By Spencer Graves
Soon after I saw the 4/4 KC-area showing of the documentary Silent Fallout, I plowed through research related to key points in the film. As secretary of PeaceWorks KC, and as a statistician, I’m hereby beefing up the documentation of this movie on the horrifying impact of US testing of nuclear weapons. Also, I will see the film again 4/13 (2-4pm)—it’s so powerful. One report related to the film is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Tooth_Survey. Below are links to other crucial articles.
1. A general article on downwinders that fails to mention Silent Fallout or the studies it is based on is on Wikipedia.[1]
2. Our major media, which get most of their money from major corporations, have a conflict of interest in honestly reporting on issues like this (radiation from US nuclear weapon tests) and rarely do. That makes it more difficult for the public to get the information needed to organize effective action against more nuclear testing. Our “watchdog press” are watchdogs protecting those who control most of the money for the media against the best interests of the bottom 99%. Almost 15 years ago, after the Deepwater Horizons oil spill, Greg Palast wrote, “The Petroleum Broadcast System … only has the courage to shoot the wounded” for the
Frontline coverage of that incident.[2]
3. A vastly greater concern to me is the increasing risk of nuclear Armageddon. In 2019, I made a presentation at the Joint Statistical Meetings on “Time to Nuclear Armageddon.” In that presentation, I said that the best estimate of the probability of a nuclear war was roughly
equivalent to every hour beginning a new game of Russian Roulette with one chance in a million that a major crisis should begin in this hour that ends in a nuclear war. If that probability remains constant for 70 years, there is a 40% probability of a nuclear war during that period —
before 2100.[3]
4. However, it’s not credible to believe that that probability remains constant. Human intuition is wrong about rare events like that, pushing leaders to take increasing risks, encouraged by the fact that the worst has not happened yet.[4] With President Trump’s actions and the current
Russo-Ukraine war, it seems credible to believe that that 2019 estimateof one chance in a million could easily be 3 or more in a million today. If it averages 5 or 7 in a million over the next 75 years, that translates to 95% or 99% chance of a nuclear war by the end of this
century.[5] We may not see it, but our grandchildren likely will.
5. A 2022 study by 10 leading experts in climatology, food production and economics summarized numerous nuclear war scenarios. A relatively minor nuclear war between India and Pakistan could result in two billion humans starving to death from the resulting nuclear autumn if they did not die of something else sooner and most of those would be in countries
not directly involved in the nuclear exchange. A nuclear war between the US and Russia would likely produce a nuclear winter lasting years during which 99% of the humans in the US, Europe, Russia and China would starve to death if they did not die of something else sooner. The death toll would include 80% of humans in countries not involved in the nuclear exchange. The worst response to a nuclear attack would be a nuclear response, because it would increase the death toll from a few million to billions. A 4-minute video summarizes that simulation: I call it “Sherman-Williams,” because it shows soot from burning cities covering the earth.[6]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downwinders
[2] https://www.gregpalast.com/the-petroleum-broadcast-systemowes-us-an-apology/
[3] https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Time_to_nuclear_Armageddon
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_accident
[5] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1FJJZVWnig-eg4_nc9XNwUtSBkpfylImcIGSBYVRviF8/edit?usp=sharing
[6] https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Responding_to_a_nuclear_attac
