Posted on 03/05/2022 1:48:00 PM PST by blam
Yes....and, it will be just as *effective* as their current one. 🙃
Oh, the social-distancing nonsense is still around, it has just moved to the alert.gov advisory for bomb/fallout shelter protocol. Trying to maintain some sort of common thread, perhaps?
Did anyone remember the nuclear winter situation that will follow the detonations of a war between Russia and the US?
If Russia and the United States launched an all-out nuclear war, it would spell disaster for everyone on Earth, according to a new study in 2019. Not only would explosions, fires and radiation exposure kill millions in targeted cities, but a “nuclear winter” lasting months to years would also drastically alter the Earth’s climate, causing freezing summers and worldwide famine.
The pills in this thread won’t be enough to eat or drink while in shelters, there won’t be enough M3 suits or active masks, the anpdrs will go battery dead, and there will be no food on the surface when they come back up. Pills, mute point.
wy69
I’m not concerning myself with Faraday Cages. So what if you have a car that would run if there were any gas. A year after a nationwide EMP attack, 75% of Americans would have starved to death. “One Second After”, the scariest book I ever read. One Second After (A John Matherson Novel, 1) https://www.amazon.com/dp/0765356864/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_i_C9CVK0QHVM89X8979573
If this conflict goes nuclear, I will exclusively live off of tawny port and cigars.
I looked on Amazon to see when I bought it and I paid $6.89 for the blister pack in 2018.
As a person with Grave’s Disease, my thyroid was intentionally destroyed with radioactive iodine in the early 90’s. Too late for me to try to save it now.
That is one scary book...I’ll say the same about ‘The Stand’.
Terrorist would love to let loose one (1) dirty bomb. Take some pills and get out of the area.
Every possible situation is not the end of the world.
[Did anyone remember the nuclear winter situation that will follow the detonations of a war between Russia and the US?
If Russia and the United States launched an all-out nuclear war, it would spell disaster for everyone on Earth, according to a new study in 2019. Not only would explosions, fires and radiation exposure kill millions in targeted cities, but a “nuclear winter” lasting months to years would also drastically alter the Earth’s climate, causing freezing summers and worldwide famine.
The pills in this thread won’t be enough to eat or drink while in shelters, there won’t be enough M3 suits or active masks, the anpdrs will go battery dead, and there will be no food on the surface when they come back up. Pills, mute point.
wy69]
Three years later, in 1982, the Swedish Academy of Sciences commissioned a report entitled “The Atmosphere after a Nuclear War: Twilight at Noon,” which attempted to quantify the effect of smoke from burning forests and cities. The authors speculated that there would be so much smoke that a large cloud over the northern hemisphere would reduce incoming sunlight below the level required for photosynthesis, and that this would last for weeks or even longer.
The following year, five scientists including Richard Turco and Carl Sagan published a paper in Science called “Nuclear Winter: Global Consequences of Multiple Nuclear Explosions.” This was the so-called TTAPS report, which attempted to quantify more rigorously the atmospheric effects, with the added credibility to be gained from an actual computer model of climate.
At the heart of the TTAPS undertaking was another equation, never specifically expressed, but one that could be paraphrased as follows:
Ds = Wn Ws Wh Tf Tb Pt Pr Pe etc
(The amount of tropospheric dust = # warheads × size warheads × warhead detonation height × flammability of targets × Target burn duration × Particles entering the Troposphere × Particle reflectivity × Particle endurance, and so on.)
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 coworkers, 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 0.5 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.
But Sagan and his coworkers were prepared, for nuclear winter was from the outset the subject of a well-orchestrated media campaign. The first announcement of nuclear winter appeared in an article by Sagan in the Sunday supplement, Parade. The very next day, a highly-publicized, high-profile conference on the long-term consequences of nuclear war was held in Washington, chaired by Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich, the most famous and media-savvy scientists of their generation. Sagan appeared on the Johnny Carson show 40 times. Ehrlich was on 25 times. Following the conference, there were press conferences, meetings with congressmen, and so on. The formal papers in Science came months later.
This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.
The real nature of the conference is indicated by these artists’ renderings of the effect of nuclear winter.
I cannot help but quote the caption for figure 5: “Shown here is a tranquil scene in the north woods. A beaver has just completed its dam, two black bears forage for food, a swallow-tailed butterfly flutters in the foreground, a loon swims quietly by, and a kingfisher searches for a tasty fish.” Hard science if ever there was.
At the conference in Washington, during the question period, Ehrlich was reminded that after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, scientists were quoted as saying nothing would grow there for 75 years, but in fact melons were growing the next year. So, he was asked, how accurate were these findings now?
Ehrlich answered by saying “I think they are extremely robust. Scientists may have made statements like that, although I cannot imagine what their basis would have been, even with the state of science at that time, but scientists are always making absurd statements, individually, in various places. What we are doing here, however, is presenting a consensus of a very large group of scientists.”
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 the business of politics. 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 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.
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.
In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.
There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor—southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result—despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.
Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology—until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.
And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The 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=mc 2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.]
..:I’m holding out for the release of the superior mRNA version!
Did anyone remember the nuclear winter situation that will follow the detonations of a war between Russia and the US?
If Russia and the United States launched an all-out nuclear war, it would spell disaster for everyone on Earth, according to a new study in 2019. Not only would explosions, fires and radiation exposure kill millions in targeted cities, but a “nuclear winter” lasting months to years would also drastically alter the Earth’s climate, causing freezing summers and worldwide famine.
The pills in this thread won’t be enough to eat or drink while in shelters, there won’t be enough M3 suits or active masks, the anpdrs will go battery dead, and there will be no food on the surface when they come back up. Pills, mute point.
wy69
Prior boners by the co-author of the nuclear winter sales pitch:
Basically, Ehrlich is a serial grifter, with “climate change” as his greatest score.
I am trying to figure out how I am going to get a relative to try it for cancer. There is so much negative out there about Ivermectin I can just imagine the response. I am loading up on the scientific info on repurposed drugs
ok
“I am trying to figure out how I am going to get a relative to try it for cancer. There is so much negative out there about Ivermectin I can just imagine the response. I am loading up on the scientific info on repurposed drugs”
*****
I don’t know. It’s hard to teach people anything unless they come to you, ready to learn, with a question.
I’d probably just load up an email, saying, “I think this might help, here’s the evidence, and I know where to get it, let me know if you want to try” and leave it at that.
That is sold by Walmart, too. But if you look at the back of the bottle of the one you bought, it misspelled healthcare once, which is a red flag for me, and I ordered something else.
I did not notice that. At least if I’m getting ripped off with a bogus supplement, they’re New Jersey con men doing it and not Chinese ones.
Unfortunately, I blew all my panic money on face masks and sanitizer.
Yeah, and no bombing or nuke plant accident/war destruction needed.
It will cover both getting nuked and curing with death in one jab.
Do you know anything about “Iodoral”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.