|
Items in cart [4] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 566
The Medical Implications of Nuclear War, Institute of
Medicine. @) 1986 by the National Academy of Sciences.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF AND PROSPECTS
FOR RECOVERY FROM NUCLEAR WAR: TWO VIEWS
View II
LYNN R. ANSPAUGH, PH.D.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Livermore, California
INTRODUCTION
I have been asked to comment on the information presented in this
volume and to speculate on the long-term consequences of nuclear war
and the prospects for recovery. In order to do that, it might be useful to
define long term. To me this means time frames of years to perhaps even
hundreds of years in terms of the ultimate response and recovery of large-
scale ecosystems. Such long time frames may seem excessive, but if some
of the speculated effects of nuclear war are actually realized, it may indeed
take centuries before native ecosystems restabilize.
Also, when referring to long-term effects of the magnitude required to
have a major impact on entire ecosystems, it is clear that the driving force
would not be the direct effects of nuclear war. Of potentially greater
significance would be the secondary effects mediated by the intermediate-
term impacts on global climate. Specifically, I refer to the speculative
impacts of major decreases in the heat and light fluxes reaching the Earth's
surface. Such changes are commonly referred to as "nuclear winter."
UNCERTAINTIES IN THE "NUCLEAR WINTER" SCENARIO
Because the long-term biological and ecological consequences depend
on the short- and intermediate-term perturbations on global climate, it is
necessary to translate these climatic effects into impacts on individual
organisms and ecological systems. This problem is enormously complex.
566
OCR for page 567
VIEW II: ANSPAUGH
567
Any serious attempt to solve this biological and ecological problem must
depend on accurate input data concerning the changes in global climate.
Thus it seems prudent to examine first the validity of the projected
impacts on global climate and to view these projections with a healthy
dose of skepticism. I hasten to add that I certainly do not know whether
a "nuclear winter" would or would not occur, because we simply do not
have a thorough technical understanding of this issue. A similar statement
can be made about many of the other projections concerning what might
occur as a consequence of nuclear war.
Figure 1 represents my reaction to much of what I have read in this
volume. The projected impacts of global nuclear war involve extreme
extrapolations beyond observational experience. There are a few things
that are known with some certainty, such as the propagation of shock
waves and thermal loadings. From this it is necessary to employ projections
that involve a great deal of extrapolation, not only in terms of magnitude
but of the processes themselves.
As an example, there is speculation that "superf~res" might occur, but
there are no firm data on which to base such speculations; and it is fair
to say that there is simply no basic understanding of the physics of the
process such that one can predict with any certainty the essential require-
ments for the production of a superf~re. Furthermore, the whole concept
of nuclear "winter" depends on fire phenomenology and how this trans-
lates into the injection of smoke into the atmosphere. One must rely on
estimates of combustible material, of the fraction of combustible material
that would actually burn, of the fraction of burned material that would
become smoke, of where within the atmosphere the smoke would be
injected, of the carbonaceous content of the smoke, and of He optical
properties of the smoke particles.
-
| Known ~
Magnitude
- .
and Processes L
Unknown
FIGURE 1 The projected impacts of nuclear war involve many extrapolations
beyond observational experiences.
OCR for page 568
568 LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AND PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
From these estimates of the smoke injected into the atmosphere, one
must estimate the coagulation and scavenging of the injected smoke par-
ticles and their diffusion and spreading. Finally, the impact of the injected
smoke must be estimated in terms of the physics of visible light absorption
and scattering with due regard given to the changes in the optical properties
of the atmosphere as they also affect the absorption of infrared radiation
emanating from the Earth's surface. Even assuming that all of these effects
have been calculated properly, it is then necessary to model correctly the
changes in the structure of the atmosphere including the great differences
that can be expected to occur over land as opposed to over the ocean.
Now, unfortunately, these projections are well beyond any existing data
bases, and, more importantly, they are also well beyond current under-
standing of the processes that are involved. One of the central issues in
the "nuclear winter" scenario is the very important question: Have we
perceived and modeled correctly all of the relevant processes that might
be important in this situation, which is far beyond our observational ex-
periences? Of course, this concern is not one sided. It is not known whether
the current imperfect understanding leads to over- or underestimation of
the projected effects on the global climate.
The next desired step is to translate the projected effects on global
climate into effects on biological and ecological systems. There is even
a lesser ability to do this because there is not a long-range, broad-based
program that attempts to model ecological systems on a sufficiently large
scale. There has been a global climate modeling program for many years,
and this has been applied to this problem with a great deal of success and
with the achievement of substantial progress. Unfortunately, there is not
an analog in biology and ecology that can be applied readily to this
problem.
However, the biologists and ecologists do have one compelling advan-
tage in that they can actually perform some of the relevant experiments.
That is, they can put biological systems into conditions that simulate the
predicted effects of "nuclear winter" and make actual experimental de-
terminations. Up to this time, such studies have not been done, but they
are to begin shortly.
~ emphasize again that there is no global ecosystem model that can be
applied to this problem. The best that there are at the moment are com-
munity-scale models that operate on a geographic scale about equal to the
size of a stage in an auditorium. Even these models are based largely on
empirical data and do not contain a thorough understanding of the relevant
processes so that they may be applied reliably to predict situations that
appear to be beyond observational experience. In terms of recovery, these
models do not deal with some of the essential processes such as extinction
OCR for page 569
VIEW II: ANSPAUGH
569
and migration. Thus at present biologists and ecologists do not have an
ecosystem-prediction model that can be coupled to the output from the
global climate prediction models.
The global climate models are now being used to predict the effects
known as "nuclear winter"; these effects generally consist of lower tem-
peratures and lower light levels on the Earth's surface, and some predic-
tions include lower amounts of rainfall. Typically, effects are predicted
that are most severe for about 30 days, and then a return to normality is
indicated. However, the further into time that these predictions are made,
the more uncertain they become. It is fair to say that none of these
predictions can be considered to be realistic and, if the predicted short-
term effects should occur, it is an open question as to how long the effects
might last. Some authors speculate that the modified atmosphere will
restabilize with a situation that would reduce the scavenging processes;
others postulate that We modified atmosphere, if modeled correctly, might
be very unstable.
Examine some of the predictions of the effect of nuclear war on global
climate and how these predictions have changed as a function of time. In
Figure 2 are plotted some data on predicted changes in temperature on
the Earth's surface that I have taken from Table 2 in a paper by Covey.
These data on predicted temperature changes are plotted as an approximate
function of the study's completion date. The initial TTAPS study2 was
with a one-dimensional model, and later studies3-7 have included three-
dimensional interactive models that include the seasonal effects and other
variables. What can be seen is that there has been a significant change in
the predictions as the models have become more sophisticated. Moreover,
the overall effect is toward less extreme changes (all changes shown here
are roughly for midcontinent regions). *
*During the discussion period during the symposium, Dr. Sagan objected to my char-
acterization of change as shown in Figure 2. He stated that the TTAPS papers included a
statement that, because of ocean buffering, "Actual temperature decreases in continental
interiors might [emphasis added] be roughly 30 percent smaller than predicted here . . . Wand
therefore the temperature change predicted by the TRAPS sutdy was -25°C, which is
essentially the same as results of later calculations. However, I note that-35°C is used
without caveat in their Figure 2, which is the key element of the paper. Furthermore, if
the-35°C change is too large to represent changes in midcontinental temperatures, what
does it represent? (Changes over the ocean and coastal areas would be smaller.) Finally,
I note that the TTAPS paper had a companion paper (Ehrlich et al.), of which Sagan was
a coauthor, and it quotes a value from the TTAPS study of - 40°C in the text and-43°C
in its Table 1. If -25°C were the proper number, why the use of -40°C or -43°C in
subsequent calculations?
OCR for page 570
570 FONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ID PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
o
-10
c:
° -20
-30
-40
·Jan.
· Apr.
· ~ Jul.
.
TTAPS Thompson Covey et al.
1983 MacCracken 1983 Aleksandrov 1984
1983 and Stenchikov
1983
FIGURE 2 Predictions of changes in temperature as a function of time. Source:
Data from Covey (1985, p. 565~.~
As mentioned by Harwell in this volume, 9 these changes have an impact
on the problem of predicting biological and ecological changes, too, in
that they present a moving target of input data. The biological and eco-
logical predictions would be much easier if the changes in global climate
were so severe that the conclusion would be obvious. Now that the pre-
dicted temperature changes are more moderate, the problem of predicting
biological and ecological effects has become more difficult.
The data plotted in Figure 2 are not the last word in predictions of
changes in the global climate. Where the predictions might go from here
is a question of great interest. I agree completely with the comment made
by Turcoi° that astounding progress has been made in the ability to model
and predict changes in global climate, and we can look to further advances
in this ability. There also remains, however, the question of the validity
of the input data that are used to drive these models. Coveys states, "The
greatest uncertainty is the amount of smoke produced by fires." Carriers
OCR for page 571
VIEW II: ANSPAUGH
571
considered the uncertainties in input data and made estimates of uncer-
tainties for the following:
· fuel amount, factor of 2
· fuel that burns, factor of 2
· smoke-to-fuel ratio, factor of 3
· early scavenging of smoke, factor of 3
It is not obvious how these uncertainties should be propagated, but a
simple root mean square of the above is a factor of 5.
A central question is what effect these uncertainties, which relate to the
quantity of smoke particles injected into the atmosphere, might have on
the predicted impacts on global climate. Plotted in Figure 3 are some data
taken from MacCracken,~2 who has examined the sensitivity of his cal-
culated changes in temperature to the amount of smoke injected. (The
temperature changes plotted here are calculated for 10 days after smoke
injection into the Northern Hemisphere between 20° and 70° n. lat.) Typ-
ical calculations for a base scenario have assumed that about 120 to 140
teragrams (Tg) of smoke are injected. As shown in Figure 3, the calculated
change in temperature is quite sensitive to this assumption in a nonlinear
way and the rate of change at 120 Tg is high. According to MacCracken's
calculations, essentially the entire predicted effect on temperature would
disappear if the amount of smoke injected were less by a factor of 2 or
3.
.
o
- 10
-20
.
.
.
.
30 60 120 240
Smoke, Tg
FIGURE 3 Sensitivity of calculated changes in temperature to amount of smoke
injected into the atmosphere. Source: Data from MacCracken (1985, p. 26~.~2
OCR for page 572
572 LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ID PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
In view of this sensitivity, it seems prudent to reexamine carefully all
input data and processes that are involved in calculating the amount of
smoke that would be injected into the atmosphere. A major step in these
calculations is the seemingly simple tabulation of all the combustible
material that might be available to burn during some postulated scenario
of nuclear war. Unfortunately, even this step is not easy and is subject to
major uncertainties. Bingo has recently attempted such a tabulation, and
his results for this total combustible inventory are one-third or less than
those of other studies. If correct, this might be sufficient to eliminate the
entire postulated effect of "nuclear winter," and it is important that this
issue receive more attention and analysis.
There are other issues as well. These involve the nature of the fuel and
the resulting properties of the smoke that would be produced. As noted
previously, important properties of smoke include its carbon content, its
optical scattering and absorption properties, and whether the particles are
wettable and able to serve as condensation nuclei. Thus, a major conclu-
sion is that more data are needed to address these issues. Unfortunately,
there seems to be very little work in progress to acquire such data. For
example, two papers presented in this volumes ~4 refer to a managed
forest fire in Canada. This fire appeared to have presented an opportunity
to do some basic measurements on the smoke-to-fuel ratio and on the
optical properties of the smoke particles, but neither of the presenters
indicated that any such measurements had been made.
Finally, there is the main question at issue: What would be the biological
and ecological effects from possible changes in the global climate as a
result of a nuclear war? These predictions have been changing, too. Ehrlich
et al.8, with the assumption of a temperature change of about-40°C,
predicted extremely dire consequences and questioned whether humans
might survive as a species. Harwell9 presented the results of the just
completed Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE)
study. His presentation indicated that the SCOPE study had encountered
difficulty in trying to predict biological and ecological consequences of
"nuclear winter," when the predictions from the global climate models
were undergoing substantial changes. They therefore attempted to present
predictions that were normalized in terms of predicted biological changes
per unit of change in global climate (particularly temperature). Harwell
emphasized a possible severe impact on agricultural systems that, coupled
with a breakdown of social and transportation systems, might result in
mass starvation.
Generally, the ability to predict biological and ecological effects in
response to climatic changes of any nature is poor. Even assuming that
the predicted changes in global climate might be correct, there is not a
OCR for page 573
VIEW II: ANSPAUGH
573
good basis to predict changes in plant and animal populations. There are
some good models of the physiological response of agricultural crops to
lower temperatures, but, to my knowledge, there are no data on the
response of crops to the simultaneous effects of lower temperature and
lower levels of light flux. Furthermore, some predictions of changes in
global climates indicate that the diurnal cycle might be destroyed. These
effects, coupled with the predicted subsequent occurrence of greatly in-
creased ultraviolet radiation, leave us with essentially no observational
experience on which to draw to make predictions.
Of greater interest over the long term are possible effects on native
ecosystems. Native ecosystems are not like agricultural crops, which are
annual and typically consist of tropical and subtropical plant species. There
are no physiological models for native plants and there are even fewer
relevant data that can be applied to this problem. The processes and
interactions themselves are poorly understood. The simulation models that
are available and that were used in the SCOPE study are limited and of
questionable validity for the projected input conditions.
CURRENT CAPABILITY TO PREDICT BIOLOGICAL
AND ECOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) and Stanford
University recently cohosted a workshops with the goal of examining the
current state of knowledge that can be applied to predicting the biological
and ecological effects of a postulated "nuclear winter." A major result
of that workshop was that the ability to make quantitative predictions is
very poor, but there is a large body of expert opinion that can be used to
identify and classify ecosystems with regard to their sensitivity, resilience,
etc. Figure 4 is one such example from the LLNL-Stanford Workshop,
in which major ecosystems were classified with respect to their suscep-
tibility to the stresses following a nuclear war. Harwell9 showed similar
attempts to classify ecosystems; a typical result is that the tropical rain
forest is identified as the most sensitive ecosystem. This classification
scheme, coupled with projected changes in global climate, allows deri-
vation of some impression for the amount of damage to ecosystems that
might result.
The next step is to examine the characteristics of the ecosystem types
in terms of the features that might be important in the recovery of that
system from damage. An attempt to do that is shown in Figure 5, which
is also taken from the LLNL-Stanford Workshops Again, this is not a
quantitative procedure, and it is only possible to classify and rank prop-
erties of resilience. This is because there is not a good understanding of
OCR for page 574
574 LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AND PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
System
Cold Low light Fire
Toxic gas Radiation
Tropical rain
forest High High Moderate High Moderate
Temperate forest Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Boreal forestLow Low Low Moderate High
GrasslandModerate Moderate Moderate Moderate Low
SavannaPligh High Low Low Low
DesertLow (?) High Low Low Moderate
ChaparralModerate Moderate Low Low Moderate
TundraLow Low Moderate Low Moderate
FIGURE 4 Susceptibility of the blames to the stresses following a nuclear war.
several processes that would be needed in order to do this in a quantitative
way. These processes include succession, local extinctions, and migration
of species. It is interesting to note that Figure 5 indicates that the tropical
rain forest has the poorest prospect for recovery. Thus, this ecosystem
has been identified as both highly sensitive to the effects of global climatic
changes and as having a poor prospect for recovery from any induced
damage.
Recovery Potential
Environmental
growth Seed Resprouting Breeding Symbiotic
Ecosystem potential bank ability system interactions
Tropical rain forest High Low Low Low Low
Temperate forest Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Boreal forest Low Moderate Moderate High High
Grassland Moderate High Moderate High Moderate
Savanna Moderate Moderate High High Low
Desert Low Moderate High Moderate Moderate
Chaparral Moderate Moderate High Moderate Moderate
Tundra Low Moderate Low Moderate High
FIGURE 5 Components of resilience (recovery) of different blames following
death of the dominant species. High means that rapid recovery is likely.
OCR for page 575
VIEW II: ANSPAUGH
575
WHAT IS NEEDED TO PREDICT BIOLOGICAL
AND ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS?
It would be desirable to have a suite of models, such as those shown
in Figure 6, for the prediction of biological and ecological effects. One
of the concepts illustrated in Figure 6 is the desirability of having models
capable of dealing with a range of input data and having output specified
as probability distributions. Reasonable models of global climate and
individual organism response exist at present, but adequate ecosystem
response and regional assessment models do not exist.
Also, there are not now adequate data for input to such models, even
if the models did exist. Measurements of biological response have not
been conducted under environmental conditions similar to those proposed
for a "nuclear winter." These experiments to determine the response of
individual organisms to the cold and dark are rather simple, and even
more complex experiments are possible by building large exposure cham-
bers over native communities.
One conclusion I offer is that we need additional research in order to
understand the biological and ecological effects. The SCOPE study re-
ported in this volume by Harwell9 was a tremendous undertaking, but it
was largely a volunteer, short-term effort that did not produce any new
data. Rather, the objective was to synthesize existing data and to rely on
-
n
MT, smoke, etc.
Global
cilmate
model
-
-
-
~ 8 :_
Mortality, growth, etc.
·k
-
-
-
~ D [f-~ ~
Temperature, light, etc.
Ecosystem
response
model
Individual
organism
response
model
.
Data
-
-
-
D
n
Extinctions,
population changes, etc.
Regional- D . Tabulation of
assessment _ o _ national and
model _ ~ ~_ global effects
Time of recovery,
l species composition, etc. _
FIGURE 6 Nuclear winter assessment strategy.
OCR for page 576
576 LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES ID PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
Studies to be done at the University of Wisconsin,
Madison (J. Palta, B. McCown, T. Tibbitts)
Initial studies with wheat, potato, soybean, loblolly
pine
Short-term
Minimum temperature of survival for different
physiological periods in plant development
Long-term
Simulate ''nuclear winter'' conditions predicted by
MacCracken, et al. for continental N. America
Measure effects on plant productivity and mortality
FIGURE 7 Biological studies in controlled environments.
expert judgment and existing simulation models to make predictions. This
effort represents an excellent beginning, but it still leaves important gaps
in the needed data base and in the ability to simulate the required processes.
As mentioned by other speakers, there is currently not a major research
program with the goal of predicting the biological and ecological effects
of nuclear war. However, a modest program has been established at LLNL.
One aspect of this program is experimental; its focus is outlined in Figure
7. This study will be conducted by the University of Wisconsin, Madison,
under contract to LLNL. The goal is to acquire basic data on plant re-
sponses to conditions that mimic "nuclear winter."
At LLNL an attempt is also being made to develop new models that
are capable of simulating large-scale ecosystems and which could deal
with the "nuclear winter" conditions as input data. This is an activity
that has a reasonable probability of success over several years and that
could have a large payoff in application to other ecological problems of
a global nature. Examples are the increasing level of carbon dioxide in
the atmosphere and large-scale deposition of acid.
SPECULATIONS ON THE LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES
AND PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
Finally, I return to my assignment of speculating on the long-term
consequences and the prospects for recovery. My opinion is that it simply
is not known what the long-term biological and ecological effects would
be, because there is not a firm grasp of what the effects of nuclear war
would be on the global climate. Even if these effects were known, we
would still fall far short of being able to translate accurately these climatic
effects into biological and ecological effects.
OCR for page 577
VIEW Il.: ANSPAUGH
577
However, it can be speculated that agricultural crops might be quite
vulnerable and entire crops could be lost. Over the short term, this alone
could produce a very serious problem for the surviving human population.
Over the long term, agricultural crops could be reestablished, if the re-
quired energy and infrastructure are available.
I doubt that any major ecosystem would be completely destroyed. How-
ever, I have no way of knowing that, and any impact would be very
sensitive to the actual changes in global heat and light fluxes. If substantial
damage should occur to some ecosystems, they would undoubtedly re-
stabilize over the long term to a structure that might or might not resemble
the original.
OTHER REACTIONS TO THE MATERIAL PRESENTED
One interesting and surprising result presented in this volume by Rot-
blat~6 was his calculation of the dose that would produce 50 percent
mortality (LDso) for the Japanese exposed to radiation from the atomic
bomb at Hiroshima. His calculated result was lower by about a factor of
2 than that which is commonly accepted. As Rotblat pointed out, his result
is preliminary and awaits the conclusion of the major reassessment of the
atomic bomb dosimetry that is now under way. If his result should stand,
it may have a substantial impact on any assessment of casualties due to
radiation exposure.
I was also surprised by the attention given to the paper presented by
Greer and Rifkin,~7 wherein they pointed out that radiation and acquired
immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) have somewhat similar effects on
the immune system. While I follow the argument, this comparison fails
on several significant fronts. The most important is that the effects of
moderate doses of radiation on the immune system are neither critical nor
life threatening and they are reversible, whereas the effects of AIDS on
the immune system are the major effect of the disease and they are not
reversible. Thus, I find the comparison to be superficial at best and a later
characterization of nuclear war as a "global case of AIDS" i~ to be sub-
stantially misleading. No one doubts that a large-scale nuclear war would
be one of the worse, if not the worst, environmental disasters known to
mankind; no exaggerations are needed to make that point.
Finally, I have had a strong impression of an unusual willingness of
participants in the symposium to accept the offered predictive results and
speculations at face value. It seems unusual for this to occur when these
involve extrapolations that are so far beyond our observational experience.
Perhaps a reason for this could be that the process has given way to
emphasis on the desired and hoped for result: a final reason why global
OCR for page 578
578 LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES AND PROSPECTS FOR RECOVERY
nuclear war must be avoided. While I have great sympathy for this view-
point, I believe that we as scientists will ultimately serve society best by
examining every aspect of this issue more critically.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department
of Energy by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under contract
number W-7405-ENG-48.
NOTES
~Covey, C. 1985. Climatic effects of nuclear war. BioScience 35:563-569.
2Turco, R. P., O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan. 1983. Nuclear
winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions. Science 222:1283-1292.
3MacCracken, M. C. 1983. Nuclear War: Preliminary Estimates of the Climatic Effects
of a Nuclear Exchange. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Nuclear
War, Erice, Italy, August 19-23, 1983. (Quoted in note 1.)
4Thompson, S. L. 1983. A Comparison of Baroclinic Eddy Heat Transport to a Simplified
General Circulation Model. NCAR Cooperative Thesis No. 71, National Center for At-
mospheric Research, Boulder, Colo. (Quoted in note 1.)
iThompson, S. L., and C. Covey. 1983. Influence of Physical Processes in General
Circulation Model Simulations of Massive Atmospheric Soot Injections. American Geo-
physical Union, Fall Meeting, San Francisco, December 1983. Washington, D.C.: Amer-
ican Geophysical Union. (Quoted in note 1.)
6Aleksandrov, V. V., and G. L. Gtenchikov. 1983. On the Modeling of the Climatic
Consequences of Nuclear War. Moscow: The Computing Center of the USSR Academy
of Sciences. (Quoted in note 1.)
7Covey, C., S. H. Schneider, and S. L. Thompson. 1984. Global atmospheric effects of
massive smoke injections from a nuclear war: Results from general circulation model
simulations. Nature 308:21-25. (Quoted in note 1.)
~Ehrlich, P. R., J. Harte, M. A. Harwell, P. H. Raven, C. Sagan, G. M. Woodwell, J.
Berry, E. S. Ayensu, A. H. Ehrlich, T. Eisner, S. J. Gould, H. D. Grover, R. Herrera,
R. M. May, E. Mayr, C. P. McKay, H. A. Mooney, N. Myers, D. Pimentel, and J. M.
Teal. 1983. Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war. Science 222:1293-1300.
9Harwell, M. A., and C. C. Harwell. 1986. Nuclear famine: the indirect effects of nuclear
war. This volume.
i°Turco, R. P. 1986. Recent assessments of the environmental consequences of nuclear
war. This volume.
iiCarrier, G. F. 1986. Nuclear winter: the state of the science. This volume.
i2MacCracken, M. C. 1985. Global atmospheric effects of nuclear war. Pp. 10-35 in
Energy and Technology Review. UCRL-52000-85-5. Livermore, Calif.: Lawrence Liv-
ermore National Laboratory.
~3Bing, G. 1985. Estimates of total combustible material in NATO and Warsaw Pact
Countries. UCRL-93192. Livermore, Calif.: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
~4Brode, H. L., and R. D. Small. 1986. A review of the physics of large urban fires.
This volume.
OCR for page 579
VIEW II: ANSPAUGH
579
i5Kercher, J. R., and H. A. Mooney, eds. In press. Research agenda for ecological effects
of nuclear winter. UCRL-53588. Livermore, Calif.: Lawrence Livermore National Labo-
ratory.
Rotblat, J. 1986. Acute radiation mortality in a nuclear war. This volume.
Career, D. S., and L. S. Rifkin. 1986. The immunological impact of nuclear warfare.
This volume.
Sagan, C. 1986. Long-term consequences of and prospects for recovery from nuclear
war: view I. This volume.
OCR for page 580
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nuclear war
