Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As I mentioned before, a nuclear war may be entirely able to exterminate humanity, but through flooding the atmosphere with pyrochemicals instead of the actual bomb or radiation. There's no way to know until we try!

[smjjames]

I dunno, we're pretty damn resourceful. Sure, we BARELY made it through a supervolcano eruption (Toba eruption or something when the human species had a lot smaller range at the time), but we're so spread now around that pockets of people are bound to survive somewhere. Civilization-as-we-know-it ending? Definetly, but to be species ending, we'd have to make it absolutely impossible to survive anywhere.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The difference is that if the pyrochemical concept is true, it would fill the atmosphere with material inhospitable to most forms of life, and unlike typical pollution or radiation won't be mitigated over time.

[Rolepgeek]

What exactly is a pyrochemical, MSH?

Googling the term yields me naught for nouns.

[smjjames]

Best wiki can find is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroprocessing, basically byproducts of the heat from the nuclear blast I guess, or in less fancy words, airborne ash.

But even airborne particles settle eventually.

Also tried google, but all I could find were references to pyrochemical proccesses to recycle nuclear waste. Attempted to use the word 'concept' and 'theory', but those went straight to conspiracy theories.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Sorry, I get the term from an insular group who all call it that. Didn't know it wasn't common.

Basically, what you want to look for is 9/11 syndrome applied to the consequences of nuclear attacks on cities.

[Descan]

So are you talking about global nuclear winter or...? :V

[Loud Whispers]

Guardian G.I. is a credit to the forum and mild averter of WWIII

[Culise]

So are you talking about global nuclear winter or...? :V

I've heard "9/11 syndrome" applied to two things.  The first is the political climate of fear, terror, and general societal neurosis that resulted in Islamophobia, mutual animosity, and the like; it's kind of a click-bait way of looking at a much more general topic that never (thankfully) really caught on.  The second, and the one MSH's almost certainly referring to, is the actual health effects of the collapse of the towers.  Basically, when the towers went down, it kicked up a massive amount of lovely dust containing all sorts of wonderful particulate matter ranging from concrete, glass, cellulose, and the like to asbestos, lead, silicon, and mercury, seasoned with enough of a sprinkling of cadmium, carcinogenic PAHs, and dioxins to keep things interesting.  This was only added to by the smoke of three months of fires that continued to burn or smoulder under the debris, and the net effect of this has been increased risks of respiratory ailments and cancer not only among the first-responders (though they are certainly the highest at-risk group by orders of magnitude), but possibly even also other residents of New York in the vicinity and downwind (at least between the site and the sea; prevailing winds drove most of the smoke out over the Atlantic). 

However, while I think I have an inkling, I'm not completely positive what this has to do with pyrochemicals.  While spread by the debris cloud and smoke from the fires, the majority of the dangerous aerosolized debris from the WTC wasn't really created or activated by the fires at all to my admittedly-limited knowledge, which is what pyrochemicals refer to (specifically, pertaining to chemical changes at high temperatures).  The primary chemicals that could be identified as originating due to the fires, rather than simply being spread by them, are likely the dioxins and PAHs; dioxins originating in fires is well-known in literature, apparently, to the point where waste incinerators must be designed in a deliberate fashion to avoid producing them, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons also commonly originates from incomplete combustion.  These two, the former toxic and the latter carcinogenic, are likely the primary pyrochemical materials being referred to.  However, this is hardly a conceptual topic, but rather seems to be well-attested fact.  I'm not certain how to extend this to a "pyrochemical concept" that would, in his words, "fill the atmosphere with material inhospitable to most forms of life."  The primary health risks of both would be long-term, rather than immediately inimical to most life.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Culise has the right of it. As I said, my information on this is a repeated argument, not one I sourced myself. I'm certain there's a source for it whether or not the name "pyrochemicals" is technically correct (as the names of many things are not), but I never bothered to figure out what it is.

Essentially, it was the argument used to replace nuclear winter since that's been mostly debunked. It could be bullshit, but unless I can find the source I don't know. If it was apropos of nothing I'm sure someone else would have brought it up in order to get rid of it too. Keep in mind that this is obviously a hypothetical as well, what with the lack of actual nuclear war.

Still, from a simple logical standpoint, I see nothing wrong with the idea that strategic nukes (meant primarily to destroy cities) would kick up an obscene amount of Bad Stuff, and on a scale that you couldn't even see the Twin Tower health effects from. That's why it's used as an argument for human extinction, because even long after the radioactive material has decayed and the firestorms have died down, all of this stuff being circulated in the air will still be killing the survivors or damaging their reproductive ability.

[Max™]

Uh, the most extreme nuclear winter projections have been debunked, but the cooling effects of upper troposphere/stratosphere injections of soot and ash are an observed fact after Pinatubo and the like. The question is whether the assumption of severe enough firestorms to loft smoke and ash high enough to do the same was reasonable and it may well be unlikely, but that's not quite the same as mostly debunked because we're still talking about a very limited exchange of 50 or so 15~20 kt airbursts over cities.

[scriver]

Uh, the most extreme nuclear winter projections have been debunked, but the cooling effects of upper troposphere/stratosphere injections of soot and ash are an observed fact after Pinatubo and the like.

Are you saying we could use nuclear arms to combat environment temperature change? Guys, we could literally bomb global warming. Why haven't we done this already?

[Sergarr]

Uh, the most extreme nuclear winter projections have been debunked, but the cooling effects of upper troposphere/stratosphere injections of soot and ash are an observed fact after Pinatubo and the like.

Are you saying we could use nuclear arms to combat environment temperature change? Guys, we could literally bomb global warming. Why haven't we done this already?

not enough spare large cities

also people for some reason frown when nukes are involved

silly people

[martinuzz]

Not only can nuking combat global warming, the side benefit is that the irradiated areas will not be trampled by human feet for thousands of years.
Ironically, while worldwide wildlife has decreased by nearly 60% over 40 years, Biodiversity and animal populations have improved dramatically over the same timespan, in Tsjernobyl.

[Loud Whispers]

Not only can nuking combat global warming, the side benefit is that the irradiated areas will not be trampled by human feet for thousands of years.
Ironically, while worldwide wildlife has decreased by nearly 60% over 40 years, Biodiversity and animal populations have improved dramatically over the same timespan, in Tsjernobyl.

It is too simplistic to say that Chernobyl has been kind to wildlife; it has been kind to wildlife most resistant to radiation. Birds for example are completely fucked, their eggs laid are too fragile to sit on thus they all die. This leaves a big empty space that outsider birds think is wonderful, at least until they die to death too
This leaves a new empty space for more birds to pleasantly find their premature death with their childrens' only respite being they were fortunate to die in their shells