[yor_on]

" It is estimated that around 140,000 of Hiroshima's population of 350,000 were killed in the bombing, and it is estimated that around 74,000 people died in Nagasaki.

In Hiroshima, on August 6, around 80,000 people were killed immediately when the bomb was dropped. In Nagasaki, on August 9, around 40,000 people were killed instantly. Tens of thousands of others died in the aftermath, of radiation poisoning and their injuries.

However, due to the massive destruction of the cities, the recorded death tolls are estimates, with other studies saying 66,000 people died in the Hiroshima bombing and that 39,000 people died in the Nagasaki bombing."

https://www.newsweek.com/how-many-people-died-hiroshima-nagasaki-japan-second-world-war-1522276

[yor_on]

Like I told you, rubble and bones.

[yor_on]

and you trust it to 'protect you' right?

Damn, you're stupid.

[yor_on]

Yep, makes me want to puke all over you.  We can make them smaller too, mixing it with uranium, getting more 'low yield' or 'high yield' bombs. and of course create different types of effect, not only 'bangs'. We can poison with it, make land unable to be used, kill people but leave buildings intact etc etc etc etc. It's a wet dream for those that likes to kill.

" At that time, plutonium-239 supply was scarce. To lower its amount needed for a pit, a composite core was developed, where a hollow shell of plutonium was surrounded with an outer shell of then more plentiful highly enriched uranium. The composite cores were available for Mark 3 nuclear bombs by the end of 1947.[8] For example, a composite core for a US Mark 4 bomb, the 49-LCC-C core was made of 2.5 kg of plutonium and 5 kg of uranium. Its explosion releases only 35% of energy of the plutonium and 25% of the uranium, so it is not highly efficient, but the weight saving of plutonium is significant "

You kind of sux, and you do it real good.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_core

[yor_on]

and then we have the aftermath.  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/09/france-has-underestimated-impact-of-nuclear-tests-in-french-polynesia-research-finds

and I still don't find a good report on how earths 'natural radiation' have increased due to bomb tests.

[yor_on]

There is a difference between using for it civilian ends versus whole sale slaughter.

And the truth is that we could have had molten salt reactors if it wasn't for the fact that they are notoriously bad at producing the plutonium you want for that slaughter. It's your problem because you're the one that allow it to happen. But you don't have any responsibility.

[yor_on]

This one adds to what I state about the effects you will meet.

" Humans’ ability to regulate their body heat is dependent upon the temperature and humidity of the surrounding air. We have a core body temperature that stays relatively stable at 37C (98.6F), while our skin is cooler to allow heat to flow away from the inner body. But should the wet-bulb temperature – a measure of air temperature and humidity – pass 35C, high skin temperature means the body is unable to cool itself, with potentially deadly consequences.

This has potentially dire implications for a huge swathe of humanity. Around 40% of the world’s population currently lives in tropical countries, with this proportion set to expand to half of the global population by 2050 due to the large proportion of young people in region. The Princeton research was centered on latitudes found between 20 degrees north, a line that cuts through Mexico, Libya and India, to 20 degrees south, which goes through Brazil, Madagascar and the northern reaches of Australia. "

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/mar/08/global-heating-tropical-regions-human-livability

And once more the study refer to 1.5 Celcius as the limit. A limit I clearly state we already lost. And that one I build on a lot of sources.

[yor_on]

Well, first a decline of phytoplankton, and the oxygen they produce, and the carbon they store by their deaths, sinking to the ocean floors, and with them goes this 'unsung hero', the Copepods. And then it keeps wandering up the food chain.

But we don't want to touch your wallets, and we don't want to share, and we still want the game to continue.  your new 'strong leaders'.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/09/tiny-copepod-unsung-climate-hero


syntax

[yor_on]

This study, although it doesn't state it, should be built on the concept of sustainability. And as it doesn't state it, instead expecting you to see that as profits, it will fail to change your mind. Because they are not the same, have never, ever, been the same at any time under our civilization(s).

The studies keeps on failing, and so do you.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/mar/08/land-could-be-worth-more-left-to-nature-than-when-farmed-study-finds-aoe

[yor_on]

I don't understand you at all. I can see the patterns and conclusion of them, but I fail to see how you can be this stupid.

[yor_on]

I can see the traits, and what they lead too. I can back track it to the way our instincts seems to behave. And it would be acceptable presuming you had no intelligence at all. But you have, and you have used it, for all the wrong reasons. Without understanding.

[yor_on]

how come there never has been a real democracy anywhere?

[yor_on]

The closest to it, in my mind, should be those hunter gatherers and that is also why I differ them from 'farmers'. And expect the ideals and beliefs coming with farming to become the buildup to what we have, today.


syntax

[yor_on]

There is no respect for anything. There is an idea of you all becoming supermen and superwomen just by gaining a position, able to discern what is the right way. There is presumptions of this being the way earth does it too, connected to this game of inequality you play, for profits. I would have you gone, all of you, if I could, out in space with you. But that wouldn't solve it. and it would just be another way to extinction for us.

[yor_on]

Well, you see. No sane species would accept us, not as we are today. They would send us away, one way or another.

[yor_on]

Better late than never, but ...

" Partial fossil fuel bans are already happening and highly effective. Thirty US states have so-called renewable portfolio standards (RPS), which are essentially gradual phase-outs of fossil fuels in electricity generation. California’s Senate Bill 100 effectively bans fossil fuels from the California grid by 2045. In September 2020, California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, signed an Executive Order that phases out gasoline-powered cars by 2035. Only four months later, Mary Barra, the CEO of GM, announced that the company would stop making internal combustion vehicles by the same year. "

It should be about twenty years too late, and you will still have the wrong infra structures, the wrong ideals and beliefs, using 'Natural gas' and just starting to dismantle it. Not all country's, but enough to drive global warming. you will be in a state of 'tippings' by that time as I think. And some of you will go for the cheapest alternatives still, you won't find a choice as you never did anything to correct it 2021.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/09/its-unavoidable-we-must-ban-fossil-fuels-to-save-our-planet-heres-how-we-do-it

[yor_on]

you're still in a state of denial, aren't you?

[yor_on]

What i refer to is 2045. Volvo will only produce electric cars by 2030. And they got it more right than all of those above. I say we should ban fossils today and share to minimize the effects of it. But nine years for it to be done is acceptable, I don't think we can do it any faster. I will also state that the fossil companies should take their losses. They've had decades to change but they still went for the profits.



spelling

[yor_on]

1965, and a oil company producing a model, a study that still fits. That's how it is. That gives them, and your government  fifty to sixty years to have made a change, and they still fail.

[yor_on]

" Exxon didn’t just understand the science, the company actively engaged with it. In the 1970s and 1980s it employed top scientists to look into the issue and launched its own ambitious research program that empirically sampled carbon dioxide and built rigorous climate models. Exxon even spent more than $1 million on a tanker project that would tackle how much CO2 is absorbed by the oceans. It was one of the biggest scientific questions of the time, meaning that Exxon was truly conducting unprecedented research. "

But Lyndon Johnson got the report 1965.  " The very first report about climate change that was handed to Lyndon Johnson in 1965 wasn’t about how we should stop emitting—it was: “Maybe we should find some reflective stuff to throw into the ocean to bounce more sunlight back into space!”

so stop lying.