Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RJA_ who wrote (8619)	8/28/2006 12:11:24 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 220433

RJA, indeed it should make an excellent movie. Let's face it, reality is jaw-droppingly impressive at times whereas even the best special effects lack the full 3D impact of reality. The Twin Towers attack was mightily impressive and enhanced greatly by the slow-motion nature of it all, watched in real-time from many camera angles. It still rattles my brain to think about it. But on the downwind fallout effects, I recall a Jules Feifer or similar cartoon from the 1960s in which the fallout from bombs was reducing as the explosive power was increasing. "Initially", one bloke said, "We could only make a bang this big, but there was THIS much fallout. Then we made one with a bang THIS big but it only had a small amount of fallout. etc. Now we can make a bomb which can blow up EVERYTHING!! And, it's 100% clean!!" With a smug smile of satisfaction. Anyway, with an atmospheric explosion, 100 km up or even 10 km up, there wouldn't actually be significant fallout. Sure, there would a bit more strontium 90 and other, but in the 1950s, 60s and 70s we had lots of atmospheric tests in the southern hemisphere and while our milk glowed a bit, most of us have lived pretty good length of life. The small amount of radioactive dust would just circle the northern hemisphere and gradually filter out in rain. It would be shared around so quite thin in any one place. It wouldn't be like Chernobyl. There wouldn't be a need to actually blow up Tehran. Just use neutron bombs at a good altitude. There would be no point in harming the buildings when it's the people doing the threatening. Somebody less vicious than Islamic Jihad could occupy the buildings when the Mullahs are no longer there. Mqurice