initial commit of ebook 684HEADmain

2 files changed, 1065 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/old/nukwr10.txt b/old/nukwr10.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..bfefdd9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/nukwr10.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,1065 @@
+**Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War**
+- Some Perspectives
+
+
+Copyright laws are changing all over the world, be sure to check
+the copyright laws for your country before posting these files!!
+
+Please take a look at the important information in this header.
+We encourage you to keep this file on your own disk, keeping an
+electronic path open for the next readers.  Do not remove this.
+
+
+**Welcome To The World of Free Plain Vanilla Electronic Texts**
+
+**Etexts Readable By Both Humans and By Computers, Since 1971**
+
+*These Etexts Prepared By Hundreds of Volunteers and Donations*
+
+Information on contacting Project Gutenberg to get Etexts, and
+further information is included below.  We need your donations.
+
+
+Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War - - - Some Perspectives
+
+by the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.
+
+October, 1996  [Etext #684]
+
+
+**Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War**
+*****This file should be named nukwr10.txt or nukwr10.zip******
+
+Corrected EDITIONS of our etexts get a new NUMBER, nukwr11.txt.
+VERSIONS based on separate sources get new LETTER, nukwr10a.txt.
+
+
+We are now trying to release all our books one month in advance
+of the official release dates, for time for better editing.
+
+Please note:  neither this list nor its contents are final till
+midnight of the last day of the month of any such announcement.
+The official release date of all Project Gutenberg Etexts is at
+Midnight, Central Time, of the last day of the stated month.  A
+preliminary version may often be posted for suggestion, comment
+and editing by those who wish to do so.  To be sure you have an
+up to date first edition [xxxxx10x.xxx] please check file sizes
+in the first week of the next month.  Since our ftp program has
+a bug in it that scrambles the date [tried to fix and failed] a
+look at the file size will have to do, but we will try to see a
+new copy has at least one byte more or less.
+
+
+Information about Project Gutenberg (one page)
+
+We produce about two million dollars for each hour we work.  The
+fifty hours is one conservative estimate for how long it we take
+to get any etext selected, entered, proofread, edited, copyright
+searched and analyzed, the copyright letters written, etc.  This
+projected audience is one hundred million readers.  If our value
+per text is nominally estimated at one dollar then we produce $2
+million dollars per hour this year as we release thirty-two text
+files per month:  or 400 more Etexts in 1996 for a total of 800.
+If these reach just 10% of the computerized population, then the
+total should reach 80 billion Etexts.
+
+The Goal of Project Gutenberg is to Give Away One Trillion Etext
+Files by the December 31, 2001.  [10,000 x 100,000,000=Trillion]
+This is ten thousand titles each to one hundred million readers,
+which is only 10% of the present number of computer users.  2001
+should have at least twice as many computer users as that, so it
+will require us reaching less than 5% of the users in 2001.
+
+
+We need your donations more than ever!
+
+
+All donations should be made to "Project Gutenberg/BU":  and are
+tax deductible to the extent allowable by law. (BU = Benedictine
+University).  (Subscriptions to our paper newsletter go to BU.)
+
+For these and other matters, please mail to:
+
+Project Gutenberg
+P. O. Box  2782
+Champaign, IL 61825
+
+When all other email fails try our Executive Director:
+Michael S. Hart <hart@pobox.com>
+
+We would prefer to send you this information by email
+(Internet, Bitnet, Compuserve, ATTMAIL or MCImail).
+
+******
+If you have an FTP program (or emulator), please
+FTP directly to the Project Gutenberg archives:
+[Mac users, do NOT point and click. . .type]
+
+ftp uiarchive.cso.uiuc.edu
+login:  anonymous
+password:  your@login
+cd etext/etext90 through /etext96
+or cd etext/articles [get suggest gut for more information]
+dir [to see files]
+get or mget [to get files. . .set bin for zip files]
+GET INDEX?00.GUT
+for a list of books
+and
+GET NEW GUT for general information
+and
+MGET GUT* for newsletters.
+
+**Information prepared by the Project Gutenberg legal advisor**
+(Three Pages)
+
+
+***START**THE SMALL PRINT!**FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS**START***
+Why is this "Small Print!" statement here?  You know: lawyers.
+They tell us you might sue us if there is something wrong with
+your copy of this etext, even if you got it for free from
+someone other than us, and even if what's wrong is not our
+fault.  So, among other things, this "Small Print!" statement
+disclaims most of our liability to you.  It also tells you how
+you can distribute copies of this etext if you want to.
+
+*BEFORE!* YOU USE OR READ THIS ETEXT
+By using or reading any part of this PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm
+etext, you indicate that you understand, agree to and accept
+this "Small Print!" statement.  If you do not, you can receive
+a refund of the money (if any) you paid for this etext by
+sending a request within 30 days of receiving it to the person
+you got it from.  If you received this etext on a physical
+medium (such as a disk), you must return it with your request.
+
+ABOUT PROJECT GUTENBERG-TM ETEXTS
+This PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext, like most PROJECT GUTENBERG-
+tm etexts, is a "public domain" work distributed by Professor
+Michael S. Hart through the Project Gutenberg Association at
+Benedictine University (the "Project").  Among other
+things, this means that no one owns a United States copyright
+on or for this work, so the Project (and you!) can copy and
+distribute it in the United States without permission and
+without paying copyright royalties.  Special rules, set forth
+below, apply if you wish to copy and distribute this etext
+under the Project's "PROJECT GUTENBERG" trademark.
+
+To create these etexts, the Project expends considerable
+efforts to identify, transcribe and proofread public domain
+works.  Despite these efforts, the Project's etexts and any
+medium they may be on may contain "Defects".  Among other
+things, Defects may take the form of incomplete, inaccurate or
+corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
+intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged
+disk or other etext medium, a computer virus, or computer
+codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
+
+LIMITED WARRANTY; DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES
+But for the "Right of Replacement or Refund" described below,
+[1] the Project (and any other party you may receive this
+etext from as a PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm etext) disclaims all
+liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including
+legal fees, and [2] YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE OR
+UNDER STRICT LIABILITY, OR FOR BREACH OF WARRANTY OR CONTRACT,
+INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE
+OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE
+POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
+
+If you discover a Defect in this etext within 90 days of
+receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any)
+you paid for it by sending an explanatory note within that
+time to the person you received it from.  If you received it
+on a physical medium, you must return it with your note, and
+such person may choose to alternatively give you a replacement
+copy.  If you received it electronically, such person may
+choose to alternatively give you a second opportunity to
+receive it electronically.
+
+THIS ETEXT IS OTHERWISE PROVIDED TO YOU "AS-IS".  NO OTHER
+WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ARE MADE TO YOU AS
+TO THE ETEXT OR ANY MEDIUM IT MAY BE ON, INCLUDING BUT NOT
+LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A
+PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
+
+Some states do not allow disclaimers of implied warranties or
+the exclusion or limitation of consequential damages, so the
+above disclaimers and exclusions may not apply to you, and you
+may have other legal rights.
+
+INDEMNITY
+You will indemnify and hold the Project, its directors,
+officers, members and agents harmless from all liability, cost
+and expense, including legal fees, that arise directly or
+indirectly from any of the following that you do or cause:
+[1] distribution of this etext, [2] alteration, modification,
+or addition to the etext, or [3] any Defect.
+
+DISTRIBUTION UNDER "PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm"
+You may distribute copies of this etext electronically, or bydisk, book or any oth
+er medium if you either delete this
+"Small Print!" and all other references to Project Gutenberg,
+or:
+
+[1]  Only give exact copies of it.  Among other things, this
+     requires that you do not remove, alter or modify the
+     etext or this "small print!" statement.  You may however,
+     if you wish, distribute this etext in machine readable
+     binary, compressed, mark-up, or proprietary form,
+     including any form resulting from conversion by word pro-
+     cessing or hypertext software, but only so long as
+     *EITHER*:
+
+     [*]  The etext, when displayed, is clearly readable, and
+          does *not* contain characters other than those
+          intended by the author of the work, although tilde
+          (~), asterisk (*) and underline (_) characters may
+          be used to convey punctuation intended by the
+          author, and additional characters may be used to
+          indicate hypertext links; OR
+
+     [*]  The etext may be readily converted by the reader at
+          no expense into plain ASCII, EBCDIC or equivalent
+          form by the program that displays the etext (as is
+          the case, for instance, with most word processors);
+          OR
+
+     [*]  You provide, or agree to also provide on request at
+          no additional cost, fee or expense, a copy of the
+          etext in its original plain ASCII form (or in EBCDIC
+          or other equivalent proprietary form).
+
+[2]  Honor the etext refund and replacement provisions of this
+     "Small Print!" statement.
+
+[3]  Pay a trademark license fee to the Project of 20% of the
+     net profits you derive calculated using the method you
+     already use to calculate your applicable taxes.  If you
+     don't derive profits, no royalty is due.  Royalties are
+     payable to "Project Gutenberg Association / Benedictine
+     University" within the 60 days following each
+     date you prepare (or were legally required to prepare)
+     your annual (or equivalent periodic) tax return.
+
+WHAT IF YOU *WANT* TO SEND MONEY EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO?
+The Project gratefully accepts contributions in money, time,
+scanning machines, OCR software, public domain etexts, royalty
+free copyright licenses, and every other sort of contribution
+you can think of.  Money should be paid to "Project Gutenberg
+Association / Benedictine University".
+
+*END*THE SMALL PRINT! FOR PUBLIC DOMAIN ETEXTS*Ver.04.29.93*END*
+
+
+
+
+
+Scanned by Gregory Walker, gwalker@netcom.com.  For an HTML
+version of this document and additional public domain documents
+on nuclear history, visit Trinity Atomic Web Site:
+http://www.envirolink.org/issues/nuketesting/
+
+
+
+
+
+WORLDWIDE EFFECTS OF NUCLEAR WAR - - - SOME PERSPECTIVES
+
+U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, 1975.
+
+
+
+CONTENTS
+
+
+ Foreword
+ Introduction
+ The Mechanics of Nuclear Explosions
+ Radioactive Fallout
+  A. Local Fallout
+  B. Worldwide Effects of Fallout
+ Alterations of the Global Environment
+  A. High Altitude Dust
+  B. Ozone
+ Some Conclusions
+
+ Note 1: Nuclear Weapons Yield
+ Note 2: Nuclear Weapons Design
+ Note 3: Radioactivity
+ Note 4: Nuclear Half-Life
+ Note 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation
+
+
+
+FOREWORD
+
+
+Much research has been devoted to the effects of nuclear weapons.  But
+studies have been concerned for the most part with those immediate
+consequences which would be suffered by a country that was the direct
+target of nuclear attack.  Relatively few studies have examined the
+worldwide, long term effects. 
+
+Realistic and responsible arms control policy calls for our knowing more
+about these wider effects and for making this knowledge available to the
+public.  To learn more about them, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
+(ACDA) has initiated a number of projects, including a National Academy of
+Sciences study, requested in April 1974.  The Academy's study, Long-Term
+Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear Weapons Detonations, a highly
+technical document of more than 200 pages, is now available.  The present
+brief publication seeks to include its essential findings, along with the
+results of related studies of this Agency, and to provide as well the basic
+background facts necessary for informed perspectives on the issue. 
+
+New discoveries have been made, yet much uncertainty inevitably persists.
+Our knowledge of nuclear warfare rests largely on theory and hypothesis,
+fortunately untested by the usual processes of trial and error; the
+paramount goal of statesmanship is that we should never learn from the
+experience of nuclear war. 
+
+The uncertainties that remain are of such magnitude that of themselves they
+must serve as a further deterrent to the use of nuclear weapons.  At the
+same time, knowledge, even fragmentary knowledge, of the broader effects of
+nuclear weapons underlines the extreme difficulty that strategic planners
+of any nation would face in attempting to predict the results of a nuclear
+war.  Uncertainty is one of the major conclusions in our studies, as the
+haphazard and unpredicted derivation of many of our discoveries emphasizes.
+Moreover, it now appears that a massive attack with many large-scale
+nuclear detonations could cause such widespread and long-lasting
+environmental damage that the aggressor country might suffer serious
+physiological, economic, and environmental effects even without a nuclear
+response by the country attacked. 
+
+An effort has been made to present this paper in language that does not
+require a scientific background on the part of the reader.  Nevertheless it
+must deal in schematized processes, abstractions, and statistical
+generalizations.  Hence one supremely important perspective must be largely
+supplied by the reader: the human perspective--the meaning of these
+physical effects for individual human beings and for the fabric of
+civilized life. 
+
+ Fred C. Ikle
+ Director
+ U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
+
+
+
+INTRODUCTION
+
+
+It has now been two decades since the introduction of thermonuclear fusion
+weapons into the military inventories of the great powers, and more than a
+decade since the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union ceased
+to test nuclear weapons in the atmosphere.  Today our understanding of the
+technology of thermonuclear weapons seems highly advanced, but our
+knowledge of the physical and biological consequences of nuclear war is
+continuously evolving. 
+
+Only recently, new light was shed on the subject in a study which the Arms
+Control and Disarmament Agency had asked the National Academy of Sciences
+to undertake.  Previous studies had tended to focus very largely on
+radioactive fallout from a nuclear war; an important aspect of this new
+study was its inquiry into all possible consequences, including the effects
+of large-scale nuclear detonations on the ozone layer which helps protect
+life on earth from the sun's ultraviolet radiations.  Assuming a total
+detonation of 10,000 megatons--a large-scale but less than total nuclear
+"exchange," as one would say in the dehumanizing jargon of the
+strategists--it was concluded that as much as 30-70 percent of the ozone
+might be eliminated from the northern hemisphere (where a nuclear war would
+presumably take place) and as much as 20-40 percent from the southern
+hemisphere.  Recovery would probably take about 3-10 years, but the
+Academy's study notes that long term global changes cannot be completely
+ruled out. 
+
+The reduced ozone concentrations would have a number of consequences
+outside the areas in which the detonations occurred.  The Academy study
+notes, for example, that the resultant increase in ultraviolet would cause
+"prompt incapacitating cases of sunburn in the temperate zones and snow
+blindness in northern countries . . "
+
+Strange though it might seem, the increased ultraviolet radiation could
+also be accompanied by a drop in the average temperature.  The size of the
+change is open to question, but the largest changes would probably occur at
+the higher latitudes, where crop production and ecological balances are
+sensitively dependent on the number of frost-free days and other factors
+related to average temperature.  The Academy's study concluded that ozone
+changes due to nuclear war might decrease global surface temperatures by
+only negligible amounts or by as much as a few degrees.  To calibrate the
+significance of this, the study mentioned that a cooling of even 1 degree
+centigrade would eliminate commercial wheat growing in Canada. 
+
+Thus, the possibility of a serious increase in ultraviolet radiation has
+been added to widespread radioactive fallout as a fearsome consequence of
+the large-scale use of nuclear weapons.  And it is likely that we must
+reckon with still other complex and subtle processes, global in scope,
+which could seriously threaten the health of distant populations in the
+event of an all-out nuclear war. 
+
+Up to now, many of the important discoveries about nuclear weapon effects
+have been made not through deliberate scientific inquiry but by accident.
+And as the following historical examples show, there has been a series of
+surprises. 
+
+"Castle/Bravo" was the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated by the United
+States.  Before it was set off at Bikini on February 28, 1954, it was
+expected to explode with an energy equivalent of about 8 million tons of
+TNT.  Actually, it produced almost twice that explosive power--equivalent
+to 15 million tons of TNT. 
+
+If the power of the bomb was unexpected, so were the after-effects.  About
+6 hours after the explosion, a fine, sandy ash began to sprinkle the
+Japanese fishing vessel Lucky Dragon, some 90 miles downwind of the burst
+point, and Rongelap Atoll, 100 miles downwind.  Though 40 to 50 miles away
+from the proscribed test area, the vessel's crew and the islanders received
+heavy doses of radiation from the weapon's "fallout”--the coral rock, soil,
+and other debris sucked up in the fireball and made intensively radioactive
+by the nuclear reaction.  One radioactive isotope in the fallout,
+iodine-131, rapidly built up to serious concentration in the thyroid glands
+of the victims, particularly young Rongelapese children. 
+
+More than any other event in the decade of testing large nuclear weapons in
+the atmosphere, Castle/Bravo's unexpected contamination of 7,000 square
+miles of the Pacific Ocean dramatically illustrated how large-scale nuclear
+war could produce casualties on a colossal scale, far beyond the local
+effects of blast and fire alone. 
+
+A number of other surprises were encountered during 30 years of nuclear
+weapons development.  For example, what was probably man's most extensive
+modification of the global environment to date occurred in September 1962,
+when a nuclear device was detonated 250 miles above Johnson Island.  The
+1.4-megaton burst produced an artificial belt of charged particles trapped
+in the earth's magnetic field.  Though 98 percent of these particles were
+removed by natural processes after the first year, traces could be detected
+6 or 7 years later.  A number of satellites in low earth orbit at the time
+of the burst suffered severe electronic damage resulting in malfunctions
+and early failure.  It became obvious that man now had the power to make
+long term changes in his near-space environment. 
+
+Another unexpected effect of high-altitude bursts was the blackout of
+high-frequency radio communications.  Disruption of the ionosphere (which
+reflects radio signals back to the earth) by nuclear bursts over the
+Pacific has wiped out long-distance radio communications for hours at
+distances of up to 600 miles from the burst point. 
+
+Yet another surprise was the discovery that electromagnetic pulses can play
+havoc with electrical equipment itself, including some in command systems
+that control the nuclear arms themselves. 
+
+Much of our knowledge was thus gained by chance--a fact which should imbue
+us with humility as we contemplate the remaining uncertainties (as well as
+the certainties) about nuclear warfare.  What we have learned enables us,
+nonetheless, to see more clearly.  We know, for instance, that some of the
+earlier speculations about the after-effects of a global nuclear war were
+as far-fetched as they were horrifying--such as the idea that the
+worldwide accumulation of radioactive fallout would eliminate all life on
+the planet, or that it might produce a train of monstrous genetic mutations
+in all living things, making future life unrecognizable.  And this
+accumulation of knowledge which enables us to rule out the more fanciful
+possibilities also allows us to reexamine, with some scientific rigor,
+other phenomena which could seriously affect the global environment and the
+populations of participant and nonparticipant countries alike. 
+
+This paper is an attempt to set in perspective some of the longer term
+effects of nuclear war on the global environment, with emphasis on areas
+and peoples distant from the actual targets of the weapons. 
+
+
+
+THE MECHANICS OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS
+
+
+In nuclear explosions, about 90 percent of the energy is released in less
+than one millionth of a second.  Most of this is in the form of the heat
+and shock waves which produce the damage.  It is this immediate and direct
+explosive power which could devastate the urban centers in a major nuclear
+war. 
+
+Compared with the immediate colossal destruction suffered in target areas,
+the more subtle, longer term effects of the remaining 10 percent of the
+energy released by nuclear weapons might seem a matter of secondary
+concern.  But the dimensions of the initial catastrophe should not
+overshadow the after-effects of a nuclear war.  They would be global,
+affecting nations remote from the fighting for many years after the
+holocaust, because of the way nuclear explosions behave in the atmosphere
+and the radioactive products released by nuclear bursts. 
+
+When a weapon is detonated at the surface of the earth or at low altitudes,
+the heat pulse vaporizes the bomb material, target, nearby structures, and
+underlying soil and rock, all of which become entrained in an expanding,
+fast-rising fireball.  As the fireball rises, it expands and cools,
+producing the distinctive mushroom cloud, signature of nuclear explosions. 
+
+The altitude reached by the cloud depends on the force of the explosion.
+When yields are in the low-kiloton range, the cloud will remain in the
+lower atmosphere and its effects will be entirely local.  But as yields
+exceed 30 kilotons, part of the cloud will punch into the stratosphere,
+which begins about 7 miles up.  With yields of 2-5 megatons or more,
+virtually all of the cloud of radioactive debris and fine dust will climb
+into the stratosphere.  The heavier materials reaching the lower edge of
+the stratosphere will soon settle out, as did the Castle/Bravo fallout at
+Rongelap.  But the lighter particles will penetrate high into the
+stratosphere, to altitudes of 12 miles and more, and remain there for
+months and even years.  Stratospheric circulation and diffusion will spread
+this material around the world. 
+
+
+
+RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT
+
+
+Both the local and worldwide fallout hazards of nuclear explosions depend
+on a variety of interacting factors: weapon design, explosive force,
+altitude and latitude of detonation, time of year, and local weather
+conditions. 
+
+All present nuclear weapon designs require the splitting of heavy elements
+like uranium and plutonium.  The energy released in this fission process is
+many millions of times greater, pound for pound, than the most energetic
+chemical reactions.  The smaller nuclear weapon, in the low-kiloton range,
+may rely solely on the energy released by the fission process, as did the
+first bombs which devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.  The larger
+yield nuclear weapons derive a substantial part of their explosive force
+from the fusion of heavy forms of hydrogen--deuterium and tritium.  Since
+there is virtually no limitation on the volume of fusion materials in a
+weapon, and the materials are less costly than fissionable materials, the
+fusion, "thermonuclear," or "hydrogen" bomb brought a radical increase in
+the explosive power of weapons.  However, the fission process is still
+necessary to achieve the high temperatures and pressures needed to trigger
+the hydrogen fusion reactions.  Thus, all nuclear detonations produce
+radioactive fragments of heavy elements fission, with the larger bursts
+producing an additional radiation component from the fusion process. 
+
+The nuclear fragments of heavy-element fission which are of greatest
+concern are those radioactive atoms (also called radionuclides) which decay
+by emitting energetic electrons or gamma particles.  (See "Radioactivity"
+note.) An important characteristic here is the rate of decay.  This is
+measured in terms of "half-life"--the time required for one-half of the
+original substance to decay--which ranges from days to thousands of years
+for the bomb-produced radionuclides of principal interest.  (See "Nuclear
+Half-Life" note.) Another factor which is critical in determining the
+hazard of radionuclides is the chemistry of the atoms.  This determines
+whether they will be taken up by the body through respiration or the food
+cycle and incorporated into tissue.  If this occurs, the risk of biological
+damage from the destructive ionizing radiation (see "Radioactivity" note)
+is multiplied. 
+
+Probably the most serious threat is cesium-137, a gamma emitter with a
+half-life of 30 years.  It is a major source of radiation in nuclear
+fallout, and since it parallels potassium chemistry, it is readily taken
+into the blood of animals and men and may be incorporated into tissue. 
+
+Other hazards are strontium-90, an electron emitter with a half-life of 28
+years, and iodine-131 with a half-life of only 8 days.  Strontium-90
+follows calcium chemistry, so that it is readily incorporated into the
+bones and teeth, particularly of young children who have received milk from
+cows consuming contaminated forage.  Iodine-131 is a similar threat to
+infants and children because of its concentration in the thyroid gland.  
+In addition, there is plutonium-239, frequently used in nuclear explosives.  
+A bone-seeker like strontium-90, it may also become lodged in the lungs,
+where its intense local radiation can cause cancer or other damage.
+Plutonium-239 decays through emission of an alpha particle (helium nucleus)
+and has a half-life of 24,000 years. 
+
+To the extent that hydrogen fusion contributes to the explosive force of a
+weapon, two other radionuclides will be released: tritium (hydrogen-3), an
+electron emitter with a half-life of 12 years, and carbon-14, an electron
+emitter with a half-life of 5,730 years.  Both are taken up through the
+food cycle and readily incorporated in organic matter. 
+
+Three types of radiation damage may occur: bodily damage (mainly leukemia
+and cancers of the thyroid, lung, breast, bone, and gastrointestinal
+tract); genetic damage (birth defects and constitutional and degenerative
+diseases due to gonodal damage suffered by parents); and development and
+growth damage (primarily growth and mental retardation of unborn infants
+and young children).  Since heavy radiation doses of about 20 roentgen or
+more (see "Radioactivity" note) are necessary to produce developmental
+defects, these effects would probably be confined to areas of heavy local
+fallout in the nuclear combatant nations and would not become a global
+problem. 
+
+
+A. Local Fallout
+
+Most of the radiation hazard from nuclear bursts comes from short-lived
+radionuclides external to the body; these are generally confined to the
+locality downwind of the weapon burst point.  This radiation hazard comes
+from radioactive fission fragments with half-lives of seconds to a few
+months, and from soil and other materials in the vicinity of the burst made
+radioactive by the intense neutron flux of the fission and fusion
+reactions. 
+
+It has been estimated that a weapon with a fission yield of 1 million tons
+TNT equivalent power (1 megaton) exploded at ground level in a 15
+miles-per-hour wind would produce fallout in an ellipse extending hundreds
+of miles downwind from the burst point.  At a distance of 20-25 miles
+downwind, a lethal radiation dose (600 rads) would be accumulated by a
+person who did not find shelter within 25 minutes after the time the
+fallout began.  At a distance of 40-45 miles, a person would have at most 3
+hours after the fallout began to find shelter.  Considerably smaller
+radiation doses will make people seriously ill.  Thus, the survival
+prospects of persons immediately downwind of the burst point would be slim
+unless they could be sheltered or evacuated. 
+
+It has been estimated that an attack on U.S. population centers by 100
+weapons of one-megaton fission yield would kill up to 20 percent of the
+population immediately through blast, heat, ground shock and instant
+radiation effects (neutrons and gamma rays); an attack with 1,000 such
+weapons would destroy immediately almost half the U.S. population.  These
+figures do not include additional deaths from fires, lack of medical
+attention, starvation, or the lethal fallout showering to the ground
+downwind of the burst points of the weapons. 
+
+Most of the bomb-produced radionuclides decay rapidly.  Even so, beyond the
+blast radius of the exploding weapons there would be areas ("hot spots")
+the survivors could not enter because of radioactive contamination from
+long-lived radioactive isotopes like strontium-90 or cesium-137, which can
+be concentrated through the food chain and incorporated into the body.  The
+damage caused would be internal, with the injurious effects appearing over
+many years.  For the survivors of a nuclear war, this lingering radiation
+hazard could represent a grave threat for as long as 1 to 5 years after the
+attack. 
+
+
+B. Worldwide Effects of Fallout
+
+Much of our knowledge of the production and distribution of radionuclides
+has been derived from the period of intensive nuclear testing in the
+atmosphere during the 1950's and early 1960's.  It is estimated that more
+than 500 megatons of nuclear yield were detonated in the atmosphere between
+1945 and 1971, about half of this yield being produced by a fission
+reaction.  The peak occurred in 1961-62, when a total of 340 megatons were
+detonated in the atmosphere by the United States and Soviet Union.  The
+limited nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 ended atmospheric testing for the
+United States, Britain, and the Soviet Union, but two major
+non-signatories, France and China, continued nuclear testing at the rate of
+about 5 megatons annually. (France now conducts its nuclear tests
+underground.)
+
+A U.N. scientific committee has estimated that the cumulative per capita
+dose to the world's population up to the year 2000 as a result of
+atmospheric testing through 1970 (cutoff date of the study) will be the
+equivalent of 2 years' exposure to natural background radiation on the
+earth's surface.  For the bulk of the world's population, internal and
+external radiation doses of natural origin amount to less than one-tenth
+rad annually.  Thus nuclear testing to date does not appear to pose a
+severe radiation threat in global terms.  But a nuclear war releasing 10 or
+100 times the total yield of all previous weapons tests could pose a far
+greater worldwide threat. 
+
+The biological effects of all forms of ionizing radiation have been
+calculated within broad ranges by the National Academy of Sciences.  Based
+on these calculations, fallout from the 500-plus megatons of nuclear
+testing through 1970 will produce between 2 and 25 cases of genetic disease
+per million live births in the next generation.  This means that between 3
+and 50 persons per billion births in the post-testing generation will have
+genetic damage for each megaton of nuclear yield exploded.  With similar
+uncertainty, it is possible to estimate that the induction of cancers would
+range from 75 to 300 cases per megaton for each billion people in the
+post-test generation. 
+
+If we apply these very rough yardsticks to a large-scale nuclear war in
+which 10,000 megatons of nuclear force are detonated, the effects on a
+world population of 5 billion appear enormous.  Allowing for uncertainties
+about the dynamics of a possible nuclear war, radiation-induced cancers and
+genetic damage together over 30 years are estimated to range from 1.5 to 
+30 million for the world population as a whole.  This would mean one
+additional case for every 100 to 3,000 people or about 1/2 percent to 
+15 percent of the estimated peacetime cancer death rate in developed
+countries.  As will be seen, moreover, there could be other, less well
+understood effects which would drastically increase suffering and death. 
+
+
+
+ALTERATIONS OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
+
+
+A nuclear war would involve such prodigious and concentrated short term
+release of high temperature energy that it is necessary to consider a
+variety of potential environmental effects. 
+
+It is true that the energy of nuclear weapons is dwarfed by many natural
+phenomena.  A large hurricane may have the power of a million hydrogen
+bombs.  But the energy release of even the most severe weather is diffuse;
+it occurs over wide areas, and the difference in temperature between the
+storm system and the surrounding atmosphere is relatively small.  Nuclear
+detonations are just the opposite--highly concentrated with reaction
+temperatures up to tens of millions of degrees Fahrenheit.  Because they
+are so different from natural processes, it is necessary to examine their
+potential for altering the environment in several contexts. 
+
+
+A.  High Altitude Dust
+
+It has been estimated that a 10,000-megaton war with half the weapons
+exploding at ground level would tear up some 25 billion cubic meters of
+rock and soil, injecting a substantial amount of fine dust and particles
+into the stratosphere.  This is roughly twice the volume of material
+blasted loose by the Indonesian volcano, Krakatoa, whose explosion in 1883
+was the most powerful terrestrial event ever recorded.  Sunsets around the
+world were noticeably reddened for several years after the Krakatoa
+eruption, indicating that large amounts of volcanic dust had entered the
+stratosphere. 
+
+Subsequent studies of large volcanic explosions, such as Mt. Agung on Bali
+in 1963, have raised the possibility that large-scale injection of dust
+into the stratosphere would reduce sunlight intensities and temperatures at
+the surface, while increasing the absorption of heat in the upper
+atmosphere. 
+
+The resultant minor changes in temperature and sunlight could affect crop
+production.  However, no catastrophic worldwide changes have resulted from
+volcanic explosions, so it is doubtful that the gross injection of
+particulates into the stratosphere by a 10,000-megaton conflict would, by
+itself, lead to major global climate changes. 
+
+
+B. Ozone
+
+More worrisome is the possible effect of nuclear explosions on ozone in the
+stratosphere.  Not until the 20th century was the unique and paradoxical
+role of ozone fully recognized.  On the other hand, in concentrations
+greater than I part per million in the air we breathe, ozone is toxic; one
+major American city, Los Angeles, has established a procedure for ozone
+alerts and warnings.  On the other hand, ozone is a critically important
+feature of the stratosphere from the standpoint of maintaining life on the
+earth. 
+
+The reason is that while oxygen and nitrogen in the upper reaches of the
+atmosphere can block out solar ultraviolet photons with wavelengths shorter
+than 2,420 angstroms (A), ozone is the only effective shield in the
+atmosphere against solar ultraviolet radiation between 2,500 and 3,000 A in
+wavelength.  (See note 5.)  Although ozone is extremely efficient at
+filtering out solar ultraviolet in 2,500-3,OOO A region of the spectrum,
+some does get through at the higher end of the spectrum.  Ultraviolet rays
+in the range of 2,800 to 3,200 A which cause sunburn, prematurely age human
+skin and produce skin cancers.  As early as 1840, arctic snow blindness was
+attributed to solar ultraviolet; and we have since found that intense
+ultraviolet radiation can inhibit photosynthesis in plants, stunt plant
+growth, damage bacteria, fungi, higher plants, insects and annuals, and
+produce genetic alterations. 
+
+Despite the important role ozone plays in assuring a liveable environment
+at the earth's surface, the total quantity of ozone in the atmosphere is
+quite small, only about 3 parts per million.  Furthermore, ozone is not a
+durable or static constituent of the atmosphere.  It is constantly created,
+destroyed, and recreated by natural processes, so that the amount of ozone
+present at any given time is a function of the equilibrium reached between
+the creative and destructive chemical reactions and the solar radiation
+reaching the upper stratosphere. 
+
+The mechanism for the production of ozone is the absorption by oxygen
+molecules (O2) of relatively short-wavelength ultraviolet light.  The
+oxygen molecule separates into two atoms of free oxygen, which immediately
+unite with other oxygen molecules on the surfaces of particles in the upper
+atmosphere.  It is this union which forms ozone, or O3.  The heat released
+by the ozone-forming process is the reason for the curious increase with
+altitude of the temperature of the stratosphere (the base of which is about
+36,000 feet above the earth's surface). 
+
+While the natural chemical reaction produces about 4,500 tons of ozone per
+second in the stratosphere, this is offset by other natural chemical
+reactions which break down the ozone.  By far the most significant involves
+nitric oxide (NO) which breaks ozone (O3) into molecules.  This effect was
+discovered only in the last few years in studies of the environmental
+problems which might be encountered if large fleets of supersonic transport
+aircraft operate routinely in the lower stratosphere.  According to a
+report by Dr. Harold S. Johnston, University of California at Berkeley--
+prepared for the Department of Transportation's Climatic Impact
+Assessment Program--it now appears that the NO reaction is normally
+responsible for 50 to 70 percent of the destruction of ozone. 
+
+In the natural environment, there is a variety of means for the production
+of NO and its transport into the stratosphere.  Soil bacteria produce
+nitrous oxide (N2O) which enters the lower atmosphere and slowly diffuses
+into the stratosphere, where it reacts with free oxygen (O) to form two NO
+molecules.  Another mechanism for NO production in the lower atmosphere may
+be lightning discharges, and while NO is quickly washed out of the lower
+atmosphere by rain, some of it may reach the stratosphere.  Additional
+amounts of NO are produced directly in the stratosphere by cosmic rays from
+the sun and interstellar sources. 
+
+It is because of this catalytic role which nitric oxide plays in the
+destruction of ozone that it is important to consider the effects of
+high-yield nuclear explosions on the ozone layer.  The nuclear fireball and
+the air entrained within it are subjected to great heat, followed by
+relatively rapid cooling.  These conditions are ideal for the production of
+tremendous amounts of NO from the air.  It has been estimated that as much
+as 5,000 tons of nitric oxide is produced for each megaton of nuclear
+explosive power. 
+
+What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into the stratosphere by
+an all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,000 megatons of
+explosive force in the northern hemisphere?  According to the recent
+National Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide produced by the
+weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hemisphere by as much
+as 30 to 70 percent. 
+
+To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back to the earth's
+surface less heat than would normally be the case, thus causing a drop in
+temperature--perhaps enough to produce serious effects on agriculture.
+Other changes, such as increased amounts of dust or different vegetation,
+might subsequently reverse this drop in temperature--but on the other hand,
+it might increase it. 
+
+Probably more important, life on earth has largely evolved within the
+protective ozone shield and is presently adapted rather precisely to the
+amount of solar ultraviolet which does get through.  To defend themselves
+against this low level of ultraviolet, evolved external shielding
+(feathers, fur, cuticular waxes on fruit), internal shielding (melanin
+pigment in human skin, flavenoids in plant tissue), avoidance strategies
+(plankton migration to greater depths in the daytime, shade-seeking by
+desert iguanas) and, in almost all organisms but placental mammals,
+elaborate mechanisms to repair photochemical damage. 
+
+It is possible, however, that a major increase in solar ultraviolet might
+overwhelm the defenses of some and perhaps many terrestrial life forms.
+Both direct and indirect damage would then occur among the bacteria,
+insects, plants, and other links in the ecosystems on which human
+well-being depends.  This disruption, particularly if it occurred in the
+aftermath of a major war involving many other dislocations, could pose a
+serious additional threat to the recovery of postwar society.  The National
+Academy of Sciences report concludes that in 20 years the ecological
+systems would have essentially recovered from the increase in ultraviolet
+radiation--though not necessarily from radioactivity or other damage in
+areas close to the war zone.  However, a delayed effect of the increase in
+ultraviolet radiation would be an estimated 3 to 30 percent increase in
+skin cancer for 40 years in the Northern Hemisphere's mid-latitudes. 
+
+
+
+SOME CONCLUSIONS
+
+
+We have considered the problems of large-scale nuclear war from the
+standpoint of the countries not under direct attack, and the difficulties
+they might encounter in postwar recovery.  It is true that most of the
+horror and tragedy of nuclear war would be visited on the populations
+subject to direct attack, who would doubtless have to cope with extreme and
+perhaps insuperable obstacles in seeking to reestablish their own
+societies.  It is no less apparent, however, that other nations, including
+those remote from the combat, could suffer heavily because of damage to the
+global environment. 
+
+Finally, at least brief mention should be made of the global effects
+resulting from disruption of economic activities and communications.  Since
+1970, an increasing fraction of the human race has been losing the battle
+for self-sufficiency in food, and must rely on heavy imports.  A major
+disruption of agriculture and transportation in the grain-exporting and
+manufacturing countries could thus prove disastrous to countries importing
+food, farm machinery, and fertilizers--especially those which are already
+struggling with the threat of widespread starvation.  Moreover, virtually
+every economic area, from food and medicines to fuel and growth engendering
+industries, the less-developed countries would find they could not rely on
+the "undamaged" remainder of the developed world for trade essentials: in
+the wake of a nuclear war the industrial powers directly involved would
+themselves have to compete for resources with those countries that today
+are described as "less-developed."
+
+Similarly, the disruption of international communications--satellites,
+cables, and even high frequency radio links--could be a major obstacle to
+international recovery efforts. 
+
+In attempting to project the after-effects of a major nuclear war, we have
+considered separately the various kinds of damage that could occur.  It is
+also quite possible, however, that interactions might take place among
+these effects, so that one type of damage would couple with another to
+produce new and unexpected hazards.  For example, we can assess
+individually the consequences of heavy worldwide radiation fallout and
+increased solar ultraviolet, but we do not know whether the two acting
+together might significantly increase human, animal, or plant
+susceptibility to disease.  We can conclude that massive dust injection
+into the stratosphere, even greater in scale than Krakatoa, is unlikely by
+itself to produce significant climatic and environmental change, but we
+cannot rule out interactions with other phenomena, such as ozone depletion,
+which might produce utterly unexpected results. 
+
+We have come to realize that nuclear weapons can be as unpredictable as
+they are deadly in their effects.  Despite some 30 years of development and
+study, there is still much that we do not know.  This is particularly true
+when we consider the global effects of a large-scale nuclear war. 
+
+
+
+Note 1:  Nuclear Weapons Yield
+
+
+The most widely used standard for measuring the power of nuclear weapons is
+"yield," expressed as the quantity of chemical explosive (TNT) that would
+produce the same energy release.  The first atomic weapon which leveled
+Hiroshima in 1945, had a yield of 13 kilotons; that is, the explosive power
+of 13,000 tons of TNT.  (The largest conventional bomb dropped in World War
+II contained about 10 tons of TNT.)
+
+Since Hiroshima, the yields or explosive power of nuclear weapons have
+vastly increased.  The world's largest nuclear detonation, set off in 1962
+by the Soviet Union, had a yield of 58 megatons--equivalent to 58 million
+tons of TNT.  A modern ballistic missile may carry warhead yields up to 20
+or more megatons. 
+
+Even the most violent wars of recent history have been relatively limited
+in terms of the total destructive power of the non-nuclear weapons used.  
+A single aircraft or ballistic missile today can carry a nuclear explosive
+force surpassing that of all the non-nuclear bombs used in recent wars.
+The number of nuclear bombs and missiles the superpowers now possess runs
+into the thousands. 
+
+
+
+Note 2:  Nuclear Weapons Design
+
+
+Nuclear weapons depend on two fundamentally different types of nuclear
+reactions, each of which releases energy:
+
+Fission, which involves the splitting of heavy elements (e.g. uranium); and
+fusion, which involves the combining of light elements (e.g. hydrogen). 
+
+Fission requires that a minimum amount of material or "critical mass" be
+brought together in contact for the nuclear explosion to take place.  The
+more efficient fission weapons tend to fall in the yield range of tens of
+kilotons.  Higher explosive yields become increasingly complex and
+impractical. 
+
+Nuclear fusion permits the design of weapons of virtually limitless power.
+In fusion, according to nuclear theory, when the nuclei of light atoms like
+hydrogen are joined, the mass of the fused nucleus is lighter than the two
+original nuclei; the loss is expressed as energy.  By the 1930's,
+physicists had concluded that this was the process which powered the sun
+and stars; but the nuclear fusion process remained only of theoretical
+interest until it was discovered that an atomic fission bomb might be used
+as a "trigger" to produce, within one- or two-millionths of a second, the
+intense pressure and temperature necessary to set off the fusion reaction. 
+
+Fusion permits the design of weapons of almost limitless power, using
+materials that are far less costly. 
+
+
+
+Note 3: Radioactivity
+
+
+Most familiar natural elements like hydrogen, oxygen, gold, and lead are
+stable, and enduring unless acted upon by outside forces.  But almost all
+elements can exist in unstable forms.  The nuclei of these unstable
+"isotopes," as they are called, are "uncomfortable" with the particular
+mixture of nuclear particles comprising them, and they decrease this
+internal stress through the process of radioactive decay. 
+
+The three basic modes of radioactive decay are the emission of alpha, beta
+and gamma radiation:
+
+Alpha--Unstable nuclei frequently emit alpha particles, actually helium
+nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons.  By far the most massive
+of the decay particles, it is also the slowest, rarely exceeding one-tenth
+the velocity of light.  As a result, its penetrating power is weak, and it
+can usually be stopped by a piece of paper.  But if alpha emitters like
+plutonium are incorporated in the body, they pose a serious cancer threat. 
+
+Beta--Another form of radioactive decay is the emission of a beta particle,
+or electron.  The beta particle has only about one seven-thousandth the
+mass of the alpha particle, but its velocity is very much greater, as much
+as eight-tenths the velocity of light.  As a result, beta particles can
+penetrate far more deeply into bodily tissue and external doses of beta
+radiation represent a significantly greater threat than the slower, heavier
+alpha particles.  Beta-emitting isotopes are as harmful as alpha emitters
+if taken up by the body. 
+
+Gamma--In some decay processes, the emission is a photon having no mass at
+all and traveling at the speed of light.  Radio waves, visible light,
+radiant heat, and X-rays are all photons, differing only in the energy
+level each carries.  The gamma ray is similar to the X-ray photon, but far
+more penetrating (it can traverse several inches of concrete).  It is
+capable of doing great damage in the body. 
+
+Common to all three types of nuclear decay radiation is their ability to
+ionize (i.e., unbalance electrically) the neutral atoms through which they
+pass, that is, give them a net electrical charge.  The alpha particle,
+carrying a positive electrical charge, pulls electrons from the atoms
+through which it passes, while negatively charged beta particles can push
+electrons out of neutral atoms.  If energetic betas pass sufficiently close
+to atomic nuclei, they can produce X-rays which themselves can ionize
+additional neutral atoms.  Massless but energetic gamma rays can knock
+electrons out of neutral atoms in the same fashion as X-rays, leaving them
+ionized.  A single particle of radiation can ionize hundreds of neutral
+atoms in the tissue in multiple collisions before all its energy is
+absorbed.  This disrupts the chemical bonds for critically important cell
+structures like the cytoplasm, which carries the cell's genetic blueprints,
+and also produces chemical constituents which can cause as much damage as
+the original ionizing radiation. 
+
+For convenience, a unit of radiation dose called the "rad" has been
+adopted.  It measures the amount of ionization produced per unit volume by
+the particles from radioactive decay. 
+
+
+
+Note 4: Nuclear Half-Life
+
+
+The concept of "half-life" is basic to an understanding of radioactive
+decay of unstable nuclei. 
+
+Unlike physical "systems"--bacteria, animals, men and stars--unstable
+isotopes do not individually have a predictable life span.  There is no way
+of forecasting when a single unstable nucleus will decay. 
+
+Nevertheless, it is possible to get around the random behavior of an
+individual nucleus by dealing statistically with large numbers of nuclei of
+a particular radioactive isotope.  In the case of thorium-232, for example,
+radioactive decay proceeds so slowly that 14 billion years must elapse
+before one-half of an initial quantity decayed to a more stable
+configuration.  Thus the half-life of this isotope is 14 billion years.
+After the elapse of second half-life (another 14 billion years), only
+one-fourth of the original quantity of thorium-232 would remain, one eighth
+after the third half-life, and so on. 
+
+Most manmade radioactive isotopes have much shorter half-lives, ranging
+from seconds or days up to thousands of years.  Plutonium-239 (a manmade
+isotope) has a half-life of 24,000 years. 
+
+For the most common uranium isotope, U-238, the half-life is 4.5 billion
+years, about the age of the solar system.  The much scarcer, fissionable
+isotope of uranium, U-235, has a half-life of 700 million years, indicating
+that its present abundance is only about 1 percent of the amount present
+when the solar system was born. 
+
+
+
+Note 5: Oxygen, Ozone and Ultraviolet Radiation
+
+
+Oxygen, vital to breathing creatures, constitutes about one-fifth of the
+earth's atmosphere.  It occasionally occurs as a single atom in the
+atmosphere at high temperature, but it usually combines with a second
+oxygen atom to form molecular oxygen (O2).  The oxygen in the air we
+breathe consists primarily of this stable form. 
+
+Oxygen has also a third chemical form in which three oxygen atoms are bound
+together in a single molecule (03), called ozone.  Though less stable and
+far more rare than O2, and principally confined to upper levels of the
+stratosphere, both molecular oxygen and ozone play a vital role in
+shielding the earth from harmful components of solar radiation. 
+
+Most harmful radiation is in the "ultraviolet" region of the solar
+spectrum, invisible to the eye at short wavelengths (under 3,000 A).  (An
+angstrom unit--A--is an exceedingly short unit of length--10 billionths of
+a centimeter, or about 4 billionths of an inch.) Unlike X-rays, ultraviolet
+photons are not "hard" enough to ionize atoms, but pack enough energy to
+break down the chemical bonds of molecules in living cells and produce a
+variety of biological and genetic abnormalities, including tumors and
+cancers. 
+
+Fortunately, because of the earth's atmosphere, only a trace of this
+dangerous ultraviolet radiation actually reaches the earth.  By the time
+sunlight reaches the top of the stratosphere, at about 30 miles altitude,
+almost all the radiation shorter than 1,900 A has been absorbed by
+molecules of nitrogen and oxygen.  Within the stratosphere itself,
+molecular oxygen (02) absorbs the longer wavelengths of ultraviolet, up to
+2,420 A; and ozone (O3) is formed as a result of this absorption process.
+It is this ozone then which absorbs almost all of the remaining ultraviolet
+wavelengths up to about 3,000 A, so that almost all of the dangerous solar
+radiation is cut off before it reaches the earth's surface. 
+
+
+
+
+End of the Project Gutenberg Etext of Worldwide Effects of Nuclear War
+
diff --git a/old/nukwr10.zip b/old/nukwr10.zip
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..466e152
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/nukwr10.zip