The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has revived the specters of nuclear war: first the occupation of the sarcophagus that isolates Chernobyl, and later and more recently the fighting near the Ukrainian nuclear power plant in Zaporozhye, the state of which, according to the UN Security Council, United, “critical”, they caused all the alarms to go off . Now a study published in the journal Nature Food warns of the danger and devastating consequences of six possible nuclear war scenarios. Worst of all is the conflict between the US and Russia, which will starve to death of 5,000 million people alone, without taking into account direct deaths or other causes.
Based on data from previous studies, a group of international researchers led by Alan Robock and Lily Xia, professors in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University (USA), determined the amount of ash and soot that are formed during detonation. nuclear weapons and how all that stuff can block the sun from entering the atmosphere. The authors calculated soot dispersion from six possible scenarios of war between nuclear powers (five small conflicts between India and Pakistan and one large-scale conflict between the US and Russia), taking into account the size of each country’s arsenal.
This information has been fed into the Community Earth System Model, a climate prediction tool maintained by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), to calculate how this will affect the yields of the world’s major crops (corn, rice, wheat and soybeans). . The researchers also examined projected changes in livestock grazing and fisheries around the world.
And the answer was clear: even in the smallest nuclear scenario—a local war between India and Pakistan—yields would drop by 7% over five years of conflict. With a “small” conflict (about 100 explosions), 5 million metric tons of particles will be released into the atmosphere. By comparison, catastrophic wildfires in California in 2017 or Australia in late 2019 reached up to 1 million metric tons each.
This “umbrella” of ash will affect the harvest, and on average we will have access to 7% fewer calories. In the developed Western world, this may seem like a small thing; however, in countries bordering on systemic famine, this would be a death sentence.
The data is even more alarming in the event of a large-scale war between Russia and the US, when global calorie production will drop to 90% just three to four years after the explosions, as about 150 metric tons of ash and dust. “The data tells us that we must prevent a nuclear war,” says Robock.
Crops in the middle and high latitudes will suffer the most from this “screen” of ash. The UK, for example, would face a steeper drop in available food than a country like India, which is at lower latitudes. But France, which is a major food exporter, will do well in at least lower emission scenarios because if trade stops, it will have more food for its own population.
The map on the left shows the state of calorie consumption in 2010, excluding international trade; left column – the case of animal husbandry; the middle column refers to partial livestock production, with 50% of livestock feed used for human consumption and the remaining 50% as livestock feed; and the right column uses all available food. All maps assume that there is no international trade, and that the total number of calories is evenly distributed within each country. Regions in green mean that food consumption can support current physical activity in that country; areas highlighted in yellow are calorie intake that will cause people to lose weight and only sedentary physical activity will be maintained; and areas highlighted in red indicate that daily calorie intake will be less than needed to maintain the basal metabolic rate (also called resting energy expenditure), and thus lead to death after the person depletes their energy reserves in the body for stored fat and expendable muscle. From top to bottom, a metric ton of ash is thrown into the atmosphere.
The map on the left shows the state of calorie consumption in 2010, excluding international trade; left column – the case of animal husbandry; the middle column refers to partial livestock production, with 50% of livestock feed used for human consumption and the remaining 50% as livestock feed; and the right column uses all available food. All maps assume that there is no international trade, and that the total number of calories is evenly distributed within each country. Regions in green mean that food consumption can support current physical activity in that country; areas highlighted in yellow are calorie intake that will cause people to lose weight and only sedentary physical activity will be maintained; and areas highlighted in red indicate that daily calorie intake will be less than needed to maintain the basal metabolic rate (also called resting energy expenditure), and thus lead to death after the person depletes their energy reserves in the body for stored fat and expendable muscle. From top to bottom, a metric ton of ash is thrown into the atmosphere. NATURE
Another “happy” country will be Australia. Cut off from trade after a nuclear war, Australia will rely primarily on wheat for food. And wheat grows relatively well in cooler climates caused by atmospheric soot. On the team’s map, showing large parts of the world painted red due to famine, Australia shines solid green even in the harshest theaters of war. “When I first showed my son the map, his first reaction was, ‘Let’s move to Australia,’” Xia says. Spain is also doing quite well with the distribution, although it would directly notice the consequences in the event of a general war.
However, in a globalized world, one cannot think that the whole world will not suffer: “These changes will cause a catastrophic failure in the world food markets,” the authors write. Even a 7% global yield decline would exceed the largest anomaly ever recorded since records began in 1961. researchers say.
The authors also considered whether feeding livestock or reducing food waste could compensate for the loss. However, this was not a measure of influence in the event of major nuclear conflicts. In addition, farming patterns would change. For example, the ozone layer will be destroyed by the heating of the stratosphere, which will lead to an increase in ultraviolet radiation at the surface. “Or the effect that the death of pollinators could have. That’s why we need to understand this impact on the food supply,” says Xia.
Robock claims that this work, which also included researchers from the Autonomous University of Barcelona, is irrefutable proof that a nuclear war, no matter how small, will destroy global food systems, killing billions of people in the process.
In fact, this is not the only study warning about the risk of nuclear conflict. An investigation published last month in the journal AGU Advances found that if two nuclear-capable states were to go into battle—regardless of which of the nine states that currently possess these weapons—there would be a catastrophe: temperature The earth will drop ten degrees Celsius, there will be no crops worldwide, sea ice will block major ports, and fishing will virtually disappear.
“If nuclear weapons exist, they can be used, and the world has come close to nuclear war several times. A ban on nuclear weapons is the only long-term solution. The five-year UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has been ratified by 66 countries, but none of the nine nuclear powers. Our work makes it clear that it is time for these nine nations to listen to science and the rest of the world and sign this treaty.”
Source: El Correo
Ashley Fitzgerald is an accomplished journalist in the field of technology. She currently works as a writer at 24 news breaker. With a deep understanding of the latest technology developments, Ashley’s writing provides readers with insightful analysis and unique perspectives on the industry.