Anyone not living within the blast effects of nuclear weapons would have only fallout to deal with for a handful of weeks. It wouldn't be anything like what Gazans are dealing with.
you clearly do not understand nuclear fallout or the effects of radiation which last for hundreds of years. People who got radiated 50 or so years ago for various reasons, usually medical, got cancer 30 or more years later. Nuclear would be the beginning of the end for all of us
I understand it better than you do, if you think that it would make the planet any more unlivable than it has been after hundreds of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons in the past. You need to stop reading Carl Sagan and start reading competent nuclear health physicists.
Actually, I have read a lot about radiation and health. I have studied x-ray physics. I don't think you have interpreted whatever you read correctly. Either that or you read some things that were a bit off.
Fallout - you can't be serious ... in this case I would envy the Gazans (being incinerated and gone, whereas the 'fallout' victims die of radiation sickness ... not that we would not deserve it for LETTING THIS CATASTROPHE happen!)
Sorry, but there have been more atmospheric nuclear detonations in Earth's atmosphere than you are apparently aware of, each raising the surface radiation load just as much as new ones would, and that level would decay, within weeks, to one indistinguishable from the current one by any radiological instrument you are likely to know about the existence of.
Anyone not living within the blast effects of nuclear weapons would have only fallout to deal with for a handful of weeks. It wouldn't be anything like what Gazans are dealing with.
you clearly do not understand nuclear fallout or the effects of radiation which last for hundreds of years. People who got radiated 50 or so years ago for various reasons, usually medical, got cancer 30 or more years later. Nuclear would be the beginning of the end for all of us
And radiation is worse for the young cells of children. But that wouldn't stop anyone would it?
I understand it better than you do, if you think that it would make the planet any more unlivable than it has been after hundreds of atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons in the past. You need to stop reading Carl Sagan and start reading competent nuclear health physicists.
Actually, I have read a lot about radiation and health. I have studied x-ray physics. I don't think you have interpreted whatever you read correctly. Either that or you read some things that were a bit off.
If you haven't studied gamma...
it's ok. you are obviously much better educated about all of this than I could ever be.
It didn't take more than high school physics.
Fallout - you can't be serious ... in this case I would envy the Gazans (being incinerated and gone, whereas the 'fallout' victims die of radiation sickness ... not that we would not deserve it for LETTING THIS CATASTROPHE happen!)
Sorry, but there have been more atmospheric nuclear detonations in Earth's atmosphere than you are apparently aware of, each raising the surface radiation load just as much as new ones would, and that level would decay, within weeks, to one indistinguishable from the current one by any radiological instrument you are likely to know about the existence of.