But How Well Could Man Survive ‘Nuclear Winter?’
Recent comments in the news tend to grossly misrepresent the “nuclear winter” theory. Edward Cornish in an Aug. 9 column in the View section asserts that nuclear war survivors “would be able to repopulate the Earth.”
This conclusion is based on the assumptions that there would be at least a few survivors in holes and remote corners of the world and that there would be some food available somewhere. These assumptions are reasonable but they do not support the repopulation conclusion.
Cornish does not deal with the entire “nuclear winter” theory, which includes a breakdown in communications, transportation, medical care, water supply, agriculture etc. He ignores the poisoning of the atmosphere and the probably impossible task of disposing of dead bodies, which would crate enormous physical and psychological health problems.
Under the circumstances, remnants of human survival might be only temporary. If human survival persisted, it would be only under the most primitive and painful conditions.
News reports of testing the nuclear winter theory by burning 2.5 square miles of dead or diseased trees in Canada are also misleading. This would at best tell us something about firestorms many times smaller than those set off by a major nuclear attack. Not only would radioactive fallout be missing but also the enormous amount of toxic fumes from burning plastics, chemicals, and other non-wood materials in our (or their) cities.
ROBERT SOLLEN
Santa Barbara
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
