View Full Version : Nuclear famine: One billion people would die immediately following a limited nuclear exchange in the world

04-24-2012, 07:36 PM
April 24, 2012 – WORLD – More than a billion people around the world would face starvation following a limited regional nuclear weapons exchange (such as a clash between India and Pakistan) that would cause major worldwide climate disruption driving down food production in China, the U.S. and other nations, according to a major new report released today by International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and its U.S. affiliate, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR). Dr. Ira Helfand, the author of “Nuclear Famine: A Billion People at Risk–Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition,” said: “The grim prospect of nuclear famine requires a fundamental change in our thinking about nuclear weapons. The new evidence that even the relatively small nuclear arsenals of countries such as India and Pakistan could cause long lasting, global damage to the Earth’s ecosystems and threaten hundreds of millions of already malnourished people demands that action be taken. The needless and preventable deaths of one billion people over a decade would be a disaster unprecedented in human history. It would not cause the extinction of the human race, but it would bring an end to modern civilization as we know it.” The findings and the methodology on which the study is based will be published in a forthcoming issue of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change. Released during the World Summit of Nobel Laureates in Chicago April 23-25, 2012, the Helfand report was made possible with the financial support of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. Among the specific findings outlined in the report: Corn production in the U.S. would decline by an average of 10 percent for an entire decade, with the most severe decline (20 percent) in Year 5. Soybean production would decline by about 7 percent, with the most severe loss, more than 20 percent, in Year 5. There would be a significant decline in middle-season rice production in China. During the first four years, rice production would decline by an average of 21 percent; over the next six years the decline would average 10 percent. Resulting increases in food prices would make food inaccessible to hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest. Even if agricultural markets continued to function normally, 215 million people would be added to the rolls of the malnourished over the course of a decade. The 925 million people in the world who are already chronically malnourished (with a baseline consumption of 1,750 calories or less per day), would be put at risk by a further 10 percent decline in their food consumption. Significant agricultural shortfalls over an extended period would almost certainly lead to panic and hoarding on an international scale, further reducing accessible food. The IPPNW/PSR report concludes: “There is an urgent need to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons by all nuclear weapons states and to move with all possible speed to the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention that will ban these weapons completely.”


04-24-2012, 09:12 PM
Yes...and all the testing the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. did...which did nothing to the climate...I guess that didn't count. More garbage thoughts from the eco-freaks. Lord knows we don't need anymore radioactive anything floating around the planet, but this is pure nonsense. Radioactivity would kill a lot of people, yes. Causing massive crop and livestock failures all over the planet....I call horse hockey !

04-24-2012, 09:25 PM
Well there is a billion people in India, so I guess it could kill a billion people. Personally, I'm not concerned. Unless I had to call technical support.

04-24-2012, 10:51 PM
^^^^^ Oh man....I lost it !!! As a matter of fact, I'm still losing it !!! BAHAHAAHAHAHAHA ! :)

04-25-2012, 05:13 PM
I'm surprised they didn't try to link the article instead to global warming versus nukes. About as alarmist.

There is 7 billion on this rock already. A billion lighter OVER A DECADE... thats 100 million deaths a year more.

Pffft. That doesn't even wipe out the current birth rate of 134 million.

Not to mention the current death rate is 56 million - so the death rate MAYBE would triple.

04-25-2012, 06:32 PM
I read until "Physicians for Social Responsibility" then skipped to the comments. At least Dr Langmann produces works from Physicians for common sense and research, too bad so many others fail so badly. Imagine one of the the douches involved in this article as your personal physician? :Bang head:

04-25-2012, 06:58 PM

04-25-2012, 11:17 PM
Now THAT was an intersting vid!! Thanks!

04-26-2012, 08:18 AM
That vid makes one wonder just how much all those nuke blasts have raised the planet's overall background radiation levels in just the last 70 years ...

04-26-2012, 08:42 AM
Canada has a lot of catching up to do.

04-26-2012, 10:15 AM
That vid makes one wonder just how much all those nuke blasts have raised the planet's overall background radiation levels in just the last 70 years ...

From Wiki, FWIW:
"World anthropogenic background radiation levels peaked at 0.15 mSv in 1963, the year that the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was enacted. Since then, anthropogenic background radiation has decreased exponentially to 0.005 mSv per year.[3]"

[3] http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications.html

04-27-2012, 05:54 PM
I think there are groups out there that will use any excuse for population control. Be it the threat of nuclear war or climate change etc.