Global Nuclear War

1235»

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I have always thought that we should rely on renewables to replace coal.

    It's an enduring mystery why Australia hasn't already done this. The sun is relentless.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited February 15
    You sure? There's Ananias and Sapphira, for starters. One big lie, and it's bye bye. There's the one demon-possessed slave girl Paul doesn't heal until she annoys him one too many times--and then there's the throwdown with her owners over it. 2000 pigs, all dead in a minute, because Jesus takes pity on demons, of all creatures... And what about their owners' loss of property?

    As for collective punishment, what else is the destruction of Jerusalem from a theological perspective? See Jesus' predictions. And he even makes note of the plight of women and children! Not that they get out of it. The cross in itself is a major moral quandary for some, who can't figure out why God didn't just shrug and say, "Eh, it's all good, whatever." The fact that one disciple (James) gets arrested and killed, while another the same week or so (Peter) gets arrested and freed by an angel with a series of attendant miracles... still so sure about that bloke?

    Not that I'm trying to put you off him. But he isn't different just because the picture's in close-up.

    I think I want to say that the picture is revealed to us through the medium of flawed humanity, especially the political, self-interested ones. Its the perception of the creators of the stories in the Bible, as mediated through the story writers, the scholars who translated the Hebrew Scriptures into the Septuagint, etc etc etc.

    Maybe that's why I don't think stuff like the story of Jesus destroying pigs and causing economic loss is difficult at all. I don't think God would zap all those involved with the creation of the Scriptures we have today with an angel ray, suddenly turning them into people who would not want to please their patron, who would not seek to entrench their view of the world in Scripture, who would not unconsciously choose a word or phrase that would become problematic later, or who would not simply compose, write or translate from their perspective. In choosing to reveal Godself through the written word, God chose to reveal himself through the agency of flawed humanity. And the involvement of flawed humanity in this written revelation is compounded over and over again, every time a translation is 'improved', and every time I read the words and think about them.

    These difficult bits are best understood, then, as reasons for us to be cautious, especially when using scripture as a guide for moral conduct, or as in MT's excellent way, working out what God wants us to do. God is mostly unknowable. Mostly, whether God has done particular things is also impossible for us to know. This is so despite the fact that Scripture is inspired by God and the primary way we can come to know God in 2021.

    We rely on faith to believe these things, in my case faith based on personal experience, the Mass (and worship in other Christian churches, equally as powerful) reflection upon my experiences and reading and thinking about God and Scripture.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I have always thought that we should rely on renewables to replace coal.

    It's an enduring mystery why Australia hasn't already done this. The sun is relentless.

    because the Liberal party is influenced by people who own coal mines, and the Labor party is influenced by miners and people who work down the chain. Right now, they are in a dig it up and sell it on frenzy, knowing that time is short.
  • I wish I hadn't written "especially the political, self interested ones". Its unnecessary group character assassination.
  • Penny--
    Penny S wrote: »
    GK, I agree with you about the Amalekites. But I have still come across those who a) think it happened as written; b) think it was on god's instructions; and c) think that makes it right. They weren't Jewish. I haven't spoken with anyone Jewish on the subject. And I'm keeping my head down at the moment. I would like not to have to say to someone - you aren't my friend any more.

    FWIW: I was taught your listed a, b, and c. That was a normal teaching: if God did something or asked you to do something, it was right--'cause GOD. Same with the near-sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael, in Islam).

    In that view, what God does may be harsh, scary, hard to understand--or (though never exactly said) something that, if any human had done it, you'd design the worst punishment ever and it still would never be enough--and it still would be right, 'cause it's God. There might be Looks (tm) exchanged among the grownups when the topic came up, but it was always the right thing for God to do. You might try to understand *why* God did it. But you didn't question whether it really happened, 'cause history, and holy inspiration, etc.

    When there's a belief, picking at its loose threads can cause it to unravel or fall apart, and you're left with a pile of stuff. With a revealed religion, teaching, or text: no matter what you, as a follower, think of it, you're still stuck with the revelation and you're still in reaction to it, somehow.

    I've never discussed that with someone Jewish. I have the impression, whether rightly or very wrongly, that maybe those (stories of?) commands from God cast a lonnnggg shadow, and maybe affect the way **some** Jewish Israelis relate to the land and their neighbors.

    Anyway, what you described may simply be something your friend was taught.

    Wisdom and good luck to you.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    FWIW: I was taught your listed a, b, and c. That was a normal teaching: if God did something or asked you to do something, it was right--'cause GOD. Same with the near-sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael, in Islam).

    According to my research, Ishaq.
  • mt--
    mousethief wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    FWIW: I was taught your listed a, b, and c. That was a normal teaching: if God did something or asked you to do something, it was right--'cause GOD. Same with the near-sacrifice of Isaac (or Ishmael, in Islam).

    According to my research, Ishaq.

    Ahhhh! ;) Near relative to Meshach of the fiery furnace? Probably in a support group together.

    "Hi. My name is Meshach, and I survived a fiery furnace with my home boys over there."

    Group: "Hi Meshach and home boys!"

    "Hi. My name is Ishaq. God told my dad to sacrifice me--only to say at the last mo' 'hey, it's only a joke, bro'!"

    Group: "Hey Ishaq!"

    "Hey, my name is God. (People call me a whole lot of other things, but you know how that goes.) People have the weirdest ideas about me, and I'm just sick of it."

    Group: "Hey God!"

    God: "Anyone who wants to sort things out with me, meet me at the pizza place across the street, after the meeting lets out. I'm buying."
  • Penny SPenny S Shipmate
    To avoid confusion the people supporting the a,b,c, position were never friends, but online contacts. They were obviously taught their position, but I have a genetic disposition to argue things like that. Probably why my Jewish friend (got in touch yesterday with an invitiation to the rabbit hole) thinks I must have some Jewish in me. And why I wouldn't discuss the Amalekites with her, because GK's feeling about certain Israeli attitudes - she has friends out there.
    It is, understandably, improper to enter that sort of debate with someone who has learned dread, even in the UK, of an impending pogrom.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Given your commitment to peace and the environment (stronger than mine in both cases I think), you might be a good person for me to talk to about whether my stubborn opposition is the right response. If you feel like shooting an article suitable for non-scientists across on the topic, I'd be grateful.
    See a new thread in Purgatory.
  • This article gives a four second advance of the thermal radiation effects over the blast effect of a 300 kt explosion at a 1.3 mile distance.

    https://wagingpeace.org/the-effects-of-a-300-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-washington-d-c/



  • undead_rat wrote: »
    This article gives a four second advance of the thermal radiation effects over the blast effect of a 300 kt explosion at a 1.3 mile distance.

    https://wagingpeace.org/the-effects-of-a-300-kiloton-nuclear-warhead-detonated-above-washington-d-c/

    A blast wave is not necessarily a shock wave. It's all about amplitude. Shock waves are ALWAYS supersonic upstream.
  • Read the article, then make your comment . . . . . . .. . .
  • How do you know he didn't?
    ION, the zombie rodent is now back in the ring. Charcoal has been delivered, the brazier lit, and the refreshments are being cooked, as I type...

  • So you assume this Steven Starr (no biography given) is an authority because that blog post closely approximates to your initial statement? Note that there will be distant heating and fires ahead of the shock wave, the flash releases a lot of energy as light - visible and UV will travel unimpeded, and that energy can cause burns and ignite fires (most of us will have experienced sunburn, and wild fires are often ignited by the effect of concentrating sunlight through discarded bottles). The IR will be more impeded, immediately ahead of the fireball this will be a significant source of heat but decline in significance the further from the fireball, that absorbing and re-irradiation of IR is part of the process that maintains the fireball ahead of the shockwave (combustion of materials within the fireball also contribute). His description of "Grass, vegetation, and leaves on tress would explode into flames, and the surface of the ground would explode into superheated dust" fits the fireball expanding ahead of the shockwave.

    You'll notice that the description of the shockwave has it travelling at close to twice the speed of sound.

    His description of mass fire may apply to the periphery of the explosion, the point where the shockwave is not as intense. But, the fires ignited by the fireball will be extinguished by the force of the shockwave that follows, and especially in a modern steel and concrete city the dust and debris that will settle out behind the shockwave will be non-combustible and smother any remaining fires (a few fires from burst gas mains etc will continue to burn - but not the firestorm of Dresden-like proportions). The fireball will expand a bit ahead of the shockwave, so there'll be a ring around the blast where fires start but the shockwave is insufficient to extinguish them again.

    And, finally the lethality of the fallout from a single 300kT bomb ("Deadly fallout would contaminate hundreds of square miles downwind with radioactive poisons from the blast, dooming hundreds of thousands of humans and animals to a painful, vicious death from radiation sickness") is vastly exaggerated. Yes, fallout will contaminate that sort of area, but radiation levels will be relatively low, much of it similar to higher activity areas within the Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones - areas where animals are doing fine, I've spent several days within the Fukushima zone and I'm still here. If there was a functioning health care system after such an attack then an increase in cancers would be observed in the decades afterwards, but not necessarily a substantial death toll (thyroid cancers would dominate, and these are treatable). But the immediate death toll beyond the blast zone would be almost entirely secondary to the bomb - heart attacks, road traffic accidents from people fleeing and the like. Even in a massive nuclear exchange, fallout radiation would still be a minor cause of immediate death and longer term cancers among survivors would be low on the list of problems they'd face.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 15
    So, perhaps not quite as devastating as the zombie rodent would like, but (as I think we all agree) to be avoided if at all possible!

    Global warming is more immanent, ISTM, in the sense of being a clear and present danger.

    Meanwhile, stand by for another dose of scientific jabberwocky to refute what Alan has just said...
  • So, perhaps not quite as devastating as the zombie rodent would like, but (as I think we all agree) to be avoided if at all possible!

    Global warming is more immanent, ISTM, in the sense of being a clear and present danger.

    Meanwhile, stand by for another dose of scientific jabberwocky to refute what Alan has just said...

    You sully the name of a great piece of literature.
  • At which thought I humbly hang my head in shame, and repent me of my indiscretion.
    :disappointed:
  • As the Orthodox say to one another on Forgiveness Sunday (day before Lent1): I forgive, and God forgives.

    --
    1Our Lent begins on a Monday.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Read the article, then make your comment . . . . . . .. . .

    Why? My comment corrects your implicit error of conflating blast and shock waves and is explicit on correcting your error on the speed of shock waves.
  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    All of that. Plus one minor incident that still bothers me: Jesus zapped and cursed a poor fig tree, killing it. In the story, he's doing it to make a point. (Or having a petty tantrum, depending on how you read it.)

    I think it was a bad thing to do, and it doesn't fit with the rest of his portrayal.
    I am grateful to @orfeo for introducing me to the Bible Project podcast. In their excellent series on “The Tree of Life”—the general theme of the series being that from Genesis to Revelation, trees in gardens or on high places represent a choice for humanity to live by their own wisdom or by God’s wisdom—they discuss this incident. The gist, as I recall it, was that this incident, which occurs right after the entry into Jerusalem, was directly related to Israel’s failure to be faithful. They linked it to two passages from the OT. One was Jeremiah 8:12–13:
    “At the time of their punishment they shall be brought down,” says the Lord. “I will surely snatch them away,” declares the Lord; “There will be no grapes on the vine And no figs on the fig tree, And the leaf will wither; And what I have given them will pass away.”
    The other was Micah 7:1–4:
    Woe is me! “For I have become like one who, after the summer fruit has been gathered, after the vintage has been gleaned, finds no cluster to eat; there is no first-ripe fig for which I hunger.
    The faithful have disappeared from the land, and there is no one left who is upright; they all lie in wait for blood, and they hunt each other with nets.
    Their hands are skilled to do evil; the official and the judge ask for a bribe, and the powerful dictate what they desire; thus they pervert justice.
    The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge.
    The day of their sentinels, of their punishment, has come;
    now their confusion is at hand.
    The incident with the fig tree, they say, is drawing on these two prophets. Jesus looks for the early fruit and doesn’t find it (perhaps because it’s much too early?). They pointed out that in almost everything Jesus does in public as he moves toward Calvary, he is saying to Israel/the religious establishment “The kingdom is here. Now. This is the time to make your choice, because it’s all coming to a head.” Israel is at a crisis moment, and the time decide is immediate. With the fig tree, they said, Jesus is essentially declaring Israel’s faithlessness, and judgment on Jerusalem.

    At least, that’s assuming I’m remembering it all correctly.

    Adding to this from a completely non-theological point of view, the fig tree really SHOULD have had figs on it--not the regular kind from the normal harvest, but the crappy breba figs that foreshadow the full harvest, which are edible, but a lot of people don't bother with them and just leave them on the tree. Those come out around Passover time with the kind of tree Jesus was most likely checking out. And if they're NOT there, that's a bad, bad omen for the "real" harvest. It means no figs. Your tree is probably diseased or something, and quite possibly on the way to being an ex-tree.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 15
    Well, Our Lord certainly did the tree's owner a favour, then...
    :wink:

    Thanks @Nick Tamen and @Lamb Chopped for interesting observations on this somewhat difficult story!
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    A blast wave is not necessarily a shock wave. It's all about amplitude. Shock waves are ALWAYS supersonic upstream.

    The article is makes this clear: At 1.3 miles human beings would be cremated. "Four seconds later the blast wave would arrive." Read the article. It does not mention "shock wave" as an effect.
    Read the article.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    A blast wave is not necessarily a shock wave. It's all about amplitude. Shock waves are ALWAYS supersonic upstream.

    The article is makes this clear: At 1.3 miles human beings would be cremated. "Four seconds later the blast wave would arrive." Read the article. It does not mention "shock wave" as an effect.
    Read the article.

    Dude. Alan is a nuclear physicist. He studies, measures and predicts radiological effects in real life. The expect is telling you that some of your understanding, terminology and actual facts are wrong - a bit of humility here would go a long way. You might even learn something that means your nice and accurate prophecies are more accurate and potentially nicer.
  • OK. Alan is a nuclear physicist. So why can't he provide the same analysis of Rucker's hypothesis found on shroudreseach.net? Instead, he summarily dismisses the relic as "medieval" and "stained." Then he shuts down the discussion thereby avoiding having to defend his position.

    The twin bugaboos of objectivity are tradition and theology. For instance, when Galileo discovered proof of heliocentrism, the Catholic Church refused to accept it because of the longstanding tradition of geocentrism and the Biblical passages which described the sun as either coming to a standstill or even moving backwards. Church authorities cited the absence of parallax in defense of their position.

    Rationalism, naturalism, and atheism are also theologies, and these can interfere with a person's objectivity. For the relic to be authentic, a miracle has to be postulated, and that is something that is deeply offensive to these theologies. Just as the Church cited parallax, these adherents cite 14C evidence despite the fact that their interpretation of this data is not consistent with the other discoveries about the relic.

    I am sure that Alan is a very fine person, but I find that his objectivity is muted by his theology, whatever it happens to be.
  • undead_rat--

    You're really, really, really barking up the wrong tree about Alan. He's a physicist *and* a Christian. Also one of the Shipmates I respect most.
  • If you want to claim that the piece of linen in question is the burial shroud of Jesus, and that the 14C date obtained is a result of some miracle by which the cloth appears much younger than it is, then by all means do so. But, if you postulate a radiation burst that changes the 14C concentration you need to accept that there would also be other physical manifestations of such a neutron burst (I listed some of those on the thread in Purgatory). If those are not present then you're back into God-did-it by simple miracle that can't be explained territory.

    The shroudresearch.net has a lot of similarities to so-called "creation science", starting with a position that is accepted on faith and then grabbing at any pseudo-science they can find to try and shroud their faith with an appearance of scientific rationality. Just as I'm perfectly willing to accept that God could have created the entire universe in 6 days 6000 years ago with the appearance of great age I'm willing to accept that God could have preserved the burial cloth of Jesus with the appearance of younger age. I just can't imagine any reason why He should have done so, and can think of several reasons relating to my belief that God is faithful and true and does not deceive which would suggest that He wouldn't.

    And, I didn't close the thread in Purgatory, nor was I involved in the decision to do so - that was a decision by the hosts in Purgatory, and I've not hosted Purgatory except for occasional short-term cover when the regular hosts are unavailable for about 15 years.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 16
    It would be good not to import into this thread discussions from other threads.

    Likewise if you believe someone has made a statement or argument which is wrong then demonstrate its falsity. Bring the evidence and make your case.

    Speculating about why someone makes the argument they do is beside the point and assumes what you have to demonstrate i.e. that they are wrong.

    (BTW if there’s fresh discussion to be had about the Shroud of Turin, there’s nothing to stop you starting a new thread. The other thread was closed simply because it had passed the point where any real discussion of the issues was happening.)

    BroJames, Purgatory Host
  • BoogieBoogie Shipmate
    Chernobyl has become a haven for wildlife.

    The land surrounding the plant, which has been largely off limits to humans for three decades, has become a haven for wildlife, with lynx, bison, deer and other animals. This land which covers 2,800 square km of northern Ukraine, now represents the third-largest nature reserve in mainland Europe and has become an iconic – if accidental – experiment in rewilding.
  • Robert Rucker is a nuclear engineer of thirty years experience. To characterize his research and his analysis as "pseudo-science" reveals a bias on your part.

    BTW, one of the "side effects" of the hypothesized neutron radiation would have been proton radiation. The effect of that kind of radiation on linen has been studied, and it has been found to produce a premature aging of the linen fibers which results in a slightly darker appearance. The "other effects" that you cite are all detailed in TEST THE SHROUD, Antonacci, 2010.

    The general consensus among Shroud researchers is that its image is the result of a radiation from the corpse that it enveloped. The debate is about how exactly that occurred, and not whether it occurred. The characterization of modern sindonology as "creation science" is ridiculous. It is actually the skeptics like yourself who insist on viewing the relic from a theological position and are refusing to consider all of the science and historical findings. Your characterization of the image as a "stain" reveals just how woefully uniformed you are.
  • What's wrong with Alan's uniform?
    Boogie wrote: »
    Chernobyl has become a haven for wildlife.

    The land surrounding the plant, which has been largely off limits to humans for three decades, has become a haven for wildlife, with lynx, bison, deer and other animals. This land which covers 2,800 square km of northern Ukraine, now represents the third-largest nature reserve in mainland Europe and has become an iconic – if accidental – experiment in rewilding.

    IIRC, there was a news item about this in the Guardian the other day. As you say, a fascinating example of rewilding, but hopefully not to be repeated by this method!
  • There are areas of the Fukushima exclusion zone that are also re-wilding, but the circumstances are different - much of the Fukushima zone wasn't natural to start with, which means that the wildlife that was there had adapted to human presence and needs to re-adapt to a more wild existence, whereas around Chernobyl there was a fair amount of natural woodlands and fully wild animals who could expand out into the newly vacated territory. Also, whereas the Soviet (as was) solution to the contamination was to move everyone out and leave it, the Japanese approach is to attempt to remediate territory to allow people to return (land in Japan is a much scarcer resource than in Ukraine/Russia), which means there are far more people in and around the Fukushima zone which is both smaller and slowly being reduced in size (and, importantly, becoming fragmented as routes through the zone are remediated.

    In contrast, areas exposed to bomb fallout have simply been rebuilt and people keep living there. Because individual bombs don't produce as much fallout. The areas where multiple bombs were detonated are heavily contaminated, but even there the downwind fallout zones aren't very heavily contaminated.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    edited February 16
    Oops. Host posting in the wrong forum. If Doc Tor comes by, tell him I’m in Timbuktu. :flushed:
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Oops. Host posting in the wrong forum. If Doc Tor comes by, tell him I’m in Timbuktu. :flushed:

    Pfft. Get off my land etc.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    A blast wave is not necessarily a shock wave. It's all about amplitude. Shock waves are ALWAYS supersonic upstream.

    The article is makes this clear: At 1.3 miles human beings would be cremated. "Four seconds later the blast wave would arrive." Read the article. It does not mention "shock wave" as an effect.
    Read the article.

    You did.
  • Ah yes, so he did, but that was clearly to explain and amplify the article, for the easier understanding of dimwits who wouldn't otherwise have a clue.

    We must grasp the fact that we are in the presence of a Mighty Intellect, which is fully up to speed (see what I did there?) with all aspects of nuclear science.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    undead_rat--

    You're really, really, really barking

  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    undead_rat--

    You're really, really, really barking

    :mrgreen:
  • BroJames wrote: »
    Oops. Host posting in the wrong forum. If Doc Tor comes by, tell him I’m in Timbuktu. :flushed:

    Not far enough. He will rightly hunt you down and shoot you like a dog.
Sign In or Register to comment.