On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:53:50 -0500, "David Loewe, Jr."
<dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:That actually cuts the other way. It was the lagoon that limited the
>On Mon, 08 Oct 2012 13:00:55, Mason Barge <masonba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Whatever else, how would the Captain know that he wasn't going to hurt
>>>>I'd say, he'd be likely to kill a lot of people,
>>>Who? Good grief, you practically have to be under the thing at sea to
>>>>impact the entire North Atlantic fishing industry.
>>>Do you have any earthly idea how many nuclear tests were conducted by
>>>Castle Bravo alone was over 30 times bigger than that W88. Over 30 of
>>>>Thousands of tons of severely radioactive plankton are going to end up
>>Well, okay, I overstated the problem, but I still think it's bigger than
>You are wrong. I have been assuming a surface burst.
>>Do you know why Bikini could not be reinhabited after the testing? It
>In confined waters with lots of material available to activate.
> TheI'm sure the commercial fishing industry will be disappointed to hear
>impact point seen on screen was 75 miles out into the open ocean (near
>the Gulf Stream) with nothing but water and dissolved minerals to
>activate. The currents would carry that out away from land and disperse
>it throughout the North Atlantic.
that, and the huge mass of phytoplankton in the Gulf Stream will likely be
unhappy to hear they don't exist.
>Doses would be barely above background - if that.Huh? Doses would be lethal near the explosion and lower as you move away.
And doses of radioactive Polonium and ceseum are already higher, around
the world, due to radioactive fallout.
The problem is, large fish towards the top of the food chain, i.e. the
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.