You are restating my point basically. Nuclear warfare will
probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly
lead to human extinction, but life itself on earth is pretty
safe.
There are plenty of life forms that can tolerate far more
radiation then we can, and the mutations caused by radiation from
fallout will lead to selective pressure towards organisms that are
more tolerant towards such an event.
To note case in point, in the wake of the Chernobyl disaster,
where massive amounts of radiation were released, the areas most
affected by fallout were feared by scientists to be unable to
support any form of life, but 20 years on the wildlife in the area
seems to have carried out far better then expected. There were some
disturbing mutations though, and you probably shouldn't go hunting
for meat there... but practically it seems that nature in itself is
a lot more hardy to such disasters then we are.
Not very likely... I do not think the world's suppy of nukes
will be able to melt our ice caps. We don't have anywhere near that
amount of firepower.
In any case even if ALL of our ice caps melted there will still
be plenty of land left around, though costal areas will be pretty
much underwater. Note that there were times in Earth's history
where it had far less ice then we have now, especially during the
Triassic where we had no ice caps at all.
I see your point of view & thank you.
I have stated in para 2 of my post dd 2.5.09: "Here we are
talking about not only the great firepower of a nuclear explosion
but more importantly the massive atomic radiation & its ensuing
side effects on human health, mutation of cells & changes in
the earth's ecology & environment. Another point is that
asteroid impacts are acts of God & beyond human control but
nukes are man made".
From the above statement no where did I say "nuclear warfare
will probably end human civilization as we know it, and possibly
lead to human extinction but life on earth is pretty safe".
The general idea I get from your para 2 & 3 is that plenty
of life forms can tolerate the massive radioactive fall out of
nuclear explosions & more or less regenerate themselves
(Chernobyl disaster) ..."some mutations though,....that nature in
itself is a lot more hardy to such disasters then (than) we
are".
Excuse me please remember that 1) we are not simple life forms
but homo sapiens which went thru eons of time to become what we are
today & 2) "...nature in itself is a lot more hardy to such
disaster then (than) we can". Can I then interprete that you
are implying humans will fare less favourably than the simple life
forms in a nuclear disaster?.