charcoal, 71%; asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.052%. We approximate roughly the
carbon content of all combustible material in a city as 4060%."
Newest research proves their internal link is backwards biomass

burning causes warming
Mark Z. Jacobson 8, 31st October Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security
The explosion of fifty 15 kt nuclear devices (a total of 1.5 MT, or 0.1% of the yields proposed for a
full-scale nuclear war) during a limited nuclear exchange in megacities could burn 63313 Tg of
fuel, adding 15 Tg of soot to the atmosphere, much of it to the stratosphere, and killing 2.616.7 million
people.68 The soot emissions would cause significant short- and medium-term regional
cooling.70 Despite short-term cooling, the CO2 emissions would cause long-term
warming, as they do with biomass burning.62 The CO2 emissions from such a conflict
are estimated here from the fuel burn rate and the carbon content of fuels . Materials have
the following carbon contents: plastics, 3892%; tires and other rubbers, 5991%; synthetic fibers, 63
86%;71 woody biomass, 4145%; charcoal, 71%;72 asphalt, 80%; steel, 0.052%. We approximate roughly
the carbon content of all combustible material in a city as 4060%. Applying these percentages to the fuel
burn gives CO2 emissions during an exchange as 92690 Tg CO2. The annual electricity production due to
nuclear energy in 2005 was 2768 TWh yr1. If one nuclear exchange as described above occurs over the
next 30 yr, the net carbon emissions due to nuclear weapons proliferation caused by the expansion of
nuclear energy worldwide would be 1.14.1 g CO2 kWh1, where the energy generation assumed is the
annual 2005 generation for nuclear power multiplied by the number of yr being considered. This emission
rate depends on the probability of a nuclear exchange over a given period and the strengths of nuclear
devices used. Here, we bound the probability of the event occurring over 30 yr as between 0 and 1 to give
the range of possible emissions for one such event as 0 to 4.1 g CO2 kWh1. This emission rate is placed in
context in Table 3.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
106
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
107
Nuclear Winter A2: Were Not Robock
1. All of your evidence is referencing Robocks study

Rutgers University 6, Dec 11
Regional nuclear war could devastate global climate
Even a small-scale, regional nuclear war could produce as many direct fatalities as all of World
War II and disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be
devastating for everyone on Earth, university researchers have found. These powerful conclusions
are being presented Dec. 11 during a press conference and a special technical session at the annual
meeting of American Geophysical Union in San Francisco. The research also appears in
twin papers posted on Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions, an online journal. A
team of scientists at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey; the University of
Colorado at Boulder (CU-Boulder); and UCLA conducted the rigorous scientific studies
reported. Against the backdrop of growing tensions in the Middle East and nuclear "saber rattling"
elsewhere in Asia, the authors point out that even the smallest nuclear powers today and in the near future
may have as many as 50 or more Hiroshima-size (15 kiloton) weapons in their arsenals; all told, about 40
countries possess enough plutonium and/or uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. Owen "Brian"
Toon, chair of the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a member of the Laboratory for
Atmospheric and Space Physics at CU-Boulder, oversaw the analysis of potential fatalities based on an
assessment of current nuclear weapons inventories and population densities in large urban complexes. His
team focused on scenarios of smoke emissions that urban firestorms could produce. "The results described
in one of the new papers represent the first comprehensive quantitative study of the consequences of a
nuclear conflict between smaller nuclear states," said Toon and his co-authors. "A small country is likely to
direct its weapons against population centers to maximize damage and achieve the greatest advantage,"
Toon said. Fatality estimates for a plausible regional conflict ranged from 2.6 million to 16.7 million per
country. Alan Robock, a professor in the department of environmental sciences and associate director of
at Rutgers' Cook College, guided the climate modeling

his
Rutgers co-workers, Professor Georgiy Stenchikov and Postdoctoral Associate Luke Oman (now at
Johns Hopkins University) generated a series of computer simulations depicting potential
climatic anomalies that a small-scale nuclear war could bring about, summarizing their
conclusions in the second paper.
the Center for Environmental Prediction
effort
using tools he previously employed in assessing volcano-induced climate change. Robock and
2. If its not, it relies on models that are 20 years old.

Robock, Oman and Stechikov 7 Alan, Luke and Georgiv: Department of Environmental
Sciences, Rutgers University, Luke, is now at the Department of Earth and Planetary
Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 112, 2007, Nuclear winter revisited with a
modern climate model and current nuclear arsenals: Still catastrophic consequences
[6] Before describing our work, we summarize the work done
before (Table 1), and the

limitations of each of these studies. Pittock et al. [1986], Turco et al. [1990], and Sagan and Turco
[1990] summarized much of the early work, and we know of no climate modeling done on this
topic in almost 20 years, other than our other recent work.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
108
A2: Hundman Indict of Seitz (Regional)
Hundman is wrong the anti-gravity smoke is independent of the

size of the war, his nuclear war doesnt cause extinction arguments
arent contested and Hundmans semantic quibbling is symptomatic
of the absurdity of nuclear winter science
[Russell is a Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs,
published in Nature and Foreign Affairs on the subject of nuclear winter, Jan 5,
www.defensetech.org/archives/003108.html]
Seitz 7
Hundman's failure to acknowledge that the old and new

studies quantitatively overlap in terms of the quantity of black carbon injected into the
model atmospheres. In the models , that parameter is independent of the 'war' scenario
If anything is fatally flawed, it is
whether realistic or absurd. The meltdown I refer to spans not just the 30 plus degree difference between the
old results and the new , but the gross difference in the optical depth and the reduction in sunlight'nuclear winter' entered the language as an apt description of the aftermath of a million fold
reduction in sunlight, not one of ten watts per square meter or less. Many disciplines
deem a two order of magnitude crack-up grounds for publishing a retraction - not this one
- instead we are seeing stonewalling in defense of the original exercise in semantic
aggression. Paul Crutzen got it right when he published the original hypothesis in 1983 under the rubric
"Twilight at Noon. Hundman is correct to chide me for referring to the 300 Mb elevation at
which Robock et al inject black aerosols as " the stratosphere" that is off by about 10-15%
depending on latitude. I should have stuck to high as Mt Everest" as the metric for
kicking mass upstairs in the face of gravity -- but one example of why" you don't have to be an
atmospheric scientist" to understand why many of that fraternity are growing tired of the same old
cohort stretching the limits of scientific -and strategic- plausibility to delay the
interment of the original snow job in the factoid cemetery alongside the "Energy Crisis" and
the "Population Bomb."
The new studies make the difference between regional and global
nuclear war irrelevant global nuclear war uses counterforce
targeting which doesnt cause massive fires
New Scientist 7, March, Debora MacKenzie, 'Nuclear winter' may kill more than a nuclear war
modern scenarios aim at different targets. Toon says most of the
huge US and Russian nuclear warheads are aimed, in a first strike, at missile silos in
wilderness or suburban military installations. There is not much to burn, and after the
first warhead hits, subsequent explosions do not release much additional smoke . Urban
firestorm By contrast, a regional exchange where adversaries target each others'
megacities would ignite huge urban firestorms. Toon calculates the smoke released per
kilotonne of explosive yield would be 100 times greater than in the Cold War scenarios.
This is partly because
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
109
A2: Threshold
This argument is absurd ignores the oceans, geographic variation

and hemispheric divisions.
Thompson and Schneider 86
Starley L, atmospheric scientist and climate theorist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research (NCAR) Stephen H., atmospheric scientist and public policy analyst, is Deputy
Director of the Advanced Study Program at NCAR, Foreign Affairs, Nuclear Winter
Reappraised
If one accepts the idea of a threshold for nuclear winter for the sake of strategic argument, then the question
of how to quantify it becomes important. Given the substantial uncertainties in defining a threshold, and the
potentially grave consequences of exceeding it, the argument was made for deriving a threshold based on a
worst-case smoke-producing assumption of targeting. Taken in this light, the strategically dubious
"100- megaton war" can be seen as a worst-case assumption
serving to delineate a prudent

threshold. The 100-megaton scenario used 1,000 warheads, but it was never suggested that the threshold
would be very well defined. For example, in his Foreign Affairs article, Sagan set a crude threshold of
around 500 to 2,000 warheads, primarily attributing the uncertainty to assumptions of targeting and
weapon yields. Ironically, just when the strategic implications of the threshold concept were starting to be
debated in the strategic policy community, the strongest scientific arguments against the concept emerged.
To understand why the threshold concept is not scientifically persuasive , one must be aware of
It is tempting to interpret
a calculation in which surface temperature is represented as a single global number in
terms of a dramatic physical threshold, e.g., the freezing point. But such calculations cannot
capture the true geographical and seasonal heterogeneity of climate. A global model
developed at the National Center for Atmospheric Research studied the inclusion of north-south
and east-west dimensions and how such improvements would modify the results of
one-dimensional models.'^ We found that the oceans, with their vast storage of heat,
would reduce the magnitude of average continental cooling by a factor of two in the
summer, compared to the cooling calculated by assuming a land-covered planet. The estimated
cooling effect in winter was smaller by a factor of ten than the TTAPS annual estimate ,
because northern hemisphere midlatitude land areas are already cold in winter. Even when we
assumed a uniform smoke cloud to exist over the middle part of the northern
hemisphere, the surface temperature reduction was unevenly distributed much less
the limitations inherent in the models that do not take account of geography.
along western coasts and even more than one-dimensional mode! results in some midcontinental coldweather fluctuations in summertime. In short, simulations using geographically realistic models
produced such a wide range of consequences for any given war scenario that it became clear
that the elegant and strategically compelling idea of a threshold was an artifact of a simplified model. " This
observation remains true. Hence, it is questionable to predicate any strategic policy options
on the existence of a nuclear winter threshold, even a "fuzzy" one.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
110
A2: Ozone Depletion
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
111
Ozone Depletion Frontline
Ozone depletion theory relies on nuclear winter

Mills 8 /Michael J. Mills, Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Douglas E. Kinnison, and Rolando R. Garcia Feb 7,
2008, Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict/
We use a chemistry-climate model and new estimates of smoke produced by fires in contemporary cities to
calculate the impact on stratospheric ozone of a regional nuclear war between developing nuclear states
involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs exploded in cities in the northern subtropics. We find column ozone
losses in excess of 20% globally, 2545% at midlatitudes, and 5070% at northern high latitudes persisting
for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5 additional years. Column ozone amounts remain near or
<220 Dobson units at all latitudes even after three years, constituting an extratropical ozone hole. The
resulting increases in UV radiation could impact the biota significantly, including serious consequences for
human health. The primary cause for the dramatic and persistent ozone depletion is
heating of the stratosphere by smoke, which strongly absorbs solar radiation. The
smoke-laden air rises to the upper stratosphere, where removal mechanisms are slow, so that
much of the stratosphere is ultimately heated by the localized smoke injections . Higher
stratospheric temperatures accelerate catalytic reaction cycles, particularly those of odd-nitrogen, which
destroy ozone. In addition, the strong convection created by rising smoke plumes alters the stratospheric
circulation, redistributing ozone and the sources of ozone-depleting gases, including N 2O and
chlorofluorocarbons. The ozone losses predicted here are significantly greater than previous nuclear
winter/UV spring calculations, which did not adequately represent stratospheric plume rise. Our results
point to previously unrecognized mechanisms for stratospheric ozone depletion.
No nuclear explosion has ever decreased the ozone layer Soviet

and US studies are wrong
Kearny 87 Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the Panama Mobile Force, demolitions expert in
the Office of Strategic Services, research analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked with Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning, Nuclear War
Survival Skills: Updated and Expanded
Blindness and a disastrous increase of cancers would be the fate of survivors of a

because the nuclear explosions would destroy so much of the protective
ozone in the stratosphere that far too much ultraviolet light would reach the earth's surface. Even birds
and insects would be blinded. People could not work outdoors in daytime for years without dark
glasses, and would have to wear protective clothing to prevent incapacitating sunburn. Plants would be
badly injured and food production greatly reduced. Facts: Large nuclear explosions do inject
huge amounts of nitrogen oxides (gasses that destroy ozone) into the stratosphere.
However, the percent of the stratospheric ozone destroyed by a given amount of nitrogen
oxides has been greatly overestimated in almost all theoretical calculations and models.
For example, the Soviet and U.S. atmospheric nuclear test explosions of large weapons in
1952-1962 were calculated by Foley and Ruderman to result in a reduction of more than 10
percent in total ozone. (See M. H. Foley and M. A. Ruderman, 'Stratospheric NO from Past Nuclear
Explosions", Journal of Geophysics, Res. 78, 4441-4450.) Yet observations that they cited showed
no reductions in ozone. Nor did ultraviolet increase. Other theoreticians calculated
sizable reductions in total ozone, but interpreted the observational data to indicate
either no reduction, or much smaller reductions than their calculated ones.
Myth:
nuclear war,
Effect of ozone varies as much as 75% naturally, destruction in a

nuclear war wouldnt be noticeable
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
112
Martin 82 (Brian, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society at the University of
Wollongong, The Global Health Effects of Nuclear War, Current Affairs, December 7,
If significant ozone reduction did occur, the most important direct effect on humans would be an increase in
skin cancer. However, this is seldom lethal, and could be avoided by reducing exposure to sunlight.
Potentially more serious would be effects on crops.[32] Some of the important grains, for example, are
sensitive to uv. Whether the net effects on crop yields would be significant is hard to estimate. But whatever
the reduction in ozone, ozone levels would return pretty much to normal after a few years.
in the context of a major nuclear war the changes in uv alone would be of

the threat of human extinction raised by Jonathan Schell in The
Fate of the Earth,[33] based mostly on effects of increased uv from ozone reduction,
seems very small indeed. It is sometimes claimed that nuclear war could destroy ozone
to such an extent that humans and animals would be blinded by excess uv. Even if
large numbers of high-yield weapons were exploded, this possibility seems very unlikely except
for a contribution to snow blindness in the far north. Stratospheric ozone can never be
completely removed, but at most reduced greatly. Even if a 50 per cent or more reduction in
ozone occurred - and as noted this seems improbable with present nuclear arsenals - protection
[9] It seems unlikely that
serious concern. In particular,
from uv for humans could be obtained from sunglasses or just ordinary glasses, which absorb uv. For
animals, the following considerations are relevant. Ozone levels vary considerably from place to
seasonally and daily (sometimes by up to 50 per cent).

Sunlight at the equator typically passes through only half as much ozone as at the
mid-latitudes, yet animals at the equator are not known to go blind more often than elsewhere.
Furthermore, most ozone reductions from a nuclear war would be in the mid and high
latitudes, where ozone levels are higher to start with and where the 'path length' of
sunlight through ozone is increased due to its oblique angle of incidence. But this does
not mean complacency is warranted, as the concerns of John Hampson illustrate.
place and from time to time, both
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
113
Ozone Depletion Frontline Extension
Extend Kearny 87 extent of ozone depletion vastly overestimated,

proven by theoretical models never lining up with observations of
nuclear tests. Not enough nitrogen released to get to blinding
birds, insects and animals.
Extend Martin 82 even if they win a massive reduction in ozone,

itll return to normal in a few years, the ozone layers resilient, new
arsenals make massive destruction unlikely and ozone levels vary so
much by location and season that the change wont be noticeable.
Tiebreaker the ozone depletion would be limited to the Northern
hemisphere where ozone is already at its highest.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
114
Small Nukes Solve
Ozone depletion of larger weapons offset by added ozone by smaller

ones, no impact to increase in skin cancer
Kearny 87 Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the Panama Mobile Force, demolitions expert in
the Office of Strategic Services, research analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked with Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning, Nuclear War
Survival Skills: Updated and Expanded
the increased ultraviolet light dangers to American survivors of

a large nuclear war equates these hazards to moving from San Francisco to sea level
at the equator, where the sea level incidence of skin cancers (seldom fatal) is highestabout 10 times higher than the incidence at San Francisco. Many additional thousands of American
survivors might get skin cancer, but little or no increase in skin cancers might result if in the
post-attack world deliberate sun tanning and going around hatless went out of fashion.
Furthermore, almost all of today's warheads are smaller than those exploded in the largeweapons tests mentioned above; most would inject much smaller amounts of ozonedestroying gasses, or no gasses, into the stratosphere, where ozone deficiencies may
persist for years. And nuclear weapons smaller than 500 kilotons result in increases (due to
smog reactions) in upper tropospheric ozone. In a nuclear war, these increases would partially
A realistic simplified estimate of
compensate for the upper-level tropospheric decreases-as explained by Julius S. Chang and Donald J.
Wuebbles of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
115
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
116
A2: Ozone Depletion Kills Species
Ozone loss doesnt impact species, natural variability outweighs,

variation by latitude proves theyre wrong
Singer 1 Chief Scientist in the Department of Transportation, first director of the US Weather Satellite
Service, consultant to the Secretary of Energy, White House Science Adviser, vice-chairman of the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer Bonner Cohen and Jay
Lehr in Environment & Climate News, Feb. 2001
It is not serious at all. While the Antarctic ozone hole is genuine and will continue as a temporary thinning of
the layer every October, it has stabilized and may diminish in the future. Ozone depletion at our
is small in
relation to the natural fluctuations, which can reach some 100 percent from day to day.
No steady increase of average solar ultraviolet radiation has been measured on the
ground so far. But even if it did increase, a ten percent increase would correspond in
exposure to moving about 100 miles towards the equator. UV exposures in Florida are
some 200 to 300 percent greater than in New York. The most serious form of skin cancer,
latitudes has been less than five percent and has stopped altogether since 1992. The depletion
malignant melanoma, is produced by solar radiation that is not even affected by changes in ozone. This is an
important new result, confirmed by laboratory studies. As for concerns about frogs and other
amphibians, it has now been established that the missing legs etc. that were blamed
on UV are in fact due to parasites.
Plants are resilient Sparling 1, May 30, Brien, NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division, Ultraviolet Radiation
Ultraviolet levels are over 1,000 times higher at the equator than at the polar regions
so it is presumed that marine life at the equator is much better adapted to the higher
environmental UV light than organisms in the polar regions. The current concern of marine biologists is
mostly over the more sensitive antarctic phytoplankton which normally would recieve very low doses of UV.
Only one large-scale field survey of Anarctic phytoplankton has been carried out so far [Smith et.al
_Science_1992] ; they found a 6-12% drop in phytoplankton productivity once their ship entered the area of
the spring-time ozone hole. Since the hole only lasts from 10-12weeks this translates into a 2-4% loss
overall, a measurable but not yet catastrophic loss. Both plants and phytoplankton vary widely in
their sensitivity to UV-B. When over 200 agricultural plants were tested, more than half
showed sensitivity to UV-B light. Other plants showed neglible effects or even a small
increase in vigor. Even within a species there were marked differences ; for example one
variety of soybean showed a 16% decrease in growth while another variety of the same soybean showed no
effect [R.Parson]. An increase in UV-B could cause a shift in population rather than a large
die-off of plants
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
117
Doesnt Account for New Weapons
Calculations of ozone loss are 40 years old and dont assume new arsenals
Martin 82 (Brian, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society at the University of Wollongong, The Global Health Effects of
Nuclear War, Current Affairs, December 7, www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82cab/index.html#explosive)
Calculations made in the mid-1970s assuming large nuclear arsenals with many highyield explosions concluded that reductions of ozone could reach 50 per cent or more in
the northern hemisphere, with smaller reductions in the southern hemisphere.[30] But since the
number of high-yield weapons in present nuclear arsenals is now smaller, much less
oxides of nitrogen would be deposited in the stratosphere by nuclear war than assumed in earlier
calculations, and so significant ozone reductions are unlikely .[31]
New weapons no scientific basis for ozone based extinction

Martin 84 (Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modeling. He is a research associate in the Dept. of
Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, and a member of SANA, Extinction Politics, SANA Update,
http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sana1.html)
The next effect to which beliefs in nuclear extinction were attached was ozone depletion. Beginning in the
mid-1970s, scares about stratospheric ozone developed, culminating in 1982 in the release of Jonathan
Schell's book The Fate of the Earth.[4] Schell painted a picture of human annihilation from
nuclear war based almost entirely on effects from increased ultraviolet light
at the earth's
surface due to ozone reductions caused by nuclear explosions. Schell's book was greeted with adulation
rarely observed in any field. Yet by the time the book was published, the scientific basis for
ozone-based nuclear extinction had almost entirely evaporated. The ongoing switch by
the military forces of the United States and the Soviet Union from multi-megatonne nuclear
weapons to larger numbers of smaller weapons means that the effect on ozone from
even the largest nuclear war is unlikely to lead to any major effect on human population
levels, and extinction from ozone reductions is virtually out of the question.[3]
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
118
A2: Ozone Depletion Kills Phytoplankton 1/2
1. There wouldnt be a plankton dieoff, just a population shift

Sparling 1, May 30 , Brien, NASA Advanced Supercomputing Division, Ultraviolet
Radiation
Ultraviolet levels are over 1,000 times higher at the equator than at the polar regions
so it is presumed that marine life at the equator is much better adapted to the higher
environmental UV light than organisms in the polar regions. The current concern of marine biologists is mostly over the more sensitive antarctic
phytoplankton which normally would recieve very low doses of UV. Only one large-scale field survey of Anarctic phytoplankton has been carried
out so far [Smith et.al _Science_1992] ; they found a 6-12% drop in phytoplankton productivity once their ship entered the area of the springtime ozone hole. Since the hole only lasts from 10-12weeks this translates into a 2-4% loss overall, a measurable but not yet catastrophic loss.
plants and phytoplankton vary widely in their sensitivity to UV-B. When over 200
agricultural plants were tested, more than half showed sensitivity to UV-B light. Other plants
showed neglible effects or even a small increase in vigor. Even within a species there
were marked differences; for example one variety of soybean showed a 16% decrease in growth while another variety of the
same soybean showed no effect [R.Parson]. An increase in UV-B could cause a shift in population rather
than a large die-off of plants
Both
2. Plankton control the weather increased UV causes them to

create more clouds
Melville 4, 14 July, Kate, one of three authors at scienceagogo, McMurdo Media, UV Light Turns Plankton Into Cloud
Factories
Much like Dr. Evil's weather control machine,
plankton may be able to change the weather,
and
longer term climate, in ways to benefit the tiny organism. New research confirms a theory
that plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun's harmful UV rays. The study was
conducted by Dierdre Toole of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and David Siegel of the
University of California (UCSB). The study found that when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean
where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little
plants. When they are stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound
called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP
helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it
changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS). DMS then filters from the ocean into the air,
where it reacts with oxygen, to form different sulfur compounds. Sulfur in the DMS sticks together in the air
tiny dust-like particles. These particles are just the right size for water to
condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help
and creates
create more clouds, and more clouds mean less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the
stress put on plankton by the Sun's UV rays.
3. This effect is fast enough to protect them

Melville 4, 14 July
Kate, one of three authors at scienceagogo, McMurdo Media, UV Light Turns Plankton Into
Cloud Factories
DMS levels peak from June through the end of September. During the season, the study found that a
whopping 77 percent of the changes in amounts of DMS were due to exposure to UV
radiation. "For someone studying marine biology and ecology, this type of variation is
absolutely incredible," Siegel said. The researchers were also surprised to find that the DMS
molecules completely refresh themselves after only three to five days . That means the
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
119
plankton may react to UV rays quickly enough to impact their own weather. Toole and
Siegel were surprised by the lightning-fast rate of turnover for DMS. To give an example for comparison,
when carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas and traps heat, it may last
for decades. Toole adds that the cycles that break down DMS scream along at these very fast rates, even
though overall amounts over the course of the year remain pretty stable with a slow increase over summer
and a gradual decline over winter.
4. No impact to ozone loss

Singer 1, Chief Scientist in the Department of Transportation, first director of the US
Weather Satellite Service, consultant to the Secretary of Energy, White House Science Adviser,
vice-chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere, Interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer
Bonner Cohen and Jay Lehr in Environment & Climate News, Feb. 2001
It is not serious at all. While the Antarctic ozone hole is genuine and will continue as a temporary thinning of
the layer every October, it has stabilized and may diminish in the future. Ozone depletion at our
is small in
relation to the natural fluctuations, which can reach some 100 percent from day to day.
latitudes has been less than five percent and has stopped altogether since 1992. The depletion
No steady increase of average solar ultraviolet radiation has been measured on the ground so far. But even
if it did increase, a ten percent increase would correspond in exposure to moving about 100 miles towards
the equator. UV exposures in Florida are some 200 to 300 percent greater than in New York.
cancer, malignant melanoma, is produced by solar radiation that is

not even affected by changes in ozone. This is an important new result, confirmed by laboratory
studies. As for concerns about frogs and other amphibians, it has now been established that the
missing legs etc. that were blamed on UV are in fact due to parasites.
The most serious form of skin
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
120
A2: Too Old - Mills

Extend the Seitz evidence theres no justification for sending soot
miles into the atmosphere. Thats the internal link to ozone
depletion
Mills et al 8 Toon TurcoMichael J. Mills, Owen B. Toon, Richard P. Turco, Douglas E. Kinnison, and Rolando R. Garcia Feb 7, 2008,
Massive global ozone loss predicted following regional nuclear conflict
We use a chemistry-climate model and new estimates of smoke produced by fires in
contemporary cities to calculate the impact on stratospheric ozone of a regional nuclear war
between developing nuclear states involving 100 Hiroshima-size bombs exploded in cities in the northern
subtropics. We find column ozone losses in excess of 20% globally, 2545% at midlatitudes, and 50
70% at northern high latitudes persisting for 5 years, with substantial losses continuing for 5
additional years. Column ozone amounts remain near or <220 Dobson units at all latitudes even after three
years, constituting an extratropical ozone hole. The resulting increases in UV radiation could impact the
biota significantly, including serious consequences for human health. The primary cause for the
is heating of the stratosphere by smoke, which

strongly absorbs solar radiation. The smoke-laden air rises to the upper stratosphere, where
removal mechanisms are slow, so that much of the stratosphere is ultimately heated by the localized
smoke injections. Higher stratospheric temperatures accelerate catalytic reaction cycles,
particularly those of odd-nitrogen, which destroy ozone . In addition, the strong
convection created by rising smoke plumes alters the stratospheric circulation,
dramatic and persistent ozone depletion
redistributing ozone and the sources of ozone-depleting gases, including N2O and chlorofluorocarbons. The
ozone losses predicted here are significantly greater than previous nuclear winter/UV spring calculations,
which did not adequately represent stratospheric plume rise. Our results point to previously unrecognized
mechanisms for stratospheric ozone depletion.
That means you should prefer the studies from the 80s theyre
exactly the same but without the magic smoke
Gache 8 Gabriel, April, Science News Editor, softpedia, Regional Nuclear War Would Destroy
the World news.softpedia.com/newsPDF/Regional-Nuclear-War-Would-Destroy-the-World82760.pdf
Mills from the University of Colorado reckons that such a nuclear war in South Asia
would decay about 40 percent of the ozone layer in the middle latitudes and 70 percent in the
Aftermath Michael
high latitudes of the northern hemisphere. "The models show this magnitude of ozone loss would persist for
five years, and we would see substantial losses continuing for at least another five years," says Mills. Mills
extracted his results from computer models. Previous models were created during the 1980s,
those investigations revealed that impact of the nuclear detonations would be

much more moderate. This might be because the old models do not take into consideration
the columns of soot rising at altitudes of 80 kilometers into Earth's atmosphere , as Mills
considers. Once the soot is released into the upper atmosphere, it would block and
absorb most of the solar energy, thus determining a heating of the surrounding
atmosphere, process that facilitates the reaction between nitrogen oxides and ozone
however
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
121
A/T: Radiation Bad
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
122
Radiation Frontline
Dont even read cards from the 80s - theyre all propaganda,
ignore new studies, based on environmental and genetic myths that
have been debunked.
Spiegel, 11/23/2007
Matthias Schulz, Nuclear Exaggeration: Is Atomic Radiation as Dangerous as We Thought?
The more recent meltdown at the reactor in Chernobyl in 1986 reminded the world of
the dangers of the atom. The incident was referred to as "nuclear genocide," and the press wrote
of "forests stained red" and of deformed insects. The public was bombarded with images of
Soviet cleanup crews wearing protective suits, bald-headed children with cancer and the members of
cement crews who lost their lives in an attempt to seal off the cracked reactor with a concrete plug. Fifteen
years after the reactor accident, the German newsmagazine Focus concluded that Chernobyl was
responsible for "500,000" deaths. Was all this just doomsday folklore? There is no doubt that large sections
of the countryside were contaminated by the accident in the Ukraine. In the ensuing decades, up to 4,000
cleanup workers and residents of the more highly contaminated areas died of the long-term consequences of
radiation exposure. But the six-figure death counts that opponents of nuclear power once cited are
simply nonsense. In most cases, they were derived from vague "extrapolations" based on
the hearsay reported by Russian dissidents. But such horror stories have remained part of the
nuclear narrative to this day. In fact, contemporaries who reported on the Chernobyl incident should have
known better. Even in the 1980s, radiobiologists and radiation physicists considered the
media's doomsday reports to be exaggerated. And their suspicions have become a

virtual certainty today. Groups of researchers have set up shop at all of the sites of
nuclear accidents or major nuclear contamination. They work at Hanford (where the United
States began producing plutonium in 1944), they conduct studies in the English town of Sellafield (where a
contaminated cloud escaped from the chimney in 1957), and they study the fates of former East German
uranium mineworkers in the states of Saxony and Thuringia. New mortality rates have now been compiled
for all of these groups of individuals at risk. Surprisingly, the highest mortality rates were found among the
East German mineworkers. In Hiroshima, on the other hand, radioactivity claimed surprisingly few human
lives. Experts now know exactly what happened in the first hours, days and weeks after the devastating
atomic explosion. Almost all of Hiroshima's 140,000 victims died quickly. Either they were
crushed immediately by the shock wave, or they died within the next few days of acute burns. But the
notorious radiation sickness -- a gradual ailment that leads to certain death for anyone exposed to
radiation levels of 6 Gray or higher -- was rare. The reason is that Little Boy simply did not produce enough
radioactivity. But what about the long-term consequences? Didn't the radiation work like a time bomb in the
body? To answer these questions, the Japanese and the Americans launched a giant
epidemiological study after the war. The study included all residents of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki who had survived the atomic explosion within a 10-kilometer (6.2-mile) radius. Investigators
questioned the residents to obtain their precise locations when the bomb exploded, and used this
information to calculate a personal radiation dose for each resident. Data was collected for [eighty
six
thousand] 86,572 people. Today, 60 years later, the study's results are clear. More than 700 people
eventually died as a result of radiation received from the atomic attack: 87 died of leukemia;
440 died of tumors; and 250 died of radiation-induced heart attacks. In addition, 30 fetuses developed
mental disabilities after they were born. Such statistics have attracted little notice so far. The numbers cited
in schoolbooks are much higher. According to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, 105,000 people died of the
"long-term consequences of radiation." "For commendable reasons, many critics have greatly exaggerated
the health risks of radioactivity," says Albrecht Kellerer, a Munich radiation biologist. "But contrary to
widespread opinion, the number of victims is by no means in the tens of thousands." Especially
surprising, though, is that the stories of birth defects in newborns are also pure fantasy.
The press has repeatedly embellished photos of a destroyed Hiroshima with those of deformed children,
children without eyes or with three arms. In reality, there hasn't been a single study that provides
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
123
evidence of an elevated rate of birth defects.
A final attempt to establish a connection is

currently underway in Japan. The study includes 3,600 people who were unborn fetuses in their mothers'
wombs on that horrific day in August 1945. But it too has failed to furnish any evidence of elevated
chromosomal abnormality. In Germany, where nuclear fears have coalesced with the fear of dying forests
and mad cow disease into a general psychosis of threat, the degree of concern over nuclear radiation
remains high. To this day, some are so fearful about the long-term effects of fallout from Chernobyl that they
refuse to eat mushrooms from Bavaria. Even 20 years ago such behavior would not have made sense.
Officially 47 people -- members of the emergency rescue crews -- died in Chernobyl from exposure to
lethal doses of radiation. This is serious enough. "But overall the amount of radiation that escaped was
simply too low to claim large numbers of victims," explains Kellerer. The iodine 131 that escaped from the
reactor did end up causing severe health problems in Ukraine. It settled on meadows in the form of a fine
dust, passing through the food chain, from grass to cows to milk, and eventually accumulating in the thyroid
glands of children. About 4,000 children were afflicted with cancer. Less well-known , however,
is the fact that only nine of those 4,000 died -- thyroid cancers are often easy to operate
on.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
124
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
125
Radiation Frontline Extension
Extend Spiegel 7 it cites the most recent and qualified studies, the
joint US-Japan study of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, retrospectives on
Chernobyl and every other major radiation based incident.
Dont read cards from the 80s Im sure they make great
arguments, but theyre driven by nuclear paranoia thats never
been supported by science and rely on decades old science.
Radiation effects have been invented out of pure fantasy.
Environmental effects are nonsense forests stained red and

deformed insects are anti-nuclear propaganda and extrapolations
based on reports of Russian dissidents.
Radiation sickness doesnt matter a hundred forty thousand

people died at Hiroshima, only seven hundred combined deaths
from radiation at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No long term effects only a slight increase in cancer rates, mainly

thyroid cancer, which is almost never fatal.
No genetic effects no study has ever proven a correlation between

radiation and increased birth defects.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
126
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
127
Radiation Internal Link
Fallout wont cause extinction wont stay radioactive long enough

to spread globally
Martin, 1982
Brian, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society at the University of Wollongong, The Global
Health Effects of Nuclear War, Current Affairs, December 7,
By the time stratospheric fallout reaches the earth, its radioactivity is greatly reduced .
For example, after one year, the time typically required for any sizable amount of fission
products to move from the northern to the southern stratosphere, the rate of decay
will be less than a hundred thousandth of what it was one hour after the blast. It is for this
reason that stratospheric fallout does not have the potential to cause widespread and
immediate sickness or death.
Airbursts solve radiation is either in the atmosphere until its safe

or is rained out into isolated hot zone
Kearny, 87
Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the Panama Mobile Force,
demolitions expert in the Office of Strategic Services, research analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked with
Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning, Nuclear War Survival Skills: Updated and Expanded
The fireball does not touch the ground. No crater. An air burst
produces only extremely small radioactive particles-so small that they are airborne for
days to years unless brought to earth by rain or snow. Wet deposition of fallout from
both surface and air bursts can result in '"hot spots" at, close to, or far from ground zero.
However, such '"hot spots" from air bursts are much less dangerous than the fallout
produced by the surface or near-surface bursting of the same weapons.
Fig. 1.4. An air burst.
The main dangers from an air burst are the blast effects, the thermal pulses of intense light and heat
radiation, and the very penetrating initial nuclear radiation from the fireball. ORNL.DWG 78.6267
Fallout from nuclear war is not a problem clean fusion bombs

Think Quest, 2000
(The World of Nuclear Science, http://library.thinkquest.org/C004606/applications/thermowpn.shtml)
Thermonuclear weapons are considered to be highly tactical, because they can destroy
armed forces and infrastructure easily, but do not produce as much radioactive fallout
compared to fission-based weapons. The fallout from thermonuclear weapons is due primarily to the fission
trigger. Thus thermonuclear weapons are sometimes called "clean" bombs. Technically a
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
128
clean bomb is defined as one where significantly more than half of the destructive power arises from fusion.
So-called "radiation fusion bombs", also known as neutron bombs are examples of clean weapons. However,
these bombs make nearby objects and structures radioactive because of the number and speed of the
released neutrons. Still, the radioactive fallout from a "clean" bomb is significantly less than
that from a fission weapon. There are in fact still some fears today about whether the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki sites in Japan, bombed by the US in World War II, are safe from radiation. (This was one of the
factors that made the death toll hard to accurately quantify.)
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
129
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
130
Internal Link Yes Airburst
Airbursts are the most tactical

FAS, updated October 21, 1998
Federation of American Scientists, Nuclear Weapon Effects www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm
An air burst is an explosion in which a weapon is detonated in air at an altitude

at sufficient height that the fireball does not contact the surface of the
earth. After such a burst, blast may cause considerable damage and injury. The altitude of an air
burst can be varied to obtain maximum blast effects, maximum thermal effects, desired radiation
Air Bursts.
below 30 km but
effects, or a balanced combination of these effects. Burns to exposed skin may be produced over many
square kilometers and eye injuries over a still larger area. Initial nuclear radiation will be a significant hazard
with smaller weapons, but the fallout hazard can be ignored as there is essentially no local fallout
from an air burst. The fission products are generally dispersed over a large area of the globe unless
there is local rainfall resulting in localized fallout. In the vicinity of ground zero, there may be a
small area of neutron-induced activity which could be hazardous to troops required to pass through
the area. Tactically, air bursts are the most likely to be used against ground forces.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
131
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
132
A/T: Children
Genetic defects arent passed on to children this is the most qualified source
RERF, 2007 Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Cooperative Japan-US research

Organization, FAQ
What health effects have been seen among the children born to atomic-bomb
survivors? A7. This was one of the earliest concerns in the aftermath of the bombings. Efforts to detect genetic
effects were begun in the late 1940s and continue to this day. Thus far, no evidence of
genetic effects has been found. Recent advances in molecular biology may make it possible to detect genetic changes at
Q7.
the gene (DNA) level at some time in the future. RERF scientists are working to preserve blood samples that can be used for such studies as
suitably powerful techniques are developed (see Repository of biological materials). Monitoring of deaths and cancer incidence in the children of
survivors also is continuing.
Any mutations due to radiation are not passed to children no risk of extinction
Innovations Report, 2002 Nchste Meldung, Sperm and eggs fall foul of fallout, 2
August
researchers still do not know whether this genetic damage has caused health
problems for the areas children, or whether it will do so in the future, because
mutations only rarely result in disease. "It wouldnt be surprising," says Goodhead. But researchers agree that any
effects of inherited mutations are likely to be small and difficult to detect against the
normal incidence rates of cancer and disease. People directly exposed to radiation by
the atomic-bomb detonations in Japan during the Second World War and by nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, suffer
increased rates of cancer. But the common perception that exposed individuals bear
children with deformities is not backed up by scientific study.
The
Radiation isnt passed down to children

First Science, 25 Jul 2007 Andrey Kobilnyk, author for First Science, online popular science
magazine, Radiation and three-eyed fish
while changes to a cell in an already living animal will not spontaneously

produce new limbs and such, we know that mutations in DNA do occur during sexual
reproduction. Can ionizing radiation alter DNA in a parent which is then passed down to
a child and result in meaningful, usable structures such as limbs and eyes? It appears that the research
on this topic indicates that in instances of both low and high levels of ionizing radiation no
increase in genetic affects has been noted. It must, however, be made clear that individuals
However,
exposed to high concentrations I-131 (a form of radioacutive iodine) which has found its way into the
atmosphere as a result of the detonation of nuclear weapons and due to catastrophic accidents such as the
1986 Chernobyl explosion have a much higher risk of thyroid cancer than is found in the regular
population.
Zero evidence of this overwhelming consensus of science
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
133
Kearny, 87 Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the Panama Mobile
Force, demolitions expert in the Office of Strategic Services, research analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked
with Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning, Nuclear War Survival Skills: Updated and Expanded
Myth: Most of the unborn children and grandchildren of people who have been
exposed to radiation from nuclear explosions will be genetically damaged will be malformed, delayed victims of
nuclear war. Facts: The authoritative study by the National Academy of Sciences , A Thirty Year Study
of the Survivors qf Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was published in 1977. It concludes that the incidence of
abnormalities is no higher among children later conceived by parents who were
exposed to radiation during the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki than is the incidence of
abnormalities among Japanese children born to un-exposed parents. This is not to say that there would be no genetic damage, nor that some
overwhelming evidence does show that

the exaggerated fears of radiation damage to future generations are not supported by
scientific findings.
fetuses subjected to large radiation doses would not be damaged. But the
Genetic mutations are not caused by nuclear war and even then
mutations cannot be passed on
Dayton Journal Herald, 1983 (Petr Beckman, Nuking Your Town, May,
http://www.fortfreedom.org/r02.htm)
Genetic mutations are another example of whipping up emotional fear. For one thing,
genetic mutations are virtually negligible compared with the real dangers of nuclear
weapons. None have ever been found in Japan despite decades of an extremely
intensive search. "Not true!" say readers who have been shamefully confused by slanted TV documentaries. Yes, radiation
can kill, and it can deform, especially if it hits fetuses in the womb. There were such cases in Japan, but
that has nothing to do with genetic mutations -- which damage offspring by
inheritance. When TV shows such deformed adults, it is playing on ignorance about
what can be inherited and what is an injury that cannot be passed on.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
134
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
135
Radiation Contaminate Food
No impact to food contamination not enough people die

Kearny, 87
Eating food produced in the years after a large attack would cause an increase in the
cancer rate, due primarily to its content of radioactive strontium and cesium from fallout-contaminated
soil. Over the first 30 years following an attack, this increase would be a small fraction of
the number of additional cancer deaths that would result from external radiation.29 Cancer
deaths would be one of the tragic, delayed costs of a nuclear war, but all together would not
be numerous enough to endanger the long-term survival of the population.
Fallout particles are easy to remove, wont seep into water, dont contaminate food
Kearny, 87
Myth: So much food and water will be poisoned

in fallout areas where there is enough food and water.
by fallout that people will starve and die even
If the fallout particles do not become mixed with the parts of food that are
eaten, no harm is done. Food and water in dust-tight containers are not contaminated by fallout
radiation. Peeling fruits and vegetables removes essentially all fallout , as does removing the
uppermost several inches of stored grain onto which fallout particles have fallen. Water from many
sources -- such as deep wells and covered reservoirs, tanks, and containers -- would not be
contaminated. Even water containing dissolved radioactive elements and compounds can
be made safe for drinking by simply filtering it through earth, as described later in this book.
Facts:
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
136
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
137
Radiation Not Fatal - Table
Only 9% of survivors of atomic bombs died of radiation being 2 kilometers away from
detonation cuts the odds in half. This evidence is mostly a table, call for it.
RERF, 2007 Radiation
Effects Research Foundation, Cooperative Japan-US research Organization,

FAQ, http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/index.html
Q2. How many cancer deaths have occurred among atomic-bomb survivors and how many
of these can be attributed to radiation?
A2. Analyses of deaths due to cancer among the Life Span Study cohort of atomicbomb survivors from 1950 through 1990, published in Radiation Research (146:127, 1996), are summarized in Table 2. These results are for survivors who were
exposed to significant radiation doses (See Question 11).
Table 2. Summary of cancer deaths in the Life Span Study cohort of atomic-bomb
survivors, 1950-1990
Cause of
death
Total
number
of death
Estimated
number of deaths
due to radiation
Percentage of
deaths
attributable to
radiation
Leukemia
176
89
51%
Other types
of cancer*
4,687
339
7%
Total
4,863
428
9%
Solid cancers, such as stomach, lung, breast, colorectal and liver cancers
The number of cancer deaths among the 36,500 Life Span Study survivors who were
exposed beyond 2.5 km is 3,177, including 73 leukemia deaths and 3,104 deaths
from cancers other than leukemia.
The proportion of cancer deaths attributable to radiation exposure is higher among those
who were exposed closer to the hypocenter, as in the case of deaths due to injuries
from the blast, heat, or radiation. Table 3 presents data on the size of the studied
population and the number of cancer deaths in relation to distance from the
hypocenter for the approximately 50,000 survivors with significant exposures (See
Question 11).
Table 3. Cancer deaths among atomic-bomb survivors,
1950-1990, by distance from hypocenter
Leukemia
Other cancers*
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
138
Distance
No. of
Percent
No. of
from
No. of
death attributable death
hypocenter persons
Percent
attributable
to radiation
to radiation
810
22
100%
128
42%
1-1.5
10,590
79
64%
1,15
6
18%
1.5-2.0
17,370
36
29%
1,62
2
4%
2.0-2.5
21,343
39
4%
1,78
1
0.5%
(km)
<1
Because the Life Span Study cohort does not include all survivors (see Question 8),
the number of cancer deaths that may be attributed to radiation among all
survivors would be larger than the 428 shown in Table 2.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
139
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
140
Radiation Not Fatal
Radiation isnt that dangerous new study based on Soviet

weapons program proves. Inhaling Plutonium dust is half as bad as
smoking, irradiating an entire valley killed only 46 people, statistics
on radiation are made up
Spiegel, 11/23/2007
Matthias Schulz, Nuclear Exaggeration: Is Atomic Radiation as Dangerous as We Thought?
A mounting number of studies are coming to some surprising conclusions about the
dangers of nuclear radiation. It might not be as deadly as is widely believed. The explosions
at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (pictured) were devastating. The resulting radiation illnesses, though, weren't as bad as expected. Wearing mosquito
helmets on their heads and radiation dosimeters on their belts, Clemens Woda and his three Russian colleagues drive past a bored-looking guard
leaning nonchalantly against a meter-high fence. The truck moves past a yellow warning sign reading "radioactivity" and into the restricted zone.
Inside, the streets and fields show the effects of years of abandonment and are overgrown with tall reeds. The area hugging the swampy banks
of the Techa River has been unpopulated for decades. The group reaches Metlino, a ghost town that was evacuated in 1956. A weather-beaten
grain silo protrudes into the sky. The scientists take soil samples and, wearing rubber boots, wade through the mud over to a Russian Orthodox
church in a depressing state of disrepair. One of them climbs the bell tower, hammers at the wall and slides a brick into his bag. The brick will be
used as evidence. Woda, who works for the GSF Research Center for Health and the Environment, located in the town of Neuherberg near Munich
-- Europe's largest radiation protection institute -- is currently involved in an exciting investigation. As part of the EU's "SOUL" (Southern Urals
Radiation Risk Research) project, Woda and his team are exploring the region where the Soviets once manufactured the explosive material for
their first atomic bomb. The Siberian factory was called Mayak ("beacon"). Workers from the gulags laid railroad track and built a "closed city" for
17,000 people, cooling towers and a radiochemical plant. The first nuclear reactor went online in 1948 and was soon producing weapons-grade
plutonium for Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. The giant weapons laboratory did not appear on any map. A consensus in the West has been reached
about what happened next. Soviet nuclear scientists stand accused of having irradiated the environment and of otherwise poisoning the
surrounding area. The result, it is said, has been thousands of cancer deaths and myriads of deformed children. Indeed, this autumn, Mayak (of
which not a single historic photo exists to this day) celebrated a gruesome anniversary.
with 80 tons of nuclear waste exploded.
In the fall of 1957, a tank filled
According to an eyewitness, a "strange, bright red fog" rose several thousand
The
consequences of the 1957 nuclear accident in Siberia were "far more serious" than
Chernobyl, the German television network ARD recently reported. "Most of the pupils in my class died of cancer," says Gulchara
meters into the air. "In the winter," says the eyewitness, "I would have terrible headaches and nosebleeds, and I almost went blind."
Ismagilova, who was 11 at the time. But what really happened? That's what the team of Bavarian physicists have traveled to Siberia to find out,
and that's why they are taking soil samples and packing bricks into their bags. They are also looking at other important pieces of evidence from
"The employees there were examined with a dosimeter, sometimes once a week, and
The results of the tests were documented in
more than 7,000 health records encased in gray cardboard folders. "An invaluable archive,"
says Jacob. There are even kidneys and livers of workers who died at the site. Preserved in
the secret nuclear complex.
required to provide urine samples," says GSF researcher Peter Jacob.
paraffin, they are kept stored next to frozen vials of blood at the Biophysical Institute of Osyorsk. Russian doctors are also collecting hair samples
from those workers still alive today along with teeth that have fallen out. The samples are then sent to Germany; 200 teeth are already on file.
the scientists will have radiation profiles for each

person who worked at the nuclear plant. The project receives 6.8 million in grant money from the EU. Despite this
wealth of material, the task is a difficult one. Mistrust of the operators of Mayak runs deep. According to environment organization
Greenpeace, 272,000 people were harmed at the facility and in the surrounding area.
Even in the town of Muslyumovo, 80 kilometers (50 miles) away, "one in two adults are infertile, and one in three
infants are born with deformities," a Greenpeace report says. As deeply disturbing as these claims
are, the tests in no way bear them out. Indeed, a number of project groups at the GSF center near Munich are doing
Once analyzed by the GSF's state-of-the-art laboratories,
their best to determine just how many people fell victim to the radiation pollution at Mayak. Their conclusions? The horrors of Mayak are much
less extensive than believed. There is no doubt that the workers at this plant east of the Ural Mountains performed dangerous work. Enveloped in
a permanent atmosphere of fear -- with intelligence agents in black coats constantly hurrying through the hallways -- about 150 men would lift
the warm, spent fuel elements from the reactors and carry them to the radiochemical plant. There, in a long brick building, workers, including
many women, sat in a dimly lit environment and placed the encrusted rods into nitric acid, triggering a process that allowed them to remove the
Soviet workers
were not even given masks to wear. There was nothing to stop plutonium gases from
entering their lungs. And yet the amount of health damage sustained by these workers
was astonishingly low. The GSF study has examined 6,293 men who worked at the chemical plant between 1948 and 1972. "So far
301 have died of lung cancer," says Jacob. "But only 100 cases were caused by radiation.
The others were attributed to cigarettes." The second large, but as yet unpublished study by the GSF scientists also
weapons-grade plutonium. While the same work was performed with remote-controlled robotic arms in the West, the
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
141
offers surprisingly low mortality figures. The subjects in this study were farmers who lived downstream from the nuclear reactors, in 41 small
waste material from the plutonium production -- a

was simply poured into the river untreated. As a result, highly radioactive
elements such as cesium 137 and strontium 90 were deposited in the river's sediments. The riverbanks became
towns and villages along the Techa River. From 1949 to 1951,
bubbling toxic soup --
radioactive. Atomic Dangers or Doomsday Folklore? A report warning of the dangers was sent to Moscow in 1951. A series of X-ray tests was
conducted, and police officers were assigned to guard the river. "We could only see the river through barbed wire or from a small wooden
Russian citizens' groups, which

are currently suing for compensation in the courts, these official steps were half-hearted. In their view, the plant management
committed "atomic genocide" against the ethnic Tatars living in the area. But as the analyses show, even this
accusation is exaggerated. The US National Cancer Institute (NCI) studied 29,873 people who
lived along the Techa between 1950 and 1960. According to the NCI scientists, only 46 deaths came about due to
radiation exposure. The German researchers now know why the death rate was relatively low. Although the Techa was abused as a
bridge," says a former resident. By 1960, 22 villages had been evacuated. From the standpoint of
nuclear waste dump, the abuse was not as severe as the rumor-mongers would have us believe. "The Techa farmer most heavily exposed to the
radiation received a dose of only 0.45 Gray," explains Jacob. By comparison, a lethal dose of radiation, which causes fever, changes in the
The findings hardly jive with

the popular image of the atom as evil incarnate. Nightmarish scenarios of lingering illness and birth defects on
composition of the blood, irreparable damage to the body and death within two weeks, is 6 Gray.
an apocalyptic scale populate nightmares. In West Germany, the moral and political self-image of an entire generation arose from its battle
against radiation, from "no nukes" protest marches to facing off against police water cannons at the Brokdorf nuclear power plant to sit-ins in
front of Castor rail containers of reprocessed nuclear waste.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
142
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
143
Radiation Not Fatal 80s
Radiation wont kill everyone lethal does is really high, people

rapidly recover from lower doses, Hiroshima and Nagasaki
prove.
Kearny, 87
The radiation dose that will kill a person varies considerably with different people. A dose of
450 R resulting from exposure of the whole body to fallout radiation is often said to be the dose that will kill
about half the persons receiving it, although most studies indicate that it would take somewhat less.1 (Note:
A number written after a statement refers the reader to a source listed in the Selected References that
follow Appendix D.) Almost all persons confined to expedient shelters after a nuclear attack would be under
stress and without clean surroundings or antibiotics to fight infections. Many also would lack adequate water
and food. Under these unprecedented conditions, perhaps half the persons who received a whole-body dose
of 350 R within a few days would die.2
Fortunately, the human body can repair most radiation damage if the daily radiation
doses are not too large. As will be explained in Appendix B, a person who is healthy and has
not been exposed in the past two weeks to a total radiation dose of more than 100 R
can receive a dose of 6 R each day for at least two months without being
incapacitated.
Only a very small fraction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki citizens who survived radiation
doses some of which were nearly fatal have suffered serious delayed effects. The reader should
realize that to do essential work after a massive nuclear attack, many survivors must be willing to receive
much larger radiation doses than are normally permissible. Otherwise, too many workers would stay inside
shelter too much of the time, and work that would be vital to national recovery could not be done. For
example, if the great majority of truckers were so fearful of receiving even non-incapacitating radiation
doses that they would refuse to transport food, additional millions would die from starvation alone.
Radiation isnt that big of a deal it will kill people, but not very many
Kearny, 87
The large radiation doses that many survivors of a nuclear attack would receive would
result in serious long-term risks of death from cancer, but the lifetime risks from even
large wartime radiation doses are not as bad as many people believe. Significantly, no official U.S.
estimates have been made available to the public regarding excess cancer deaths to be expected if America
is subjected to a nuclear attack. However, reliable statistics are available on the numbers of additional fatal
cancers suffered by persons who received large whole-body radiation doses at Hiroshima
and in other disasters,
and who lived for months to decades before dying. Dr. John N. Auxier
-who for years was a leading health physicist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, was one of the American
scientists working in Japan with Japanese scientists studying the Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors, and
currently is working on radiation problems with International Technology Corporation-in 1986 summarized for
me the risk of excess fatal cancers from large whole-body radiation doses: " If 1,000 people each
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
144
receive a whole-body radiation dose of 100 rems [or 100 rads, or 100 R], about 10
additional fatal cancers will result." These 10 fatal cancers will be in addition to about 150
fatal cancers that normally will develop among these 1,000 people during their lifetimes. This risk
is proportional to large doses; thus, if 1,000 people each receive a dose of 200 rems, about 20 additional
lethal cancer cases would be expected. "Rem" is an abbreviation for "roentgen equivalent (in) man." The
rem takes into account the biological effects of different kinds of radiation. For external gamma-ray radiation
from fallout, the numerical value of an exposure or dose given in roentgens is approximately the same as
the numerical value given in rems or in rads. The rad is the unit of radiation energy absorption in any
material and applies to all kinds of nuclear radiations. Therefore, for simplicity's sake, this book gives both
instrument readings (exposures) and doses in roentgens (R).
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
145
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
146
Radiation Quick Dissipation
Radioactivity vanishes rapidly Hiroshima and Nagasaki prove

RERF, 2007
Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Cooperative Japan-US research Organization, FAQ,
http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/index.html
Q.12 Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?

A.12 The practical answer is, "No." People often ask, "If uranium and plutonium pose a potential
hazard in nuclear waste sites and were present at dangerous levels in the environment following the
Chernobyl nuclear accident, why aren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki still uninhabitable?" There are two ways
residual radioactivity is produced from an atomic blast. The first is due to fallout of the fission products or
the nuclear material itself--uranium or plutonium (uranium was used for the Hiroshima bomb whereas
plutonium was used for the Nagasaki bomb)--that contaminate the ground. Similar ground contamination
occurred as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but on a much larger scale (click here for moredetailed explanation). The second way residual radioactivity is produced is by neutron irradiation of soil or
buildings (neutron activation), causing non-radioactive materials to become radioactive. Fallout. The
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded at altitudes of 600 meters and 503 meters, respectively, then
formed huge fireballs that rose with the ascending air currents. About 10% of the nuclear material in the
bombs underwent fission; the remaining 90% rose in the atmosphere with the fireball. Subsequently, the
material cooled down and some of it started to fall with rain (black rain) in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki
areas, but probably most of the remaining uranium or plutonium was dispersed widely in the atmosphere.
Because of the wind, the rain did not fall directly on the hypocenters but rather in the northwest region (Koi,
Takasu area) of Hiroshima and the eastern region (Nishiyama area) of Nagasaki. The maximum estimates of
dose due to fallout are 0.01-0.03 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at
the hypocenters are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values. Nowadays, the radioactivity is
so miniscule that it is difficult to distinguish from trace amounts (including plutonium) of

radioactivity caused by worldwide fallout from atmospheric (as opposed to underground)
atomic-bomb tests that were conducted around the world in past decades, particularly in the 1950's and
1960's. Neutron activation. Neutrons comprised 10% or less of the A-bomb radiation, whereas gamma rays
comprised the majority of A-bomb radiation. Neutrons cause ordinary, non-radioactive materials to become
radioactive, but gamma rays do not. The bombs were detonated far above ground, so neutron
induction of radioactivity on the ground did not produce the degree of contamination
people associate with nuclear test sites (Nevada test site in Southwest US, Maralinga test site in
South Australia, Bikini and Mururoa Atolls, etc.). Past investigations suggested that the maximum cumulative
dose at the hypocenter from immediately after the bombing until today is 0.8 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.3-0.4
Gy in Nagasaki. When the distance is [half a kilometer or a kilometer] 0.5 km or 1.0 km from
the hypocenter, the estimates are about 1/10 and 1/100 of the value at the hypocenter,
respectively. The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly 80% of
the above-mentioned doses were released within a day, about 10% between days 2 and 5, and
the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward. Considering the extensive fires near the hypocenters that
prevented people from entering until the following day, it seems unlikely that any person received over 20%
of the above-mentioned dose, ie, 0.16 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.06-0.08 Gy in Nagasaki. As for Hiroshima
and Nagasaki proper,
the longest-lasting induced radionuclide that occurred in amounts sufficient to
Most of the induced radioactivities

from various radionuclides decayed very quickly so that it now takes considerable time and
effort to measure it using highly sensitive equipment . Despite such miniscule levels,
cause concern was cesium-134 (with a half-life of about 2 years).
measurements of residual radioactivity using recently developed ultra-sensitive techniques have been
utilized to estimate neutron doses released from the bombs and have formed part of the basis of the latest
atomic-bomb dosimetry (DS02). Although the levels of residual radioactivity at the hypocenters in Hiroshima
and Nagasaki were initially high, they declined quickly and are now far less than the dose received from
background radiation. Hence, there is no detectable effect of present-day residual radiation
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
147
on human health. In fact, today both Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities with large
populations.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
148
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
149
Radiation No Extinction
Chernobyl proves theres no risk of extinction, environmental

effects are empirically denied
Smith, 2002 Quentin, Western Michigan University, Review Essay of John Leslie's The End of the World
(London: Routledge, 1996), pp. vii + 310. http://www.qsmithwmu.com/leslie_end_of_time.htm
I shall first discuss the most pertinent evidence we have about deaths from radiation. The evidence of the Chernoyble
disaster have shown the dangers of radiation to have been greatly overestimated by
previous studies. The explosion of the nuclear reactor at Chernoyble "was comparable to a medium-size
nuclear strike", which is often defined as a 3,000 megaton war, in terms of radiation released. (See "Ten
Years of the Chernoyble Era", by Yuri Shcherbak, Scientific American, April 1996, p. 45.) This does not include, of course, the immediate heat and
blast effects of a bomb, but that is not the relevant issue here, which is the long term radiation effects. "The destroyed reactor liberated
the effects
are considerably less than had normally been expected. Even Greenpeace Organization, which
is politically inclined towards the worst case estimates, estimates only 32,000 deaths . (Yuri p. 46). A 1997 documentary
indicated that animals, such as mice, are currently thriving next to the old reactor, contrary
to expectations. The genes of the mice mutated, but the mice adapted and flourished.
hundreds of times more radiation than was produced by the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" (Yuri, p. 45). And yet
If there are only 32,000 deaths from long term radiation effects from an equivalent to a medium-sized nuclear strike of the US upon Russia, then
we can effectively dismiss long term radiation as a potential cause of the extinction
of
the human species in a nuclear war.
No extinction radiation dissipates rapidly, long term cancer deaths

arent enough, airburst solves
Nyquist, 1999 J.R., May 20, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and
international relations, Is nuclear war survivable? www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?
fa=PAGE.view&pageId=6341
Wouldn't the radiation from a nuclear war

contaminate the whole earth, killing everyone? The short answer is: absolutely not. Nuclear fallout is a
OK, so nuclear winter isn't going to happen. What about nuclear fallout?
problem, but we should not exaggerate its effects. As it happens, there are two types of fallout produced by nuclear detonations. These are: 1)
delayed fallout; and 2) short-term fallout. According to researcher Peter V. Pry, "Delayed fallout will not, contrary to popular belief, gradually kill
delayed fallout would increase the number of people

dying of lymphatic cancer, leukemia, and cancer of the thyroid. "However," says Pry, "these deaths would
probably be far fewer than deaths now resulting from ... smoking, or from automobile
accidents." The real hazard in a nuclear war is the short-term fallout. This is a type of fallout created when a
billions of people everywhere in the world." Of course,
nuclear weapon is detonated at ground level. This type of fallout could kill millions of people, depending on the targeting strategy of the
But short-term fallout rapidly subsides to safe levels in 13 to 18 days. It is not

Those in affected areas can survive if they
have access to underground shelters. In some areas, staying indoors may even suffice.
Contrary to popular misconception, there were no documented deaths from short-term or delayed fallout at either Hiroshima or
Nagasaki. These blasts were low airbursts, which produced minimal fallout effects. Today's
thermonuclear weapons are even "cleaner." If used in airburst mode, these weapons
would produce few (if any) fallout casualties.
attacking country.
permanent. People who live outside of the affected areas will be fine.
Absolutely no chance of extinction only a minor increase in cancer deaths
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
150
Martin, 1982 Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modeling, research
associate in the Dept. of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, and a member of
SANA, Critique of nuclear extinction, Published in Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1982, pp. 287300, www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html
The cancers and genetic defects caused by global fallout from a nuclear war would only appear
over a period of many decades, and would cause only a small increase in the current
rates of cancer and genetic defects. The scientific evidence clearly shows that global fallout from
even the largest nuclear war poses no threat to the survival of the human species .
Nevertheless, the fact that hundreds of thousands or millions of people who would suffer and die from global fallout cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, many more people than this would die from exposure to fallout in the immediate vicinity of nuclear explosions.
No immediate death from radiation

Martin, 84
(Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modeling. He is a

research associate in the Dept. of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National
University, and a member of SANA, Extinction Politics, SANA Update)
Yet in spite of the widespread belief in nuclear extinction, there was almost no scientific support for such a possibility. The scenario of the book
fallout clouds gradually enveloping the earth and wiping out all life, was and is fiction. The
scientific evidence is that fallout would only kill people who are immediately downwind
of surface nuclear explosions and who are heavily exposed during the first few days.
Global fallout has no potential for causing massive immediate death (though it could cause up to
and movie On the Beach,[2] with
millions of cancers worldwide over many decades).[3] In spite of the lack of evidence, large sections of the peace movement have left
unaddressed the question of whether nuclear war inevitably means global extinction.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
151
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
152
Radiation No Extinction
Global nuclear war wouldnt cause extinction fallout wouldnt

poison the environment, global radiation would quickly dissipate,
only isolated hotspots would remain, fallout shelters solve
Kearny, 87
Cresson H., two degrees in geology at Oxford, Jungle Experiment Officer of the Panama Mobile Force, demolitions expert in the Office of
Strategic Services, research analyst at the Hudson Institute, worked with Herman Kahn on nuclear scenario planning, Nuclear War Survival
Skills: Updated and Expanded"
An all-out nuclear war between Russia and the United States would be the worst catastrophe in
history, a tragedy so huge it is difficult to comprehend. Even so, it would be far from the end of
human life on earth. The dangers from nuclear weapons have been distorted and exaggerated, for varied
reasons. These exaggerations have become demoralizing myths, believed by millions of Americans.
While working with hundreds of Americans building expedient shelters and life-support equipment, I have
found that many people at first see no sense in talking about details of survival skills. Those who hold
exaggerated beliefs about the dangers from nuclear weapons must first be convinced that nuclear war
would not inevitably be the end of them and everything worthwhile. Only after they have begun to question
the truth of these myths do they become interested, under normal peacetime conditions, in acquiring
nuclear war survival skills. Therefore, before giving detailed instructions for making and using survival
equipment, we will examine the most harmful of the myths about nuclear war dangers, along with some of
the grim facts.
Myth: Fallout radiation from a nuclear war would poison the air and all parts of the
environment. It would kill everyone. (This is the demoralizing message of On the Beach and many
similar pseudoscientific books and articles.)
Facts:
When a nuclear weapon explodes near enough to the ground for its fireball to touch the ground, it
forms a crater. (See Fig. 1.1.)

Many thousands of tons of earth from the crater of a large explosion are pulverized into trillions of particles.
These particles are contaminated by radioactive atoms produced by the nuclear explosion. Thousands of
tons of the particles are carried up into a mushroom-shaped cloud, miles above the earth. These radioactive
particles then fall out of the mushroom cloud, or out of the dispersing cloud of particles blown by the winds
thus becoming fallout.
Each contaminated particle continuously gives off invisible radiation, much like a tiny X-ray machine while in
the mushroom cloud, while descending, and after having fallen to earth. The descending radioactive
particles are carried by the winds like the sand and dust particles of a miles-thick sandstorm cloud except
that they usually are blown at lower speeds and in many areas the particles are so far apart that no cloud is
seen. The largest, heaviest fallout particles reach the ground first, in locations close to the explosion. Many
smaller particles are carried by the winds for tens to thousands of miles before falling to earth. At any one
place where fallout from a single explosion is being deposited on the ground in concentrations high enough
to require the use of shelters, deposition will be completed within a few hours.
The smallest fallout particles those tiny enough to be inhaled into a person's lungs are
invisible to the naked eye. These tiny particles would fall so slowly from the four-mile or
greater heights to which they would be injected by currently deployed Soviet warheads that most would
remain airborne for weeks to years before reaching the ground. By that time their
extremely wide dispersal and radioactive decay would make them much less
dangerous. Only where such tiny particles are promptly brought to earth by rain- outs
or snow-outs in scattered "hot spots," and later dried and blown about by the winds, would
these invisible particles constitute a long-term and relatively minor post-attack danger .
The air in properly designed fallout shelters, even those without air filters, is free of
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
153
radioactive particles and safe to breathe except in a few' rare environments as will be explained
later. Fortunately for all living things, the danger from fallout radiation lessens with time. The
radioactive decay, as this lessening is called, is rapid at first, then gets slower and slower. The dose
rate (the amount of radiation received per hour) decreases accordingly. Figure 1.2 illustrates the rapidity of
the decay of radiation from fallout during the first two days after the nuclear explosion that produced it. R
stands for roentgen, a measurement unit often used to measure exposure to gamma rays and X rays. Fallout
meters called dosimeters measure the dose received by recording the number of R. Fallout meters called
survey meters, or dose-rate meters, measure the dose rate by recording the number of R being received per
hour at the time of measurement. Notice that it takes about seven times as long for the dose rate to decay
from 1000 roentgens per hour (1000 R/hr) to 10 R/hr (48 hours) as to decay from 1000 R/hr to 100 R/hr (7
hours). (Only in high-fallout areas would the dose rate 1 hour after the explosion be as high as 1000
roentgens per hour.) If the dose rate 1 hour after an explosion is 1000 [Roentgens per
hour] R/hr, it would take about 2 weeks for the dose rate to be reduced to 1 R/hr solely as a
result of radioactive decay. Weathering effects will reduce the dose rate further ,' for example,
rain can wash fallout particles from plants and houses to lower positions on or closer to the ground.
Surrounding objects would reduce the radiation dose from these low-lying particles.
Figure 1.2 also illustrates the fact that at a typical location where a given amount of fallout from an explosion
is deposited later than 1 hour after the explosion, the highest dose rate and the total dose received at that
location are less than at a location where the same amount of fallout is deposited 1 hour after the explosion.
The longer fallout particles have been airborne before reaching the ground, the less dangerous is their
radiation. Within two weeks after an attack the occupants of most shelters could safely
stop using them, or could work outside the shelters for an increasing number of hours each day.
Exceptions would be in areas of extremely heavy fallout such as might occur downwind
from important targets attacked with many weapons, especially missile sites and very large
cities. To know when to come out safely, occupants either would need a reliable fallout meter to measure the
changing radiation dangers, or must receive information based on measurements made nearby with a
reliable instrument.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
154
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
155
Radiation Environment
Radiation creates permanent wildlife zones with animals that

humans cant eat perfect for conservation
BBC, April 20, 2006, Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation
The exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is teeming with life . As
humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations
multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to
return. There are even tantalising footprints of a bear, an animal that has not trodden this part of Ukraine
for centuries. "Animals don't seem to sense radiation and will occupy an area regardless
of the radiation condition," says radioecologist Sergey Gaschak. "A lot of birds are nesting inside the
sarcophagus," he adds, referring to the steel and concrete shield erected over the reactor that exploded in
1986. "Starlings, pigeons, swallows, redstart - I saw nests, and I found eggs." There
may be plutonium in the zone, but there is no herbicide or pesticide, no industry, no

traffic, and marshlands are no longer being drained. There is nothing to disturb the
wild boar - said to have multiplied eightfold between 1986 and 1988 - except its similarly resurgent
predator, the wolf. Inedible The picture was not quite so rosy in the first weeks and months after of the
disaster, when radiation levels were much, much higher. Four square kilometers of pine forest in the
immediate vicinity of the reactor went ginger brown and died, earning the name of the Red Forest. Some
animals in the worst-hit areas also died or stopped reproducing. Mice embryos simply dissolved, while horses
left on an island 6km from the power plant died when their thyroid glands disintegrated. Cattle on the same
island were stunted due to thyroid damage, but the next generation were found to be surprisingly normal.
Now it's typical for animals to be radioactive - too radioactive for humans to eat safely -
but otherwise healthy.
This outweighs we should irradiate the rainforest, then wed stop logging
the benefits to wildlife of removing people from the zone, have far
outweighed any harm from radiation. In her book she quotes the British scientist and
But she too argues that
environmentalist James Lovelock, who wrote approvingly in the Daily Telegraph in 2001 of the "unscheduled
appearance" of wildlife at Chernobyl. He went on: "I have wondered if the small volumes of
nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other
habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers".
A large part of the Chernobyl zone within Belarus has already officially been turned
into a nature reserve.
Theyll say Chernobyl was an isolated incident, which allowed

surrounding species to fill in. False local wildlife adapted to
radiation, new comers get sick
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
156
these unfortunate creatures can adapt to their circumstances .
Sergey Gaschak has experimented on mice in the Red Forest, parts of which are slowly growing back,
But there are signs that
albeit with stunted and misshapen trees. "We marked animals then recaptured them again much later," he
says. "And we found they lived as long as animals in relatively clean areas ." The next step
was to take these other mice and put them in an enclosure in the Red Forest. "They
felt not very well," Sergey says. "The distinction between the local and newcomer animals
was very evident."
No crazy mutations
In all his research, Sergey has only found one mouse with cancer-like symptoms .
He has found ample evidence of DNA mutations, but nothing that affected the animals'
physiology or reproductive ability.
"Nothing with two heads," he says.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
157
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
158
Radiation A2: Forests
Red forest around Chernobyl proves wildlife rebounds even if

there are negative effects, radiation scares away humans which are
worse
National Geographic, April 26, 2006
Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving
The effects of the Chernobyl catastrophe are still being felt todaywhole towns lie abandoned, and cancer
rates in people living close to the affected areas are abnormally high. But it turns out that the radioactive
cloud may have a silver lining. Recent studies suggest that the 19-mile (30-kilometer)
"exclusion zone" set up around the reactor has turned into a wildlife haven. Roe deer
bounce though the deserted houses while bats roost in the rafters (related photos: inside today's Chernobyl).
Plants and trees have sprung back to life, and rare species, such as lynx, Przewalski's
horses, and eagle owls, are thriving where most humans fear to tread. From Red to Green
The situation is a far cry from the way things looked just after the accident. Initially many
animals died from the huge doses of radiation they received. The red color of withered pine needles
earned one large area near the reactor the name Red Forest. "Now it is not the Red Forest
but a real green forest, due to [growing] birch trees," said Sergey Gaschak from the International
Radioecology Laboratory in Kiev, Ukraine. And in the towns where humans have moved out, plants and
animals seem to have moved in. "Wild boar like to live in former villages, and I have found many birds'
nests in the buildings," Gaschak said. Even the site of the explosion seems to be bursting with
life.
"I met a hare in the sarcophagus area, and birds nest there," said Gaschak, referring to the concrete
and steel shell that encases the still smoldering reactor. But while wildlife seems to be proliferating in the
Chernobyl exclusion zone, not everyone is convinced that these plants and animals are healthy. Anders
Moller from the University of Pierre et Marie Curie in Paris, France, and Tim Mousseau from the University of
South Carolina (USC) in Columbia have been studying Chernobyl's bird populations. Mousseau is a National
Geographic Society grantee. (National Geographic News is part of the National Geographic Society.) Moller
and Mousseau have shown that certain species in the area have a higher rate of genetic abnormalities than
normal. "We find an elevated frequency of partial albinism in barn swallows, meaning they have tufts of
white feathers," Mousseau said. Late last year Moller and Mousseau published a paper in the Journal of
Animal Ecology showing that reproductive rates and annual survival rates are much lower in the Chernobyl
birds than in control populations. "In Italy around 40 percent of the barn swallows return each year, whereas
the annual survival rate is 15 percent or less for Chernobyl," Mousseau said. Moller and Mousseau think that
migratory species, such as the barn swallow, are particularly vulnerable to radioactive contaminants,
because they arrive in the area exhausted and with depleted reserves of protective antioxidants due to their
arduous journey. The scientists are also concerned that the mutated birds will pass on their abnormal genes
to the global population. "In the worst case scenario these genetic mutations will spread out, and the
species as a whole may experience enhanced levels of mutation," Mousseau said. "Great Irony" Mutation
isn't the only adverse effect of the radiation. Working in the Red Forest area, James Morris, a USC biologist,
has observed some trees with very strange twisted shapes. The radiation, he says, is confusing the
hormone signal that the trees use to determine which direction to grow. "These trees are having a terrible
time knowing which way is up," Morris said. Gaschak, the Kiev ecologist, believes such radiation effects
will diminish over time. He is celebrating the way that Chernobyl has burst into life and
hopes that the area will become a national park one day. But Mousseau is less optimistic.
"One of the great ironies of this particular tragedy is that many animals are doing
considerably better than when the humans were there," he said.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
159
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
160
Radiation A2: Insects
Insects shrug off radiation like its nothing

Slate, Tuesday, July 8, 2008, Will Cockroaches Inherit the Earth?
Cockroaches are more resistant to
radiation than humans and nearly all other noninsect animals. This is because they are
relatively simple organisms with fewer genes that might develop mutations. Roach
cells also divide more slowly than human cells, which gives them more time to fix
problems caused by radiation, such as broken strands of DNA. Whereas a person will
certainly die from a radiation dose of 1,000 rads, cockroaches can withstand more
than 10 times that amount. (For comparison, a full-body CT scan gives a dose of 2 or 3 rads.)
There is at least a modest scientific basis for the myth:
Most recent experiment proves insects would be fine

The Hindu, 2008 Myth of cockroachs immunity to nuclear irradiation busted
The staff of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory at Hanford site (U.S.) assisted the team
to expose three groups of German cockroaches (50 each) to 1,000, 10,000 and 100,000
rads of gamma radiation using an irradiator located in the basement of a building at Hanford. The
fourth group of 50 cockroaches served as control... (Rad is a unit of radiation dose; a dose of 450 rads
may kill 50 per cent of the persons exposed). They exposed similar groups of 50 flour
beetles and 100 fruit flies which represented other living forms to similar doses. Many
bugs initially survived after receiving 1,000 rads and 10,000 rads . However, only some flour beetles
survived after receiving a dose of 100,000 rads. Fruit flies and flour beetles are found to be
tougher than cockroaches. For instance, on the second day after receiving 100,000 rads, all the
cockroaches died; 40 per cent of the fruit flies and 90 per cent of the flour beetles survived. The survivors
will be infertile. While cockroaches survived much more than the humans would, the other two test subjects
did better than the cockroach, the TV channel declared. They concluded that they busted the myth since,
more life forms than cockroaches survived! The spectators reactions to the TV programme, revealed how
differently the common man understands radiation related concepts. Is it safe to go into the room after
cobalt irradiated the bugs? A viewer wanted to know. The questioner wrongly felt that irradiation with cobalt
will leave the room radioactive! One viewer objected to the use of cobalt radiation to irradiate the bug.
Considering that the myth was will cockroaches survive a nuclear blast shouldnt they have used
uranium-238? he queried. I believe that this is the substance used in modern day nuclear weapons, he
argued. (Obviously he did not understand the difference between radiation from a nuclear weapon and that
from uranium-238). It was equally wrong on the part of the TV channel to claim that they are exposing the
insects to a nuclear blast when they actually exposed the bugs to gamma radiation from a cobalt source.
The survivability of cockroaches in a nuclear war has been a topic of interest for several years. Based on
the work of Hassett and Jenkins (Nucleonics, 1952),Professor John Moulder, Professor of Radiation
Biology, Medical College of Wisconsin, noted that about 900-1,000 Gys are needed to kill a cockroach (one
Gy= 100rads); more dose is required if the dose is delivered at a slower rate. The claim that
not enough scientific data are available is not true. Strong evidence In 1957, Drs Wharton and Wharton
found that 1,000 rad can interfere with the fertility of cockroach . In 1963, Drs Ross and Cochran
found that a low dose of 6,400 rad would kill 93 per cent of immature German cockroaches.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
161
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
162
Insects Offense
We control the U insects are dying out now, extinction

Independent, Nov 2008, Insecticide! (An ecological disaster that will affect us all)
It is a realisation that may be dawning at last: the importance of the little things that rule the world. The
great American biologist, E O Wilson, said insects were world-rulers, but although they play a central
role in maintaining ecosystems and the whole web of life, most insects have long been viewed
with distaste or even revulsion as creepie-crawlies (apart from butterflies, which have been viewed as
something akin to honorary mini-birds). But the recent alarms in Britain, Europe and America
about the fate of the honey bee colonies have been crashing in increasing numbers have
started to open people's eyes to insects' importance in a more general way, says Matt
Shardlow, director of Buglife, the Invertebrate Conservation Trust. But it is only the beginning of an
understanding, he says, and much more is needed if we are to take the action necessary to preserve our
populations of insects and other invertebrates, the creatures without backbones which make up the majority
of animal life, including snails, worms and spiders (spiders being arachnids, not insects). The population
declines among invertebrates in general and insects in particular are now greater than among any other
group of living things, greater than declines in mammals, birds and plants. Yet although people get
excited about endangered pandas, or eagles, or orchids, endangered insects generally remain
below the level of their perception, Mr Shardlow says. "There was a book published in the early
1990s called Insect Conservation, a Neglected Green Issue, and it remains the case that levels of awareness
of what's happening with the small things, such as insects, are much lower than with what's happening with
big things, such as trees, or birds, or whales," he says. "The bigger you are, the bigger the bit of wildlife, the
greater the chance that people will be paying attention to what's happening to you. " There are more
extinctions among invertebrates than in any other groups, and a greater proportion of
the species are in decline, and the decline is steeper , than in plants, birds and mammals,
wherever there is data."
Theyd feast on the corpses.

A.F. Phillips, 2000
M.D. MEDICAL PROBLEMS AFTER NUCLEAR WAR
Flies and other insects are more resistant to

radiation than mammals, and would have abundant food supply in the many human
and animal corpses. Their rate of reproduction is rapid. Rats, mice, domestic and other small
*Multiplication of pests* could be expected.
mammals might be less exposed to blast and radiation, and would have the same abundant food supply.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
163
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
164
Insect U Extension
We control the U modern cities annihilate bugs

Philadelphia Inquirer Jan. 12, 2009 Polarized light pollution' bugs water-loving bugs
Dark, shiny surfaces such as skyscraper windows, parking lots and cars can reflect
light in a way that makes them look like pools of water to water-loving bugs. When the
insects zero in on what seems like a nice place to feed, mate or reproduce, they are fatally
disappointed. Michigan State University ecologist Bruce Robertson and his colleagues have dubbed this
problem "polarized light pollution." It's sort of like the illusion of water that drivers see when light from the
sky hits a highway at a certain angle. But while humans know not to get out of the car and jump in, insects
are driven to the mirage by their instincts. "They can't leave. Evolution stops them,"
Robertson said. "So they get eaten by birds or die of exhaustion or can't reproduce."
Depleting insect populations can disrupt the food chain and reduce diversity.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
165
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
166
Radiation A2: Nuclear Power Kills Fish
These cards are out of context the water intakes of nuclear

reactors kill fish, not radiation
Henderson, 4/22/08
Dr. Peter, environmental researcher, www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1661
Sir,
Current decisions on energy generation and use will have great and long lasting impacts on the future well
being of man and other life. To make the wisest choices we must carefully muster the facts and generate
open debate of the options. While the article in yesterdays Times on the effects on fish of nuclear power
station cooling water systems headlined Nuclear plants sucking the sea life from British waters certainly
stimulated debate, it did a disservice in being factually misleading.
First, as I pointed out before the article was printed, it is incorrect that one of the main killers of
fish and plankton passing through the cooling water circuits is radiation . This error may
be related to the incorrect claim that the cooling water is used to cool the reactors . It is
used to condense the steam passing through the turbines , as is also the case in coal, gas or
oil-fired generating stations. The assertion that radiation was one of the main killers was
presumably to make valid concerns about the destruction of aquatic life by oncethrough cooling water systems a nuclear generation issue, which it is not.
The key environmental issue for power stations sited on estuarine and marine sites is the number
of organisms that are sucked through the condenser cooling water circuits and returned to
sea. We know that the number of fish eggs and larvae sucked through these systems in Northern Europe is
likely to be in the order of billions per year, a number that is truly colossal and almost incomprehensible.
However, we must get a handle on the ecological meaning of this number and this requires more research
and consideration of the options.
The article left the reader with the impression that destruction of large amounts of aquatic life is an
inevitable consequence of nuclear power station operation. This is incorrect, as many engineering
solutions are available. For example, cooling water intakes and outfalls can be better designed
and located to minimise impacts, they can be fitted with fish exclusion devices, we can use cooling
towers or dry cooling to reduce cooling water volume. If we take care with our facts, an informed debate on
the environmental merits and costs of the various options can take place, and I remain confident that we will
find the optimum solution.
Dr Peter Henderson
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
167
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
168
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
169
Oceans Frontline
No internal link they assume we would be actively targeting the oceans there is
no military incentive and nukes would be targeted at strategic military locations and
high population centers
2. The ocean can survive nuclear war
IHT 8 (International Herald Tribune,

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/04/15/asia/bikini.php)
Coral is again flourishing in the crater left by the largest nuclear weapon ever
detonated by the United States, 54 years after the blast on Bikini Atoll, marine scientists said Tuesday.
CANBERRA:
A team of research divers visited Bravo crater, ground zero for the test of a thermonuclear weapon in the
Marshall Islands on March 1, 1954, and found large numbers of fish and coral growing, although some
species appeared to be locally extinct. "I didn't know what to expect, some kind of moonscape perhaps, but
it was incredible," Zoe Richards, from Australia's James Cook University, said about the team's trip to the
atoll in the South Pacific. "We saw communities not too far from any coral reef, with plenty of fish,
corals and action going on, some really striking individual colonies, " she said. The 15megaton hydrogen bomb was 1,000 times more powerful than the weapon that
destroyed Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945, and it vaporized islands with temperatures hitting 55,000 degrees
Celsius, or about 99,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The Bikini blast shook islands as far away as 200 kilometers, or
125 miles.
3. Multiple studies prove sinking nuclear subs has no environmental effect
Nadis, 1996
Steven, former staff researcher for the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Atlantic Monthly; October 1996;
The Sub-Seabed Solution; Volume 278, No. 4; pages 28-39. The Sub-Seabed Solution
The government's unwillingness to prepare a good fallback position in the face of mounting difficulties
seems like sheer folly. Although the DOE is not supporting any work on alternative disposal concepts at
present, Hollister has not given up. While the ambitious research program he helped to fashion is on hold,
spent six
weeks in the Norwegian Sea studying a Soviet nuclear sub that had sunk years before
in the middle of an active fishing ground. "The scientific evidence to date points to
zero impact if the nuclear material sits beneath the bottom of the sea or even on the bottom,"
he says. Other analyses of radioactive spills in the marine environment have reached a
similar conclusion: high-level radioactive materials tend to stay put if they are placed
in or on a clay-rich sea floor, Hollister claims. Vertical migration rates are so slow that it is
"virtually impossible" for measurable concentrations of radioactivity to reach the
surface from deep water. "Many people don't like this conclusion," he adds, "but I've never seen any
he continues to explore the sub-seabed concept in indirect ways. In 1993, for example, he
data in the oceanographic literature that refute it."
4. The clay at the bottom of the ocean absorbs radiation perfectly no risk
Nadis, 1996
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
170
Steven, former staff researcher for the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Atlantic Monthly; October 1996;
The Sub-Seabed Solution; Volume 278, No. 4; pages 28-39. The Sub-Seabed Solution
Experiments conducted by this international team of scientists from 1974 to 1986 support Hollister's opinion
that the sticky mud and clays that blanket the mid-ocean basins may provide the best
burial grounds yet proposed for nuclear waste. These tests suggest that if waste canisters were
deposited just ten meters below the ocean floor, any toxic substances that leaked out would be
bound up by the clays for millions of years. Deeper interment, at 100 meters or more, could easily
be managed, providing an even greater margin of safety. "The stuff sticks to the mud and sits
there like heavy lead," Hollister maintains. "Nothing's going to bring it into the biosphere,
unless we figure out how to reverse gravity."
5. Not enough radiation

A. Maximum doses from Hiroshima and Nagasaki were point eight grays cumulatively.
RERF, 2007
Radiation Effects Research Foundation, Cooperative Japan-US research Organization, FAQ,
http://www.rerf.or.jp/general/qa_e/index.html
Q.12
Are Hiroshima and Nagasaki still radioactive?
A.12
The practical answer is, "No."
People often ask, "If uranium and plutonium pose a potential hazard in nuclear waste sites and were present at dangerous levels in the
environment following the Chernobyl nuclear accident, why aren't Hiroshima and Nagasaki still uninhabitable?" There are two ways residual
radioactivity is produced from an atomic blast. The first is due to fallout of the fission products or the nuclear material itself--uranium or
plutonium (uranium was used for the Hiroshima bomb whereas plutonium was used for the Nagasaki bomb)--that contaminate the ground.
Similar ground contamination occurred as a consequence of the Chernobyl accident, but on a much larger scale (click here for more-detailed
explanation). The second way residual radioactivity is produced is by neutron irradiation of soil or buildings (neutron activation), causing nonradioactive materials to become radioactive. Fallout. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs exploded at altitudes of 600 meters and 503 meters,
respectively, then formed huge fireballs that rose with the ascending air currents. About 10% of the nuclear material in the bombs underwent
fission; the remaining 90% rose in the atmosphere with the fireball. Subsequently, the material cooled down and some of it started to fall with
rain (black rain) in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki areas, but probably most of the remaining uranium or plutonium was dispersed widely in the
atmosphere. Because of the wind, the rain did not fall directly on the hypocenters but rather in the northwest region (Koi, Takasu area) of
The maximum estimates of dose due to fallout

are 0.01-0.03 Gy in Hiroshima and 0.2-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. The corresponding doses at the hypocenters
Hiroshima and the eastern region (Nishiyama area) of Nagasaki.
are believed to be only about 1/10 of these values. Nowadays, the radioactivity is so miniscule that it is difficult to distinguish from trace
amounts (including plutonium) of radioactivity caused by worldwide fallout from atmospheric (as opposed to underground) atomic-bomb tests
that were conducted around the world in past decades, particularly in the 1950's and 1960's. Neutron activation. Neutrons comprised 10% or
less of the A-bomb radiation, whereas gamma rays comprised the majority of A-bomb radiation. Neutrons cause ordinary, non-radioactive
materials to become radioactive, but gamma rays do not. The bombs were detonated far above ground, so neutron induction of radioactivity on
the ground did not produce the degree of contamination people associate with nuclear test sites (Nevada test site in Southwest US, Maralinga
the maximum cumulative

dose at the hypocenter from immediately after the bombing until today is 0.8 Gy in
Hiroshima and 0.3-0.4 Gy in Nagasaki. When the distance is 0.5 km or 1.0 km from the hypocenter, the estimates are
about 1/10 and 1/100 of the value at the hypocenter, respectively. The induced radioactivity decayed very quickly with time. In fact, nearly
80% of the above-mentioned doses were released within a day , about 10% between days 2 and 5,
and the remaining 10% from day 6 afterward. Considering the extensive fires near the hypocenters that prevented
test site in South Australia, Bikini and Mururoa Atolls, etc.). Past investigations suggested that
people from entering until the following day, it seems unlikely that any person received over 20% of the above-mentioned dose, ie, 0.16 Gy in
Hiroshima and 0.06-0.08 Gy in Nagasaki. As for Hiroshima and Nagasaki proper, the longest-lasting induced radionuclide that occurred in
amounts sufficient to cause concern was cesium-134 (with a half-life of about 2 years). Most of the induced radioactivities from various
radionuclides decayed very quickly so that it now takes considerable time and effort to measure it using highly sensitive equipment. Despite
such miniscule levels, measurements of residual radioactivity using recently developed ultra-sensitive techniques have been utilized to estimate
neutron doses released from the bombs and have formed part of the basis of the latest atomic-bomb dosimetry (DS02). Although the levels of
residual radioactivity at the hypocenters in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were initially high, they declined quickly and are now far less than the dose
received from background radiation. Hence, there is no detectable effect of present-day residual radiation on human health. In fact, today both
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities with large populations.
B. The ocean dose is five hundred and thirty times lower than that
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
171
January 21, 2009
Radioactive Contamination: Nuclear Fallout
After "Bravo", it was discovered that fallout landing on the ocean disperses in the top
water layer (above the thermocline at 100 m depth), and the land equivalent dose rate can be
calculated by multiplying the ocean dose rate at two days after burst by a factor of
about 530. In other 1954 tests, including "Yankee" and "Nectar," hotspots were mapped out by ships with
submersible probes, and similar hotspots occurred in 1956 tests such as "Zuni" and "Tewa"
[http://worf.eh.doe.gov/data/ihp1c/0881_a.pdf ] However, the major U.S. 'DELFIC' (Defence Land
Fallout Interpretive Code) computer calculations use the natural size distributions of particles in soil instead
of the afterwind sweep-up spectrum, and this results in more straightforward fallout patterns lacking the
downwind hotspot.
6. Climactic effects of nuclear winter vary by geography coasts

are almost entirely unaffected
Thompson and Schneider, 1986 Starley L, atmospheric scientist and climate theorist at the
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Stephen H., atmospheric scientist and public policy analyst, is
Deputy Director of the Advanced Study Program at NCAR, Foreign Affairs, Nuclear Winter Reappraised
At any
specific location in the model, however, the temperatures are considerably more
variable. For example, some large areas in the interiors of the North American and
Eurasian continents, particularly in Canada and Siberia, fall below freezing intermittently in the
two cases of larger amounts of smoke. On the other hand, some areas near coasts experience
little effect. Thus, it can be misleading to interpret the curves on the figures without taking into account
The curves in the figures represent averages over all the land areas in wide latitude zones.
geographic and weather variability as well. Indeed, for certain biological impacts it would be sufficient to
have only a few hours of temperature below some critical levele.g., subfreezing for wheat, or 10-15C (5059F) for rice.^^
7. Even TTAPS doesnt predict major temperature changes for the ocean
Lyons, 1998 Tom, degree in Physics with Environmental Science, MSc in Space Science
at University College London, engineer for Astrium Ltd, home.freeuk.net/tomlyons/chapter4.htm
The smoke and dust injected into the troposphere, and further into the stratosphere, causes
an attenuation in sunlight and correspondingly a drop in temperature at the surface of the
Earth. TTAPS use the vertical optical depth as a convenient diagnostic of cloud properties to
scale atmospheric light levels and temperatures for their various scenarios. It will be useful here to use
optical depth to compare the contributions of dust and soot to the reductions in light levels, but in most
cases it will be more instructive to consider surface temperatures changes. In the 5000 MT scenario, the
initial optical depth is 4, of which 1 is due to stratospheric dust and 3 to tropospheric smoke. After 2 or
3 months the stratospheric dust begins to dominate the optical effects, as the soot in the troposphere is
mostly rained out. TTAPS predict a minimum land temperature of -23 C after 3 weeks,
with sub-freezing temperatures persisting for several months. Even the smallest drops in
land temperatures (5 to 10 C) can turn summer into winter. Ocean temperatures are unlikely to
cool more than 3 C because of their large heat capacity, but it is likely that there will be
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
172
large changes in ocean currents, as has occurred on a smaller scale in the Eastern Pacific - El Nio
(Philander, 1983).
8. New estimates of nuclear winter arent enough to cause massive drop in sunlight
Seitz 7
[Russell is a Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International

published in Nature and Foreign Affairs on the subject of nuclear winter, Jan 5, www.defensetech.org/archives/003108.html]
Affairs,
Hundman's failure to acknowledge that the old and new

studies quantitatively overlap in terms of the quantity of black carbon injected into the
model atmospheres. In the models , that parameter is independent of the 'war' scenario
whether realistic or absurd. The meltdown I refer to spans not just the 30 plus degree
difference between the old results and the new , but the gross difference in the optical depth and
the reduction in sunlight- 'nuclear winter' entered the language as an apt description of the
aftermath of a million fold reduction in sunlight, not one of ten watts per square meter or
If anything is fatally flawed, it is
less.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
173
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
174
Radiation A2: Oceans PDF
Radiation is good for fish best study proves

Thomas D. Luckey, 91
Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, School of Medicine, Columbia, MO, Radiation Hormesis,
More evidence irradiating eggs and sperm increase fish populations
Thomas D. Luckey, 91
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
175
Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, School of Medicine, Columbia, MO,
Radiation Hormesis,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
176
The Absurdities
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
177
Fallback Position
If everything goes absolutely wrong, 100,000 people would survive. Thats enough
Quentin Smith, Western Michigan University, Review Essay of John Leslie's The End of the World
(London: Routledge, 1996), pp. vii + 310. 2002 http://www.qsmithwmu.com/leslie_end_of_time.htm
The air circulation patterns of the two hemispheres normally consist of distinct
Hadley cells, each of which has independent wind patterns that circle the cell. One of the Hadley cells
normally extends from 30 degrees North to the equator. This is separate from another cell that extends from
the equator to 30 degrees South. The danger from nuclear war is that these two cells would
no longer be separate, but merge into a single cell. The 10, 400 nuclear explosions would warm
the troposphere, due to the absorption of sunlight by the smoke clouds and this would cause a single
Hadley cell to extend from 30 degrees North to 30 degrees South, carrying the smoke
and dust clouds that block the sunlight and cause lowering temperatures. Darkness and
freezing temperatures would destroy food supplies and other items necessary for survival.
However, this Hadley cell would not extend further than 30 degrees South. The wind
patterns would protect the southernmost parts of the earth from the dust and smoke
clouds. The circulation pattern below 30 degrees south is governed by a distinct
Hadley cell that circulates wind from 30 degrees South to 60 degrees South. This covers the
southern halves of Australia, Argentina and Chili, and includes all of New Zealand. This
is sufficient for the human race to survive. Survival may mean that there are left only 100,000
people on New Zealand or southern Chili, people who are reduced to living and reproducing in Stone Age
conditions. Since this is the worst case scenario of an American-Russian war for which
there is any evidence, the evidence indicates that it is highly improbable that a global
nuclear war would cause the extinction of the human species. (100,000 is not a small figure,
since there are now 100,000 apes [orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas] on the earth
and they are able to survive despite the various legal and illegal efforts of humans that
threaten their survival.)
Nuclear war would only kill 1000 people in Australia over the next 50 years
Martin, 1982
(Brian, associate professor in Science, Technology and Society at the University of Wollongong, The Global
global health effects of a major nuclear war are likely

to be much less devastating than the immediate effects of blast, heat and local fallout.
Present knowledge indicates that a large nuclear war in the northern hemisphere
would have the following effects on Australia:
The available evidence suggests that the
from fallout, death of perhaps 1000 people from cancers and genetic defects over 50
years;[42]
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
178
from
changes in ozone, a negligible effect;
from
climatic changes, a tiny chance of any effect;
from fires, a negligible effect.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
179
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
180
Shelters Solve
Improvised fallout shelters directly under nuclear blasts were fine
Kearny, 87
Myth: In the worst-hit parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki where all buildings were
demolished, everyone was killed by blast, radiation, or fire. Facts: In Nagasaki, some
people survived uninjured who were far inside tunnel shelters built for conventional air raids
and located as close as one-third mile from ground zero (the point directly below the explosion). This was
true even though these long, large shelters lacked blast doors and were deep inside
the zone within which all buildings were destroyed. (People far inside long, large, open shelters
are better protected than are those inside small, open shelters.) Many earth-covered family shelters
were essentially undamaged in areas where blast and fire destroyed all buildings . Figure
1.5 shows a typical earth covered, backyard family shelter with a crude wooden frame. This shelter was
essentially undamaged, although less than 100 yards from ground zero at Nagasaki.4 The calculated
maximum overpressure (pressure above the normal air pressure) was about 65 pounds per square inch (65
psi). Persons inside so small a shelter without a blast doorwould have been killed by blast pressure at this
distance from the explosion. However, in a recent blast test,5 an earth-covered, expedient Small-Pole Shelter
equipped with blast doors was undamaged at 53 psi. The pressure rise inside was slight not even enough to
have damaged occupants' eardrums. If poles are available, field tests have indicated that many families can
build such shelters in a few days. The great life-saving potential of blast-protective shelters
has been proven in war and confirmed by blast tests and calculations.
For example, the

area in which the air bursting of a 1-megaton weapon would wreck a 50-psi shelter with blast doors in about
2.7 square miles. Within this roughly circular area, practically all them occupants of wrecked shelters would
be killed by blast, carbon monoxide from fires, or radiation. The same blast effects would kill most people
who were using basements affording 5 psi protection, over an area of about 58 square miles.6
Some radiation will penetrate the shelter, but not a lethal amount
Kearny, 87
Myth: Fallout radiation penetrates everything; there is no escaping its deadly effects.
Some gamma radiation from fallout will penetrate the shielding materials of even
an excellent shelter and reach its occupants. However, the radiation dose that the
occupants of an excellent shelter would receive while inside this shelter can be reduced to a
dose smaller than the average American receives during his lifetime from X rays and
Facts:
other radiation exposures normal in America today. The design features of such a shelter include the use of a
sufficient thickness of earth or other heavy shielding material. Gamma rays are like X rays, but more
penetrating. Figure 1.3 shows how rapidly gamma rays are reduced in number (but not in their ability to
penetrate) by layers of packed earth. Each of the layers shown is one halving-thickness of packed earthabout 3.6 inches (9 centimeters).3 A halving- thickness is the thickness of a material which reduces by half
the dose of radiation that passes through it.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
181
Fallout shelters solve radiation
Utah Shelter System, 2005
(Weapon Effects, http://www.disastershelters.net/office_weapons.php)
If the fireball of the weapon touches the ground, the blast is defined as a `ground burst'. In a ground burst,
rock, soil, and other material in the area is vaporized and taken into the cloud. This debris is then uniformly
fused with fission products and radioactive residues and becomes radioactive itself. It then falls to the
ground as `radioactive fallout'. If the fire ball from the explosion does not reach the ground, the blast is said
to be an `air burst'. Radiation (except for initial radiation) does not become a factor in an air
burst. Gamma rays from the fallout can easily be attenuated by incorporating a 90
degree turn in the small diameter entrance. Entrances should not exceed 48 inches in diameter
and the total length of the vertical and horizontal run should be no less than 25 feet. Approximately 90% of
the gamma radiation is directed into the ground from the vertical portion of the entrance. The other 10% is
almost entirely attenuated by the horizontal portion of the entrance. We recommend that the horizontal
portion of the entrance be about 10 feet long and that it penetrate the shelter body on the side or on the
end plate. The threat of exposure to initial nuclear radiation is confined to a radius of
about one and one half miles from ground zero and would prove fatal to any
unsheltered individuals. However, in hardened blast and radiation shelters, such as
those that are being built by Utah Shelter Systems, people could survive all nuclear
weapons effects, including initial radiation, within three quarter mile of ground zero .
Shelters which may be within the initial radiation zone, must have at least 8 ft. of dirt cover and the
entrances must be configured with the proper shielding and geometry.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
182
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
183
Shelters Other Countries

Multiple countries have extensive fallout shelter systems
Glueck and Cihak, February 07, 2002
Michael Arnold, M.D., is a multiple award-winning writer who comments on medical-legal issues. Robert J.,
M.D., is a former president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Both doctors are
Harvard-trained diagnostic radiologists, Paging Doctor Strangelove
If staying put is best, you'll be wishing you had that object of 1960s (and subsequent) ridicule: a fallout
shelter. Sadly, the United States has never taken civil defense seriously . Other countries
have and do. Switzerland, for example, has shelter space for the entire population . Israel
quietly requires intense preparations. Only now are we realizing how much effort and
treasure the Soviet Union (no strangers to devastation on their own soil) spent on their effort. You
might consider building a shelter now, or going in with friends and neighbors. You'll need to stock it with the
usual provisions, plus iodide pills to prevent thyroid damage from radioactive iodine.
Russia will be fine.

Nyquist, 1999
J.R., May 20, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international
relations, Is nuclear war survivable? www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=6341
Russian military theory regards nuclear war as highly destructive, but nonetheless
winnable. Russian generals do not exaggerate the effects of mass destruction weapons. Although
nuclear war would be unprecedented in its death-dealing potential, Russian strategists
believe that a well-prepared system of tunnels and underground bunkers could save
many millions of lives. That is why Russia has built a comprehensive shelter system for
its urban populace.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
184
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
185
Schell Any Risk

The warrant of this evidence is that extinction risks require more
consideration if thats true, then environment based extinction
risks also should get the same consideration. If we win D on nuclear
war causing extinction, vote aff regardless of if we solve the case.
Turn if you dont vote aff, well summon a Lake Troll that will eat you.
Schells impact calculus is asinine provides no way to weigh comparative risks.
David M. Cheshier, January 2001, Assistant Professor of Communications and Director
of Debate at Georgia State University. Monthly Columnist for the Rostrum "IS IT MORE
IMPORTANT TO PROTECT RIGHTS OR AVERT WAR?"
These are powerful words, with an obvious utility in debates where nuclear risks are being assessed. Of
course one must be careful not to misuse Schell's argument . He cannot be saying that any risk
policy decision might culminate in eventual nuclear usage has to weighted as a 100%
certain extinction risk. Such a claim is on the face of it unsustainable since any and
every conceivable action might entail an infinitesimally small heightening of nuclear
risk. To treat Schell as implying this would produce genuine decisional paralysis ("if I put my left shoe on
first, then there's a 0.0000000.1% chance of nuclear war, which is infinite; but if I put my right shoe on
first..."). Schell implicitly recognizes this by acknowledging that from his argument "it does not follow that
any action is permitted as long as it serves the end of preventing extinction" (130). And in a literal
mathematical sense Schell's formulation seems to provide little guidance when it comes to
comparing relative nuclear risks (since it implies that a 1% chance of nuclear war should
count as infinitely large as a 99% chance , when surely we would prefer the former to the latter).
Setiz apocalyptic predictions require a higher burden of proof

thats Sagans own argument. Its also intuitively true Sagans
predictions are absurd
Crichton, January 17, 2003 Michael, Harvard degree in anthropology, MD from Harvard medical, speech
at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Aliens cause Global Warming
According to Sagan and his co-workers, even a limited 5,000 megaton nuclear exchange
would cause a global temperature drop of more than 35 degrees Centigrade, and this
change would last for three months. The greatest volcanic eruptions that we know of changed
world temperatures somewhere between .5 and 2 degrees Centigrade. Ice ages changed
global temperatures by 10 degrees. Here we have an estimated change three times
greater than any ice age. One might expect it to be the subject of some dispute .
Uncertainty means theyve failed the burden of proofand that theyre Nazis
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
186
Crichton, January 17, 2003 Michael, Harvard degree in anthropology, MD from Harvard medical, speech
at California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, Aliens cause Global Warming
Teller said, "While it is generally recognized that details are still uncertain and deserve much more study, Dr.
Sagan nevertheless has taken the position that the whole scenario is so robust that there can be little doubt
about its main conclusions." Yet for most people, the fact that nuclear winter was a scenario
riddled with uncertainties did not seem to be relevant. I say it is hugely relevant. Once you
abandon strict adherence to what science tells us , once you start arranging the truth in a press
conference, then anything is possible. In one context, maybe you will get some
mobilization against nuclear war. But in another context, you get Lysenkoism. In another, you
get Nazi euthanasia. The danger is always there, if you subvert science to political
ends. That is why it is so important for the future of science that the line between what science can say
with certainty, and what it cannot, be drawn clearly-and defended.
Nuclear War is so speculative that evaluating things on a worst case

basis skews the results subliminally
Setiz, 1986 Russell, Visiting Scholar in Harvard University's Center for International Affairs, The Melting of
'Nuclear Winter'
Nuclear Winter never existed outside of a computer, except as a painting commissioned by a PR firm.
Instead of an earth with continents and oceans, the TTAPS model postulated a featureless, bone-dry billiard
ball. Instead of nights and days, it postulated 24-hour sunlight at one- third strength. Instead of realistic
smoke emissions, a 10-mile-thick soot cloud magically materialized, creating an alien sky as black as the ink
you are reading. The model dealt with such complications as geography, winds, sunrise, sunset and patchy
clouds in a stunningly elegant manner they were ignored. When later computer models incorporated these
elements, the flat black sky of TTAPS fell apart into a pale and broken shadow that traveled less far and
dissipated more quickly. The TTAPS model entailed a long series of conjectures: if this
much smoke goes up, if it is this dense, if it moves like this, and so on. The
improbability of a string of 40 such coin tosses coming up heads approaches that of a
pat royal flush. Yet it was represented as a "sophisticated one- dimensional model" -- a usage that is
oxymoronic, unless applied to Twiggy. To the limitations of the software were added those of
the data. It was an unknown and very complex topic, hard data was scant, so guesstimates prevailed.
Not only were these educated guesses rampant throughout the process, but it was
deemed prudent, given the gravity of the subject, to lean toward the worst-case end of the
spectrum for dozens of the numbers involved. Political considerations subliminally skewed the
model away from natural history, while seeming to make the expression "nuclear freeze" a part of it. "The
question of peer review is essential. That is why we have delayed so long in the publication of these dire
results," said Carl Sagan in late 1983.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
187
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
188
Overkill
This argument relies on linear extrapolation this is absurdly stupid
Martin, 1982
Many calculations of 'overkill' appear to be made using the nuclear attacks on

Hiroshima and Nagasaki as a baseline. Estimates of the number of people killed at Hiroshima from a
13kt bomb range from 63,000 to over 200,000. Adopting a figure of 130,000 for illustrative purposes gives
ten people killed for each tonne of nuclear explosive. By linear extrapolation, explosion of a third
of a million times as much explosive power, 4000Mt, would kill a third of a million times as
many people, namely 40,000 million, or nearly ten times the present world population.
linear extrapolation does not apply. Suppose the
bomb dropped on Hiroshima had been 1000 times as powerful, 13Mt. It could not have
killed 1000 times as many people, but at most the entire population of Hiroshima perhaps 250,000.
Re-doing the 'overkill' calculation using these figures gives not a figure of ten but of only
0.02. This example shows that crude linear extrapolations of this sort are unlikely to provide any useful
But this factor of ten is misleading, since
information about the effects of nuclear war.

'Overkill' can be meaningful if applied to specific targets which will be attacked by several nuclear weapons.
[50] But applied to the entire world population the concept of 'overkill' is misleading. By
the same logic it might be said that there is enough water in the oceans to drown
everyone ten times.
Linear extrapolation is the stupidest thing ever

Kearny, 87
Myth: Overkill would result if all the U.S. and U.S.S.R, nuclear weapons were used meaning not only that
the two superpowers have more than enough weapons to kill all of each other's people, but also that they
have enough weapons to exterminate the human race.
Statements that the U.S. and the Soviet Union have the power to kill the world's
population several times over are based on misleading calculations . One such calculation is
to multiply the deaths produced per kiloton exploded over Hiroshima or Nagasaki by an
estimate of the number of kilotons in either side's arsenal. (A kiloton explosion is one that
produces the same amount of energy as does 1000 tons of TNT.) The unstated assumption is that
somehow the world's population could be gathered into circular crowds, each a few
miles in diameter with a population density equal to downtown Hiroshima or Nagasaki,
and then a small (Hiroshima-sized) weapon would be exploded over the center of each crowd. Other
misleading calculations are based on exaggerations of the dangers from long-lasting
radiation and other harmful effects of a nuclear war.
Facts:
H-Bombs prove linear extrapolations stupid
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
189
Kearny, 87
Myth: Because some modern H-bombs are over 1000 times as powerful as the A-bomb
Hiroshima, these H-bombs are 1000 times as deadly and
destructive.
that destroyed most of
A nuclear weapon 1000 times as powerful as the one that blasted Hiroshima, if
exploded under comparable conditions, produces equally serious blast damage to woodframe houses over an area up to about 130 times as large, not 1000 times as large.
Facts:
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
190
Synergy
Nuclear war will leave 9/10ths of the world population alive and
most of the globe unaffected
Martin 82
Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modeling, research associate in the Dept. of
Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, and a member of SANA, Critique of nuclear
extinction, Published in Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1982, pp. 287-300,
www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html
(f) Synergistic and unpredicted effects. The interaction of different effects, such as
could well
increase the death toll significantly. These consequences would mostly be confined to
heavily bombed areas. Finally, there is the possibility of effects currently dismissed or not predicted
weakened resistance to disease due to high radiation exposure or to shortages of food,
leading to many more deaths from nuclear war.[11]
a major global nuclear war in which population centres in the US,

with no effective civil defence measures taken,
could kill directly perhaps 400 to 450 million people . Induced effects, in particular
starvation or epidemics following agricultural failure or economic breakdown, might add up to several
hundred million deaths to the total, though this is most uncertain. Such an eventuality
would be a catastrophe of enormous proportions, but it is far from extinction. Even in the
most extreme case there would remain alive some 4000 million people, about nine-tenths of
the world's population, most of them unaffected physically by the nuclear war. The
following areas would be relatively unscathed , unless nuclear attacks were made in these
regions: South and Central America, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent,
Southeast Asia, Australasia, Oceania and large parts of China. Even in the mid-latitudes of
the northern hemisphere where most of the nuclear weapons would be exploded, areas upwind of
nuclear attacks would remain free of heavy radioactive contamination, such as
Portugal, Ireland and British Columbia.
To summarise the above points,
Soviet Union, Europe and China ware targeted,
Probability of synergy effects causing extinction is so low that you

shouldnt consider it
Thompson and Schneider, 1986
Starley L, atmospheric scientist and climate theorist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
Stephen H., atmospheric scientist and public policy analyst, is Deputy Director of the Advanced Study
Program at NCAR, Foreign Affairs, Nuclear Winter Reappraised
The interaction between a failure of the Asian summer monsoon and the disruption of international trade in
food, for example, would be a potent prescription for mass starvation on the Indian subcontinent. Many
other interactions can be speculated upon , such as those of radiation-induced depression of the
human immune system, disruption of medical services and epidemics of contagious diseases; such
synergisms deserve the serious study that might allow us to draw less speculative conclusions. Therefore it
is still quite plausible that climatic disturbances, radioactive fallout, ozone depletions
and the interruption of basic societal services, when taken together, could threaten
more people globally than would the direct effects of explosions in a large nuclear war. In
assessments of the severity of the nuclear winter problem, the long-term trend in
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
191
temperature estimates has been directed away from the most severe effects . This trend has
not been a smooth one, however. Researchers have made refinements and enhancements to the theory that have made the climatic effects both
more and less severe. This was expected because original estimates of uncertain effects tried to incorporate "middle of the road" assumptions.
Thus, researchers knew that the tentative conclusions about nuclear winter would change with time depending on the latest refinements. This is,
Despite the potential for future changes in

conclusions, we think it is unlikely that some unforeseen effect would either bring the
estimates of nuclear winter back to the range of total climatic catastrophe or eliminate
of course, a legitimate and normal process of scientific assessment.
environmental effects altogether. The cases we have examined (20, 60 and 180 million tons of smoke)
bracket what we believe to be a wide range of probable effective smoke amounts for a large nuclear war. But
it is conceivable that even larger amounts of smoke could be created, although the
probability now seems small. Similarly, less than 20 million tons of smoke could be produced, at
some low probability, even after a large war in which many cities were struck. In the absence of nearinfinite consequences (e.g., human extinction) we believe it is unwise to base
expensive policy decisions (e.g., SDi) solely on either of these very low probability cases. ^'
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
192
Chalko
Chalkos wrong about everything, ever.
THOMPSON Physicist at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory focusing on atmospheric physics, astronomy, and
astrophysics 2001 (Tim, June 8, http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=10&t=000329)
Highly unlikely to be worthy of consideration outside of the "lunatic fringe". The author, Tom J.
Chalko, is
on the staff of the dynamics and Vibration group in the Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing
Engineering, of the University of Melbourne. I assume that his background is in mechanical
engineering. However, he is also billed as "Head of the Geophysics Division" of "Scientific Engineering
Research P/L, which certainly appears to belong to Chalko in its entirety, and may be nothing
more than an extension of himself.
It is significant that his position as a "geophysicist" appears to

be one invented by himself. He is also evidently the founder of "Thiaoouba Prophecy and The Freedom of
Choice", which lists among Chalko's accomplishments "The Amazing bioresonant Chakra
Shirt. You can also explore the mysteries of self healing, astral travel and levitation. It would
appear that Chalko may be a less than totally reliable source of scientific arguments over the explodeability
of the Earth. But, of course, we are obliged to consider the argument as well as the source.
In this case, the webpage is only a summary or introduction. So I followed the link at the bottom and
downloaded the paper in PDF format. The alleged justification is given as a mathematical argument, so that
much of the paper will not be accessible to those who don't at least recognize the basics of applied calculus.
As one might expect, it's a bogus argument. The premise is an alleged proof that there is a minimum
possible size for the central solid core of the Earth, but it's based on the false premise that the
core must remain at all times in equilibrium at the center. Furthermore, the argument that
the central equilibrium is unstable is based on the false condition that the pressure
gradient and gravitational forces act in opposition, but they do not. A solid core displaced
from the center sees only restoring forces, and thus cannot be forced from its position as Chalko tries to
show. And, if that weren't enough, the viscosity of the liquid outer core and relatively sold mantle are
ignored, which is a fatal flaw in any analysis of the dynamic behavior of the core. And, if even that were
not enough, there is no thermodynamic analysis at all. How can one argue that the
Earth's interior will "overheat" if one does not even consider basic thermodynamics ?
The sun irradiates the Earth's surface to the tune of roughly 1370 Watts per square meter (W/m^2). Climate
related changes in radiative forcing are on the order of 1 W/m^2. The average outward geothermal flux is
about 0.06 W/m^2. It is hard to see how a change in radiative forcing at the surface, on the order of 1/1000
would seriously affect the already miniscule heat flow from the Earth. In any case, a proper treatment of the
thermal conditions at the surface, and throughout the Earth is required to make definitive statements, but
there is no attempt at such in Chalko's paper. The other issue is whether or not a planet can "explode". As
is the case for any explosion, one must demonstrate the presence of an energy source ,
and a process that can generate energy very much faster than it can be dissipated through radiative of
hydrodynamic means. No such source has ever been identified for the Earth or any other
planet. There are vague references to radioactive material and fission explosions in various "exploding
planet" hypotheses (such as Tom van Flandern's), and evidently Chalko makes the same vague argument (or
shall we call it "hope"?). It is just "handwaving", as we say in the science biz.
The cores not radioactive.

Glascoe,
JPL/NASA, 1998 (Maggi, Structure of the Earth, 14 August,

http://scign.jpl.nasa.gov/learn/plate1.htm)
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
193
Geophysical studies have revealed that the
Earth has several distinct layers . Each of these layers has its own properties. The
outermost layer of the Earth is the crust. This comprises the continents and ocean basins. The crust has a variable thickness, being 35-70
km thick in the continents and 5-10 km thick in the ocean basins. The crust is composed mainly of alumino-silicates. The next
layer is the mantle, which is composed mainly of ferro-magnesium silicates . It is about 2900 km thick, and is separated into
the upper and lower mantle. This is where most of the internal heat of the Earth is located. Large convective cells in the mantle
circulate heat and may drive plate tectonic processes . The last layer is the core, which is separated into the liquid
outer core and the solid inner core. The outer core is 2300 km thick and the inner core is 1200 km thick. The outer
core is composed mainly of a nickel-iron alloy, while the inner core is almost entirely composed of iron . Earth's
magnetic field is believed to be controlled by the liquid outer core.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
194
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
195
Chalko Extension
They should lose speaker points for extending this argument.

Extend Thompson 1 - Chalkos not a scientist, he believes in astral
projection, his argument is based on a false premise, doesnt
include any thermodynamic analysis and doesnt demonstrate a
sufficient source of energy to detonate the planet.
Extend Glascoe 98 all real scientists and most middle schoolers

know that the earths core isnt radioactive, its iron.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
196
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
197
Genetic Diversity
This argument assumes they win most of their other arguments if
we win defense, most of humanity wont be wiped out.
Martin 82 Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modeling,
research associate in the Dept. of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National
University, and a member of SANA, Critique of nuclear extinction, Published in
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 19, No. 4, 1982, pp. 287-300,
www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/82jpr.html
(f)
Synergistic and unpredicted effects.
The interaction of different effects, such as weakened
could well increase the

death toll significantly. These consequences would mostly be confined to heavily bombed
areas. Finally, there is the possibility of effects currently dismissed or not predicted leading to many more
resistance to disease due to high radiation exposure or to shortages of food,
deaths from nuclear war.[11]
a major global nuclear war in which population centres in the US,

with no effective civil defence measures taken,
could kill directly perhaps 400 to 450 million people. Induced effects, in particular
starvation or epidemics following agricultural failure or economic breakdown, might add up to several
hundred million deaths to the total, though this is most uncertain. Such an eventuality would be a
catastrophe of enormous proportions, but it is far from extinction. Even in the most extreme
case there would remain alive some 4000 million people, about nine-tenths of the world's
population, most of them unaffected physically by the nuclear war. The following areas
would be relatively unscathed, unless nuclear attacks were made in these regions: South and
Central America, Africa, the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, Southeast Asia, Australasia,
Oceania and large parts of China. Even in the mid-latitudes of the northern hemisphere where most
of the nuclear weapons would be exploded, areas upwind of nuclear attacks would remain free
of heavy radioactive contamination, such as Portugal, Ireland and British Columbia.
To summarise the above points,
Soviet Union, Europe and China ware targeted,
If everything goes absolutely wrong, 100,000 people would survive,

enough to prevent extinction
Smith, Western Michigan University, Review Essay of John Leslie's The End of the World (London:
Routledge, 1996), pp. vii + 310. 2002 www.qsmithwmu.com/leslie_end_of_time.htm
Quentin
The air circulation patterns of the two hemispheres normally consist of distinct
Hadley cells, each of which has independent wind patterns that circle the cell. One of the Hadley cells
normally extends from 30 degrees North to the equator. This is separate from another cell that extends from
the equator to 30 degrees South. The danger from nuclear war is that these two cells would
no longer be separate, but merge into a single cell. The 10, 400 nuclear explosions would warm the
troposphere, due to the absorption of sunlight by the smoke clouds and this would cause a single Hadley cell to extend from 30 degrees North to
30 degrees South, carrying the smoke and dust clouds that block the sunlight and cause lowering temperatures. Darkness and freezing
temperatures would destroy food supplies and other items necessary for survival.
However, this Hadley cell would not extend further than 30 degrees South. The wind
patterns would protect the southernmost parts of the earth from the dust and smoke
clouds. The circulation pattern below 30 degrees south is governed by a distinct
Hadley cell that circulates wind from 30 degrees South to 60 degrees South. This covers the
southern halves of Australia, Argentina and Chili, and includes all of New Zealand. This
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
198
is sufficient for the human race to survive. Survival may mean that there are left only 100,000
people on New Zealand or southern Chili, people who are reduced to living and reproducing in Stone Age
conditions. Since this is the worst case scenario of an American-Russian war for which
there is any evidence, the evidence indicates that it is highly improbable that a global
nuclear war would cause the extinction of the human species. (100,000 is not a small figure,
since there are now 100,000 apes [orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas] on the earth
and they are able to survive despite the various legal and illegal efforts of humans that
threaten their survival.)
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
199
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
200
Fires
This is dumb thermal pulses wont spread far enough, cloud or
smog check, firestorms are only possible in very specific situations
Kearny, 87
Myth: A heavy nuclear attack would set practically everything on fire, causing
"firestorms" in cities that would exhaust the oxygen in the air. All shelter occupants would be
killed by the intense heat.
On a clear day, thermal pulses (heat radiation that travels at the speed of light)
from an air burst can set fire to easily ignitable materials (such as window curtains,
upholstery, dry newspaper, and dry grass) over about as large an area as is damaged by the blast . It can
cause second-degree skin burns to exposed people who are as far as ten miles from a one Facts:
megaton (1 MT) explosion. (See Fig. 1.4.) (A 1-MT nuclear explosion is one that produces the same amount
of energy as does one million tons of TNT.) If the weather is very clear and dry, the area of fire danger could
be considerably larger. On a cloudy or smoggy day, however, particles in the air would absorb
and scatter much of the heat radiation, and the area endangered by heat radiation
from the fireball would be less than the area of severe blast damage .
"Firestorms"
could occur only when the concentration of combustible structures is very

high, as in the very dense centers of a few old American cities. At rural and suburban
building densities, most people in earth- covered fallout shelters would not have their
lives endangered by fires.
Firestorms wont happen, toxic smoke only effects people in

shelters, theyd run out of air a long time before that
Kearny, 87
THE FACTS ABOUT FIRE HAZARDS
Firestorms would endanger relatively few' Americans; only the older parts of a few
American cities have buildings close enough together, over a large enough area, to
fuel this type of conflagration. Such fires have not occurred in cities where less than
about 30% of a large area was covered with buildings. 19
In the blast area of Hiroshima, a terrifying fire storm that burned almost all buildings
within an area of about 4.4 square miles resulted from many fires being ignited almost simultaneously. Many
were caused by heat radiation from the fireball. Even more fires were due to secondary effects of the blast,
such as the overturning of stoves. The buildings contained much wood and other combustible materials. The
whole area burned like a tremendous bonfire; strong winds that blew in from all directions replaced the huge
volumes of hot air that rose skyward from the intense fires.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
201
Lack of oxygen is not a hazard to occupants of shelters in or near burning buildings or to those
in shelters that are closed tightly to prevent the entry of smoke or fallout. Carbon monoxide, toxic
smoke from fires, or high concentrations of carbon dioxide from shelter occupants'
exhaled breaths would kill occupants before they suffered seriously from lack of
oxygen.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
202
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
203
Vital Microbes
This is pure speculation no evidence, analysis, etc
Quentin
2002 http://www.qsmithwmu.com/leslie_end_of_time.htm
Routledge, 1996), pp. vii + 310.
Leslie suggests that the other half would die later due to the effects of radiation (cancers, weakened immune
systems that let infectious diseases run riot and numerous birth defects) and loss of food from the hundreds
of millions of tons of smoke and dust that would fill the air and block the sunlight. The death of
microbes upon which human life is dependent is another possibility Leslie mentions (pp.
26-28), but he refers to Sagan's COSMOS, which mentions this as a mere epistemic
possibility, not as a known probability: "Many microorganisms would be killed; we do
not know which ones or how many, or what the consequences might be. The organisms killed
might, for all we know, be at the base of a vast ecological pyramid at the top of which we totter." (Sagan, p.
322).
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
204
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
205
High Fallout Weapons

Cobalt radiological weapons arent useful none of them have ever been built
Cartage, Jan 28 2002
Information technology system providing support to the educational community in Lebanon and the Middle
East, Cobalt Bombs and other Salted Bombs
Militarily useful radiological weapons would use local (as opposed to world-wide)
contamination, and high initial intensities for rapid effects. Prolonged contamination is
also undesirable. In this light Zn-64 is possibly better suited to military applications than cobalt, but
probably inferior to tantalum or gold. As noted above ordinary "dirty" fusion-fission bombs have very high
initial radiation intensities and must also be considered radiological weapons.
No cobalt or other salted bomb has ever been atmospherically tested, and as far as is
publicly known none have ever been built. In light of the ready availability of fissionfusion-fission bombs, it is unlikely any special-purpose fallout contamination weapon
will ever be developed.
The British did test a bomb that incorporated cobalt
as an experimental radiochemical tracer

(Antler/Round 1, 14 September 1957). This 1 kt device was exploded at the Tadje site, Maralinga range,
Australia. The experiment was regarded as a failure and not repeated.
Cobalt bombs and other high fallout weapons will not be developed
Sublette, 1998
(Carey, Nuclear Weapons Frequently Asked Questions, May 1,
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq1.html#nfaq1.6)
No cobalt or other salted bomb has ever been atmospherically tested, and as far as is
publicly known none have ever been built. In light of the ready availability of fission-fusion-fission
bombs, it is unlikely any special-purpose fallout contamination weapon will ever be developed.
The British did test a bomb that incorporated cobalt as an experimental radiochemical
tracer (Antler/Round 1, 14 September 1957). This 1 kt device was exploded at the Tadje site,
Maralinga range, Australia. The experiment was regarded as a failure and not
repeated.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
206
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
207
Neutron Bombs
US never even deployed neutron bombs
BBC, July 15, 1999 Neutron bomb: Why 'clean' is deadly
By the late 1970s American nuclear scientists had developed the W-70 neutron
warhead to be used with the Lance tactical missile. Used over a battlefield, a one-kilotonne
neutron bomb would kill or incapacitate people over an area twice as large as the lethal zone of
a 10 kilotonne standard nuclear weapon - but with a fifth of the blast. In 1978 President Jimmy
Carter halted neutron device production as concern grew over its effects on the arms race. But
according to the damning Cox report into China's nuclear espionage, Beijing's agents had stolen
neutron bomb secrets before the decade was out - the first of many warhead designs targeted
by the Chinese. While the US says it never tested a fully working neutron device, officials
believe China tested the technology in 1988. Mr Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan soon
reversed the policy and the W-70 warheads resumed production in 1981. But does it work?
Only a small number of neutron warheads were produced and Washington never
deployed the weapon alongside its other nuclear forces in Europe because of the surrounding
political controversy. W-70 warheads appear to have been completely scrapped as part
of the arms reductions of 1993.
Russian neutron bombs were never built

Russia Today, November 17, 2008, The Soviet neutron bomb at 30
The Soviet Union couldn't get out of the arms race without suffering political loss. Washington
was very much aware of the economic troubles that the USSR was going through in the early
1980s. Producing neutron weapons was financially unviable, but not producing them
would be politically unthinkable, since the key concept of the arms' race was parity.
Hence, the propaganda war was launched in order to dilute the feeling that nothing was being
done to counter America's actions. The neutron arms race ended without ever having
properly begun. The US managed to build just ten warheads, while the USSR had yet to
finalise its project. On the 23rd of March 1983 the Reagan administration announced the
beginning of an even more impressive and deadly programme - "Star Wars". In scale, it
far surpassed the production of neutron warheads. The issue of neutron weapons was
quickly forgotten in both the US and the USSR , since the latter faced new problems,
with collapse just around the corner.
China never deployed them

Mercury News, July 16, 1999, China admits bomb project
Noting that the Mercury News reported in 1990 that U.S. officials believed China had stolen
neutron bomb secrets from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Livermore, Cox quipped,
``They have caught up with the Mercury News.'' He said the Cox report doesn't claim, nor is
there any evidence, that China has deployed a neutron bomb. Cox said the argument that
China developed a smaller nuclear warhead on its own is not believable. The United States
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
208
conducted numerous tests in developing its own weapon, the W-88 warhead used on the Trident
II submarine-launched ballistic missile, but China conducted very few tests. ``Testing something
that is very similar to the most sophisticated nuclear weapon in the world and getting it right
immediately -- no one in the U.S. government believed that that was possible,'' Cox said. The
Chinese rebuttal of the Cox report, titled ``Facts Speak Louder Than Words and Lies Will Collapse
on Themselves,'' asserted that China began work on a neutron bomb in the 1970s, when the
United States and the Soviet Union intensified their arms race. Design theft denied ``China had
no choice but to continue to carry out research and development of nuclear weapons technology
and improve its nuclear weapons systems, mastering in succession the neutron-bomb design
technology and the nuclear weapon miniaturization technology,'' the report said. It denied that
China stole the technology involved in those two designs and argued that many design details of
the nuclear weapons cited in the Cox report were available in unclassified documents and on the
Internet. It also rejected allegations in the Cox report that China had stolen American technology
used to launch satellites. In Washington, Defense Secretary William Cohen said it made little
difference from a security standpoint whether China developed its own neutron bomb or stole
the technology from U.S. labs. The neutron bomb is often misleadingly described as a bomb that
destroys people, not buildings, and was developed by the United States in the 1970s to be used
against large-scale Soviet tank formations. It has a larger radiation reach, and therefore would
kill more people, than traditional nuclear bombs. But a single neutron bomb also has a
considerable explosive force and would cause massive devastation if detonated near a
large urban area. The announcement by Zhao did not say whether China actually
possessed neutron bombs. But even if it does, it would not significantly affect the regional
balance of power, said John Pike, an expert on China's nuclear arsenal at the Washington-based
Federation of American Scientists. In the absence of the threat of a large-scale land war, neutron
bombs are no more useful than any other kind of nuclear weapon, such as the traditional bombs
China is already known to possess. Neutron bombs would therefore serve no useful purpose
in a war with Taiwan, he said. ``The real issue now isn't whether they've got a neutron
bomb, it's why on earth they would want to have one ,'' he said.
Israel doesnt have neutron bombs they require significant testing,

which they havent done. This is all propaganda
Cartage, jan 28 2002
Information technology system providing support to the educational community in Lebanon and the Middle
East, Combined Fission/Fusion Weapons
The Soviet Union, China, and France are all known to have developed neutron bomb
designs and may have them in service. A number of reports have claimed that Israel has
developed neutron bombs which, though they could be valuable on an armor battleground like the
Golan Heights, are difficult to develop and require significant testing. This makes it
unlikely that Israel has in fact acquired them.
France never produced any

Self, Jan 91
Kevin, IEEE Spectrum Magazine, What Ever Happened To...? The Neutron Bomb
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
209
the deployment of neutron weapons in Europe had become more
complex as other players joined the game. In 1980, France announced that it had
tested a neutron device, and in late 1982, it was believed to have begun production. But in 1986,
France announced that it was abandoning the production of neutron weapons because
of internal and external political pressure.
In the meantime,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
210
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
211
Aftermath Disease Antibiotics

The majority of survivors would be in rural areas agricultural antibiotics solve
Kearny, 87
People who for decades have used antibiotics to combat their infections have not produced normal
quantities of antibodies, and have subnormal resistance to many infections. People who have not been
dependent on antibiotics have these antibodies. In the aftermath of a massive nuclear attack,
most surviving Americans would be in rural areas: many would need antibiotics. A
large part of their need could be met by the supplies of veterinarian antibiotics kept on
livestock and chicken farms, at feed mills, and in small towns. Many animals are given more
antibiotics in their short lives than most Americans receive in theirs. Hogs, for example, are given
antibiotics and or other disease-controlling medicines in their feed each day. In many
farming areas, veterinary antibiotics and other medicines are in larger supply than are
those for people. Realistic preparations to survive an all-out attack should include utilizing these
supplies.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
212
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
213
Aftermath Disease General

Doing nothing solves disease leaving people alone solves disease
outbreaks, empirically proven by all of human history
Kearny, 87
Most doctors, hospital facilities, and medical supplies are located in cities. An all-out attack
would destroy most of these modern blessings. Even if medical assistance were
nearby, only a few of the survivors confined to shelters in areas of heavy fallout would
be able to get needed medicines or the help of a doctor. For periods ranging from days to months,
most unprepared survivors would be forced to live under medical conditions almost as
primitive as those experienced by the majority of [hu]mankind for all but the past few
decades of human history.
BENIGN NEGLECT
Life without modern medical help would be less painful and hazardous for those survivors who have some
practical knowledge of what should be done or not done under primitive, unsanitary conditions. Information
about first aid and hygienic precautions can be obtained from widely available Red Cross and civil defense
booklets and courses. This knowledge, with a stock of basic first aid supplies, would reduce suffering and
prevent many dangerous illnesses. However, first aid instructions do not include advice about what to do for
serious injuries and sicknesses if no doctors or effective medicines are available.
Where There Is No Doctor,32 the excellent self- help handbook ;recommended by Volunteers in Technical
Assistance, gives much information that goes far beyond the scope of first aid. But even this handbook
repeatedly recommends getting professional medical help whenever possible for serious injuries and
illnesses.
the human body has remarkable capabilities for healing itself, especially if
the injured or sick person and his companions practice intelligent "benign neglect." Such
purposeful non-interference with the body's recuperative processes was called "masterful
inactivity" by Colonel C. Blanchard Henry, M.D., a widely recognized authority on mass
casualty evacuation and treatment. Colonel Henry was one of the first medical officers to
visit Hiroshima and Nagasaki after their destruction and was an experienced analyzer of civil
Fortunately,
defense preparations in several countries.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
214
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
215
Aftermath Disease MPX Defense

Disease can't kill everyone. There is no chance of a virus spreading
to every corner of the globe and even if it did it wouldn't kill
everyone
Routledge, 1996), pp. vii + 310. 2002 http://www.qsmithwmu.com/leslie_end_of_time.htm
Quentin
However, as in the case with nuclear war, the odds for complete extinction are exponentially
lower than the odds for massive deaths or near extinction. Wind patterns and water
patterns are insufficient to infect every person on earth and infection would have to be
produced by human or animal contagion. This requires that each human habitat
eventually be reached by carriers of the virus. The "worst case" scenario would be, in part,
similar to the spread of the AIDS virus, where humans can travel for up to ten or fifteen years without any
visible signs of illness. If we add to this long incubation period a virus that is as highly contagious as the
Spanish Influenza, then we have a worst case scenario. In order to have human extinction, we
need the added requirement that there are no pockets of human population that are
isolated from outside visitors during the period of contagion, sickness and death. But
there are many such populations , e.g., on various islands in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, however
small they be, and these would survive the disease. All that is needed for survival is, say, an
isolated band of 10,000 people or so in the Northern Latitudes who are self-sufficient in
their food supplies and are able to reproduce. Extinction from disease is the most likely threat to
humans over the next few centuries, but the probabilities here are still so low that they are
virtually negligible.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
216
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
217
Aftermath Disease Offense

Extinction level disease outbreaks inevitable now because of industrial society
Corey S. Powell "20 Ways the World Could End Swept away" DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 10 (October
http://www.ldolphin.org/twentyways.html
2000)
If Earth doesn't do us in, our fellow organisms might be up to the task. Germs and people have always
coexisted, but occasionally the balance gets out of whack. The Black Plague killed one European
in
four during the 14th century; influenza took at least 20 million lives between 1918 and 1919; the AIDS
epidemic has produced a similar death toll and is still going strong. From 1980 to 1992,
reports the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mortality from infectious disease in the
United States rose 58 percent. Old diseases such as cholera and measles have developed
new resistance to antibiotics. Intensive agriculture and land development is bringing
humans closer to animal pathogens. International travel means diseases can spread
faster than ever. Michael Osterholm, an infectious disease expert who recently left the Minnesota
Department of Health, described the situation as "like trying to swim against the current of
a raging river." The grimmest possibility would be the emergence of a strain that
spreads so fast we are caught off guard or that resists all chemical means of control,
perhaps as a result of our stirring of the ecological pot. About 12,000 years ago, a sudden
wave of mammal extinctions swept through the Americas. Ross MacPhee of the American Museum of Natural
History argues the culprit was extremely virulent disease, which humans helped transport as they migrated
into the New World.
Nuclear war causes a hunter-gatherer civilization

Quentin
2002 http://www.qsmithwmu.com/leslie_end_of_time.htm
Routledge, 1996), pp. vii + 310.
The air circulation patterns of the two hemispheres normally consist of distinct Hadley
cells, each of which has independent wind patterns that circle the cell. One of the Hadley cells normally
extends from 30 degrees North to the equator. This is separate from another cell that extends from the
equator to 30 degrees South. The danger from nuclear war is that these two cells would no
longer be separate, but merge
into a single cell. The 10, 400 nuclear explosions would warm the
troposphere, due to the absorption of sunlight by the smoke clouds and this would cause a single Hadley cell
to extend from 30 degrees North to 30 degrees South, carrying the smoke and dust clouds that block the
sunlight and cause lowering temperatures. Darkness and freezing temperatures would destroy food supplies
and other items necessary for survival. However, this Hadley cell would not extend further than 30 degrees
South. The wind patterns would protect the southernmost parts of the earth from the
dust and smoke clouds. The circulation pattern below 30 degrees south is governed by
a distinct Hadley cell that circulates wind from 30 degrees South to 60 degrees South. This covers
the southern halves of Australia, Argentina and Chili, and includes all of New Zealand.
This is sufficient for the human race to survive. Survival may mean that there are left only
100,000 people on New Zealand or southern Chili, people who are reduced to living and
reproducing in Stone Age conditions . Since this is the worst case scenario of an
American-Russian war for which there is any evidence, the evidence indicates that it is highly
improbable that a global nuclear war would cause the extinction of the human species. (100,000 is not a
small figure, since there are now 100,000 apes [orangutans, chimpanzees and gorillas]
on the earth and they are able to survive despite the various legal and illegal efforts of
humans that threaten their survival.)
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
218
Hunting and Gathering Civilizations dont get epidemics
UCLA Timeless, [Human History And Emerging Infections,
www.college.ucla.edu/webproject/micro12/m12webnotes/7m12emergingdisease.htm]
For most of our history we survived by hunting and gathering. Typically (there are exceptions)
the men hunted and the women and children gathered. This worked out quite well. The women would bring
in a fairly steady amount of food to sustain the group when the men were not successful in the hunt. This
type of existence required mobility and could only sustain a low population density.
Bands of humans would follow migrating animals and move around according to the seasons and the food
supply. A few fortunate groups could get by on fishing year-round and didn't have to move as much. But
still, only a small number of people could be fed. The advantage of small population density was
that very few infectious diseases could be supported. If an infection entered into the
population everyone got sick and either died or became immune. Without "new" hosts
to infect, most infections could not be sustained. So, hunter and gatherers were probably quite
healthy and suffered from few infectious diseases. Chronic diseases such as hepatitis may have been
maintained. This type of life style is not without risks however. Wound infections were probably common and
death due to the elements (cold, starvation) was the leading cause of death.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
219
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
220
Aftermath Disease Radiation IL

A perfectly functioning medical system would make no difference
either people will recover naturally from radiation, or theyd die
even with doctors
Kearny, 87
For the vast majority of Americans who would receive radiation doses from a massive
attack, the help of doctors, antibiotics, blood transfusions, etc., would not be of life-or-death
importance. Very few of those receiving acute doses (received within 24 hours) of less than 100
R would become sick, even briefly. All of those exposed to acute doses between 100
Rand 200 R should recover from radiation effects.6 However, under post-attack conditions of
multiple stresses and privations, some who receive acute radiation doses of 100 R to 200 R may die of
infectious diseases because of their reduced resistance. If total doses this size or even several
times larger are received over a period of a few months in small doses of around 6 R
per day, no incapacitating symptoms should result. The human body usually can repair
almost all radiation damage if the daily doses are not too large.
The majority of those with acute doses of less than about 350 R will recover without
medical treatment. Almost all of those receiving acute doses of over 600 R would die
within a few weeks, even if they were to receive treatment in a typical hospital during
peacetime. If all doctors and the equipment and drugs needed for heroic treatments magically were
to survive an attack and persons suffering from radiation sickness could reach them
relatively few additional lives could be saved.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
221
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
222
Aftermath More Wars

No impact if nuclear war doesnt cause extinction, then the
following wars wont cause extinction either.
These wars would be conventional thats good.
Weisman, 5
Discover Magazine, Alan, Earth Without People discovermagazine.com/2005/feb/earth-withoutpeople/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=
Korea, in the 155-mile-long, 2.5-mile-wide mountainous

DMZ, set up by the armistice ending the Korean War. Aside from rare military patrols
or desperate souls fleeing North Korea, humans have barely set foot in the strip since 1953. Before
that, for 5,000 years, the area was populated by rice farmers who carved the land into
paddies. Today those paddies have become barely discernible, transformed into
pockets of marsh, and the new occupants of these lands arrive as dazzling white squadrons of
red-crowned cranes that glide over the bulrushes in perfect formation, touching down so lightly that
they detonate no land mines. Next to whooping cranes, they are the rarest such birds on
Earth. They winter in the DMZ alongside the endangered white-naped cranes, revered in Asia as sacred
A good place to start searching for answers is in
Demilitarized Zone, or
portents of peace.
If peace is ever declared, suburban Seoul, which has rolled ever northward in recent decades, is
poised to invade such tantalizing real estate. On the other side, the North Koreans are
building an industrial megapark. This has spurred an international coalition of
scientists called the DMZ Forum to try to consecrate the area for a peace park and
nature preserve. Imagine it as a Korean Gettysburg and Yosemite rolled together, says Harvard
University biologist Edward O. Wilson, who believes that tourism revenues could trump those from
agriculture or development.
This arguments racist - nuclear war would just show the first world
what lifes like for everyone else
Martin, 84
(Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modeling. He is a research associate in the
Dept. of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, and a member of SANA, Extinction
Politics, SANA Update, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/84sana1.html)
There are quite a number of reasons why people may find a belief in extinction from nuclear war to be
attractive.[8] Here I will only briefly comment on a few factors. The first is an implicit Western chauvinism
The effects of global nuclear war would mainly hit the population of the United States,
Europe and the Soviet Union. This is quite unlike the pattern of other major ongoing
human disasters of starvation, disease, poverty and political repression which mainly
affect the poor, nonwhite populations of the Third World. The gospel of nuclear
extinction can be seen as a way by which a problem for the rich white Western
societies is claimed to be a problem for all the world.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
223
Symptomatic of this orientation is the belief that, without Western aid and trade, the
economies and populations of the Third World would face disaster. But this is only
Western self-centredness. Actually, Third World populations would in many ways be
better off without the West: the pressure to grow cash crops of sugar, tobacco and so on would be
reduced, and we would no longer witness fresh fish being airfreighted from Bangladesh
to Europe.
A related factor linked with nuclear extinctionism is a belief that nuclear war is the
most pressing issue facing humans. I disagree, both morally and politically, with the stance that
preventing nuclear war has become the most important social issue for all humans. Surely, in the Third
World, concern over the actuality of massive suffering and millions of deaths resulting
from poverty and exploitation can justifiably take precedence over the possibility of a
similar death toll from nuclear war. Nuclear war may be the greatest threat to the collective lives of
those in the rich, white Western societies but, for the poor, nonwhite Third World peoples, other issues are
more pressing
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
224
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
225
Aftermath No Anarchy
This is the typical elitist nonsense ordinary people are capable of
dealing with disasters, history proves
Kearny, 87
HELP FROM FELLOW AMERICANS

The atomic explosions that destroyed most of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were air bursts and therefore
produced no deadly local fallout. So we cannot be sure how people would behave in areas subjected to both
blast and fallout from surface bursts. However, the reactions of the Japanese survivors are
encouraging, especially in view of the fact that among them the relative number of horribly burned
people was greater than is likely to be found among a population that expects a nuclear attack and takes
any sort of shelter. Dr. von Gregerz summarizes: "In most cases the victims were, of course,
apathetic and often incapable of rational action, but open panic or extremely
disorganized behavior occurred only in exceptional cases among the hundreds of
thousands of survivors of the two atomic bombing attacks." Also encouraging: ". . . serious
permanent psychological derangements were rare after the atomic bomb attacks, just
as they were after the large-scale conventional bombings."
ATOM BOMB SURVIVORS

Some maintain that after an atomic attack America would degenerate into anarchy an
every- man-for-himself struggle for existence. They forget the history of great human
catastrophes and the self- sacrificing strengths most human beings are capable of
displaying. After a massive nuclear attack starvation would afflict some areas, but
America's grain-producing regions still would have an abundance of uncontaminated food.
History indicates that Americans in the food-rich areas would help the starving . Like
the heroic Russians who drove food trucks to starving Leningrad through bursting Nazi
bombs and shells.7 many Americans would risk radiation and other dangers to bring
truckloads of grain and other necessities to their starving country men. Surely, an essential
part of psychological preparations for surviving a modern war is a well- founded assurance that many
citizens of a strong society will struggle to help each other and will work together with little regard for
danger and loss.
The US is absurdly well trained and rich a nuclear war would send
us back to the 40s, not the Stone Age
Nyquist, 1999
J.R., May 20, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international
relations, Is nuclear war survivable? www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=6341
there have been studies which suggest that nuclear war is

survivable. The famous 1960 Rand Corporation study, "On Thermonuclear War," says, "Even
if 100 metropolitan areas [in the USA] are destroyed, there would be more wealth in
On the American side as well,
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
226
this country than there is in all of Russia today and more skills than were available to
that country in the forties. The United States is a very wealthy and well-educated
country."
even if half the U.S. population were killed, "the survivors would
not just lie down and die. Nor would they necessarily suffer a disastrous social
disorganization."
The Rand study states that
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
227
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
228
Aftermath Starvation
There wouldnt be massive starvation post-nuclear war animals
rapidly recover from radiation, food stores are sufficient,
transporting the food would be easy
Kearny, 87
Extensive areas of the United States would not receive fallout heavy enough to kill
grazing animals. The millions of surviving animals would provide some food and the
fertile breeding stock needed for national recovery. The loss of fertility caused by severe
radiation doses is rarely permanent. Extensive experiments with animals have shown that the
offspring of severely irradiated animals are healthy and fertile.27
LIVING ON BASIC PLANT FOODS

Even if almost all food-producing animals were lost, most surviving Americans should
be able to live on the foods that enable most of the world's population to live and multiply: grains,
beans, and vegetables. And because of the remarkable productivity of American
agriculture, there usually would be enough grain and beans in storage to supply surviving
Americans with sufficient food for at least a year following a heavy nuclear attack.28 The problem
would be to get the unprocessed foods, which are stored in food-producing regions, to the
majority of survivors who would be outside these regions.
Surprisingly little transportation would be needed to carry adequate quantities of these
unprocessed foods to survivors in famine areas. A single large trailer truck can haul 40,000 pounds
of wheat enough to keep 40,000 people from feeling hunger pains for a day. More than
enough such trucks and the fuel needed to carry basic foods to food-short areas would survive a
massive nuclear attack.28 It is likely that reasonably strong American leadership and morale would
prevail so that, after the first few weeks, millions of the survivors in starving areas should
receive basic unprocessed foods.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
229
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
230
Escalation Collapses
Once a nuclear war starts, very little of the arsenals will actually be
used nuclear war collapses
Martin, 1982
What fraction of the 11,000Mt would be exploded in a major nuclear war? This is hard to
assess, but almost certainly much will not be exploded. Both the United States and the
Soviet Union place a high priority on targeting their opponent's military forces, nuclear
forces in particular. A sizable fraction of nuclear arsenals is likely to be destroyed
before use (attacks on nuclear submarines, airfields, missile silos), be unavailable for use
(submarines in port, missiles cut off from communications) or fail to perform properly .
[47] One estimate is that one sixth to one third of superpower arsenals will be used,
depending on whether the war occurs suddenly or builds up gradually.[48]
This is consistent with US strategy

Lieber and Press, 2006
Keir A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame. Daryl G., Associate Professor
of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S.
Primacy, International Security, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Spring 2006), pp. 744
if Russia and China do not adequately reduce the vulnerability of their nuclear
forces, U.S. leaders will soon have the option of launching a disarming attack against
either country. Some analysts consider this scenario unthinkable: it would, after all, entail enormous risks
Third,
and horrifying costs.
History and current policy trends suggest , however, that the possibility of a U.S. nuclear
attack should not be entirely dismissed. Nuclear counterforce was the cornerstone of
American national security strategy during the previous era of U.S. nuclear primacy (the early
1950s until the early 1960s). During this period, U.S. leaders planned to launch a massive nuclear attack on
the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China if the Soviets launched a conventional attack on Europe.69
Indeed, in 1961, at the peak of the Berlin crisis, U.S. leaders modified war plans to improve the odds that a
disarming strike on the Soviet Union would succeed, and President John Kennedy carefully explored
the option of initiating such a surprise nuclear attack .70 Moreover, both the United States
and the Soviet Union considered launching attacks on China to prevent its ascension to
the nuclear club.71 In a new era of U.S. nuclear primacy, U.S. policymakers may once
again be tempted to consider nuclear escalation during intense crises or if nonnuclear
military operations go unexpectedly badly for the United States (e.g., in Korea).72
The first strike would work

Lieber and Press, 2006
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
231
Keir A., Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, Daryl G., Associate Professor
of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania, Foreign Affairs; Mar/Apr2006, Vol. 85 Issue 2, p42-54,
13p The Rise of U.S.
Nuclear Primacy
This debate may now seem like ancient history; but it is actually more relevant than ever--because
of MAD is nearing an end.

verge of attaining
the age
Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the
nuclear primacy. It will probably soon be possible for the United States
to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike. This
dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the
United States nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial
pace of modernization of Chinas nuclear forces. Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow
and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China--and the
rest of the world--will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to
come.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
232
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
233
Escalation Irrelevant
All of our evidence assumes a fully escalated, global nuclear war
Martin, 1990,
(Brian, physicist whose research interests include stratospheric modelling. He is a research associate in the
Dept. of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Australian National University, and a member of SANA, Journal of
Liberation Studies, Politics after a Nuclear Crisis, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/90jls.html)
If a nuclear war does escalate to major exchanges, does that mean

that near or actual human extinction is certain? The available evidence is by no means
Third, global nuclear war:
conclusive. Although since the 1950s many people have believed that nuclear war will inevitably lead to the
death of most or all the people on earth, the scientific evidence to support this belief has been skimpy and
uncertain. The only mechanism currently considered to create a potential threat to the
survival of the human species is the global climatic effects of smoke and dust from nuclear
explosions, commonly called nuclear winter.[2] Even here, some scientists believe the effects
will be much more moderate than initially proclaimed .[3] My assessment is that global
nuclear war, while containing the potential for exterminating much of the world's population, might kill
"only" some hundreds of millions of people - an unprecedented disaster to be sure, but
far short of global annihilation.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
234
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
235
No Hunter-Gather Society
Nuclear war wont cause a transition to hunting and gathering everyone would die
Kearny, 87
Very few survivors of a heavy attack would be in areas where they could live off the
land like primitive hunters and gatherers. In extensive areas where fallout would not be heavy
enough to kill human beings, wild creatures would die from the combined effects 'of external gamma
Survival plans should not

include dependence on hunting, fishing, or gathering wild plants.
radiation, swallowed fallout particles, and beta burns on their bodies.
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
236
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
237
Scientific Consensus Bad

Consensus is irrelevant what matters is reproducible results. If
one scientist points out a methodological flaw in a study, the study
is dead.
Crichton, January 17, 2003
Michael, Harvard degree in anthropology, MD from Harvard medical, speech at California Institute of
Technology, Pasadena, CA, Aliens cause Global Warming
I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus
science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought
to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first
refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already
settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your
wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science
has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is

Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens
to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to
the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The
the business of politics.
greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science . If it's
science, it isn't consensus. Period.
Consensus was the justification for the worst scientific errors in

history you only say consensus when youre wrong
The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox,

Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon
cancer, hormone replacement therapythe list of consensus errors goes on and on.
Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked
only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of
scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million
miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
And shall we go on?
This is the foundation of bad policy, causes rejection of real scientific inquiry
in this elastic anything-goes world where science-or non-science-is the hand

maiden of questionable public policy, we arrive at last at global warming. It is not my purpose here
And so,
to rehash the details of this most magnificent of the demons haunting the world. I would just remind you of
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
238
the now-familiar pattern by which these things are established. Evidentiary
uncertainties are glossed
over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by
delivering findings that are desired by the patron. Next, the isolation of those scientists who won't
get with the program, and the characterization of those scientists as outsiders and
"skeptics" in quotation marks-suspect individuals with suspect motives, industry flunkies, reactionaries, or
simply anti-environmental nutcases. In short order, debate ends, even though prominent scientists
are uncomfortable about how things are being done.
When did "skeptic" become a dirty word in science? When did a skeptic require quotation marks
around it?
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
239
Evazon 2014
Nuclear Malthus
Murray
240

Malthus-Spark Impact Turn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malthus-Spark Impact Turn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Malthus-Spark Impact Turn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Evazon 2014

Nuclear Malthus 1NC

1. Nuclear war is inevitable

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical

Looking at the world

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

assured destruction (MAD) works as a deterrent to war. Under the politics of

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in

The great tragedy is

A 100-year drunken binge of

1. Nuclear war ensures a minimal population and mindset shift

CALDWELL, 2003. [Joseph George,. A Brief Guide to Planetary Management.]

human civilization will destroy itself in a global nuclear war, or

The current planetary

2. Major war ensures the end of industrial civilization

1. The sooner war happens the more species will survive

B. DRAMATIC reductions in human population key now the longer industrial

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

the concentration of carbon dioxide has

Allowing nuclear war is more moral than allowing the destruction of

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

If the morality of nuclear war is to be considered, the morality of destroying a

Although a minimal-regret nuclear war may kill

Uniqueness carrying capacity exists

Caldwell 99, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics

The US has already passed its carrying capacity collapse

Abernethy, Ph.D, 1993

Uniqueness energy = finite

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

To use energy it is necessary to have

Uniqueness resource gone by 2050

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

it is projected that oil and gas reserves

Uniqueness industrialization increasing

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

environment is increasing, not decreasing. The level of industrial activity is increasing,

Uniqueness Civilization Collapse Now Key

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

being caused solely by mankinds massive numbers and industrial

degree the balance of nature in the biosphere in which it evolved over

Civilization Unsustainable overpop and resources

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

the world human population has skyrocketed, from about half a

maintain our present lifestyle requires prodigious amounts of energy an amount

Civilization Unsustainable waste products

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

place for industrial man on the planet at all.

Current Population Unsustainable (1/2)

Current levels of resource consumption and production will not be

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

gigatons, respectively, or three or four times current production. When

Current Population Unsustainable (2/2)

Current population levels unsustainable massive wars inevitable

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,

World peace in an absolute sense meaning the total absence of organized

proliferates is doomed to a rapid, edsxzcatastrophic population

Nuclear War Inevitable

The end of mutual deterrence makes nuclear war and nuclear

Caldwell, Economic Growth Supervisor with a PhD in Mathematical Statistics,