Welcome back!
In my previous post, I highlighted the notion of Technological Advancement as a key catalyst behind the evolution of warfare. Well, humanity has come an incredibly long way from Ancient Times, 1544 years to be exact, and developed in ways which the Ancients could never have fathomed. So, what has Warfare evolved to, and what is its impact on the Environment in the Modern Era? I will start my exploration by delving into the strategy touted as the most lethal in the world – Nuclear Warfare.
Before I share the environmental impact of Nuclear Warfare, here is some background on it!
Interactive Infographic: click on yellow phrases for references/more information
Let’s take a moment to ponder Nuclear Warfare, what are its environmental impacts you know of? If you like, share them with us here! The Word Cloud below is live, and will immediately be updated with your response:
Based on the data obtained thus far, the most perceived environmental impact of Nuclear Warfare is the effect of Radiation (precipitating “contamination”, “deformities”, “mutation” etc). One of the most significant ramifications of radiation is mutation, seen through the increase in cancer rates in Hiroshima and Nagasaki from 1958 to 1987 – 39% for males and 12% for females. Mutation has proven to not only manifest its effects on an individual basis, but on a generational scale too. Though the increase of birth defects in children of atomic bomb survivors was surprisingly concluded to be negligible for humans, the phenomenon of mutation persisting through generations is extremely prevalent in the animal and plant kingdom. Despite being unable to find any data on how the nuclear bombings in Japan affected biodiversity intergenerationally, I believe that data can be extrapolated from the Chernobyl Disaster, where reproductive ability in plants was halted for 3 years and genetic mutations in plants and animals proliferated by a multiple of 20, even after 30 years.
Side-tracking a little here, but I believe that the prevalence of “radiation” and “mutation” as a response could be due to its dramatic representation in the media. The movie Godzilla (1998) best embodies this – the creature mutated to develop its fearsome qualities due to atomic radiation from nuclear testing. In fact, I just found out that the film was written as a cautionary tale on the use of Nuclear Weapons, following WWII. Popular culture also seems to have a fascination with mutants – their thrill, danger, even heroism. Other examples showing how radiation and mutation are depicted to go hand-in-hand include Marvel icons Spiderman and Captain America.
Anyway, apart from mutation, radiation can also result in environmental contamination. Radioactive particles can pollute air, water, soil and any living being in close vicinity.
Interactive Infographic
Besides radiation, another highly considered impact reflected in the Word Cloud is the mass death of biodiversity (“death of vegetation, animals”, “deforestation” etc). For example, all trees within a 1 mile parameter of Hiroshima were scorched by thermal radiation, and extrapolating again, the sheer impact of the explosion in Chernobyl killed an estimated 93,000 animals.
The perceived environmental impacts of Nuclear Warfare are indeed relevant and valid, as the repercussions of radiation and mass biodiversifical devastation are dire and temporally sustaining. However, they only represent the localised environmental impact of Nuclear Warfare… could there be global implications too?
To find out, stay tuned!
*Infographics created by me on Canva, image source: Pixabay
yalinikmr
October 2, 2020 — 6:54 pm
Hey Kelly!
Thank you for such an informative blogpost, your use of visuals was very helpful in understanding information as well! I was also thinking that warfare in general, not just nuclear warfare, would cost a country much in economical growth. I’m sure a country would have to halt conservation efforts to focus on rebuilding the nation.
I also wanted to ask if there is any way to reverse nuclear damage done the country. I’m sure the deaths and destruction cannot be reversed but what about the radiation in the particles of such areas?
~ Yalini
Kelly
October 5, 2020 — 1:02 pm
Hi Yalini! Thanks for dropping by (-:
This is such an interesting question! I only ever considered ‘mitigative’ strategies towards Nuclear War given its calamitous impacts, so ‘adaptive’ strategies to cope with it never really crossed my mind. But I do think they are important to look into given escalating political tensions. Surprisingly, I found that radioactive urban environments can be decontaminated using simple ‘mops, brooms, shovels and brushes‘. As for the natural environment, groundbreaking research has been undertaken in devising a solution to potentially remove radioactive isotopes from soils using acidic solvents, and water can be purified with reverse osmosis, activated carbon and ion exchange techniques. I also found an interesting article showing how lithium can decontaminate the human brain and restore cognition. However, it is important to note that proper disposal methods of radioactive particles have not been established, and that costs of these adaptive measures can be high (which can widen inequality and cause its impacts of radiation to be disproportionately borne on developing countries)
As for your former question, I definitely agree that rebuilding a nation following war would result in conservation efforts taking a backseat – the consequences of Civil War in Rwanda (1990-1994) are a great example! I will actually be exploring the impact of war on population attitudes and governmental efforts toward conservation in one of my future posts, so hopefully we will be able to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the issue then. Stay tuned!
Cheers,
Kelly
See Toh Ee Kin
October 4, 2020 — 12:14 am
Hi Kelly,
Wow, your use of a life word cloud via Mentimeter is amazing.
Anyways, I’ve got a crazy idea. You mentioned Chernobyl, which is now known for the exclusion zone having interesting biodiversity. Unfortunately, wildlife there was affected by mutations up till today. However, we also learnt that evolution is linked to random mutations and selection. Is it remotely possible that these nuclear-induced mutations may have some sort of positive effect on wildlife? This may be a bit far fetched as I assume nuke-y mutations are often deleterious.
On the topic of the use of nuclear technology in the military, what are your thoughts on nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (and submarines)? They are essentially a floating city of 6000+ people not using fossil fuels. Such aircraft carriers from the United States Navy and the French Marine Nationale have docked in our very own Changi Naval Base before. (https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/n-powered-aircraft-carrier-docks-today , https://mothership.sg/2019/05/france-aircraft-carrier-charles-de-gaulle-singapore/ it’s all open source I’m not leaking state secrets)
I look forward to your post about the global impact of nukes.
Cheers,
Ee Kin
Kelly
October 5, 2020 — 3:05 pm
Hi Ee Kin, great to have you back (-:
Wow! I’ve never thought of relating radioactive mutations from such a disastrous incident to wildlife benefits. Unfortunately, I was unable to find any indication of animals directly thriving off on the radioactive repercussions of the Chernobyl explosion, and based on my research, there is a unanimous sentiment shared among scientists that radiation is detrimental towards both humans and animals. For example, increased incidences of cataracts in voles and a decline in beneficial bacterial populations on the wings of birds was recorded )-: [source]
Despite the adverse impacts of radiation on an individual scale, there is a silver lining. Due to the absence of humans, wildlife biodiversity and populations have flourished within the exclusion zone. For example, elk, wolf, deer and boar populations have proliferated since the incident, and the area is teeming with wildlife to the extent of being coined an ‘accidental wildlife sanctuary’. In fact, the lack of humans has made the zone so conducive for biodiversity that it is currently being purposed as a conservation site. The near extinct and non-native Przewalski horse population has increased by a factor of 5 since being introduced to the area. In essence, human populations seem to be have a more detrimental effect on biodiversity than radiation itself, and this makes me wonder how extensively we have impacted wildlife all over the world.
On another note, I do think that nuclear-powered aircraft carriers are a more productive use of nuclear energy, though the prospect of such carriers harbouring nuclear weapons for attack scares me. Thank you for raising such stimulating questions!
Cheers,
Kelly
Joanna Coleman
October 4, 2020 — 1:57 pm
Kelly,
I don’t know if I’ve ever had a student do something this incredible with their blog. Every post, I learn something new. And the creativity & interactivity are unreal. What an awesome effort.
I was most surprised by the fact that atomic bomb survivors weren’t more likely to have kids with birth defects. If I’m not wrong, it therefore contrasts sharply with the impacts of Agent Orange – so perhaps a chemical defoliant can be more devastating. Plus, I believe the Fukushima disaster has resulted in an uptick in human birth defects, so I’m quite curious to learn more about the potential reasons why the differences (not that I expect you to answer this Q – you’ve already done more than enough work on this post).
But ultimately, reading your post, I wonder (as I often do) WTH people can’t just get along. I mean, I get how & why wars of conquest started and suppose that greed is at the root of this, but does humanity seriously lack the ability to transcend war and instead focus on the mutual challenges we all face ?
jc
Kelly
October 10, 2020 — 8:58 pm
Hi Dr Coleman, thank you so much!
Discrepancies in the increase in the rate of birth defects between Hiroshima and Fukushima could be due to different amounts of radiation released. I was shocked to find out that the amount of radioactive caesium-137 released in the Fukushima disaster was 168 times more than that of Hiroshima. While I was unable to find information directly comparing the effect of nuclear and chemical defoliants, one reason why intergenerational mutations are so commonly associated with Agent Orange could be due to greater absolute numbers exposed. Up to 4 million were exposed to Agent Orange, compared to 260,000 that survived the Little Boy in Hiroshima. As such, even low rates of mutation by the chemical weapon could be reflected in great numbers. Just a thought!
I definitely find myself pondering the reasons behind war, and came across this video last night that made me wonder whether territoriality and taking rivalry to such extremes are ingrained in us and our fellow taxonomic relatives and ancestors. However, the fact that we are incredibly advanced and have the ability to make conscious decisions must not be discounted, leading me back to square one. This is such a complex issue and it seems that even with terrible lessons from the past, humanity has yet to overcome war and unify on solving common challenges such as climate change.
Thank you for asking such interesting questions, and I apologise for the late reply!
Cheers,
Kelly
Joanna Coleman
October 12, 2020 — 3:13 pm
don’t worry about the delay – your peers’ comments & Qs take priority over mine.
Many ppl have suggested that this is linked to territoriality, which is in our genes and is shared by so many animals – not just primates and (surprisingly perhaps) not just vertebrates – did you know that corals engage in warfare?
But it’s a gigantic leap from that type of behaviour, which ultimately increases our lifetime reproductive success (the currency, I guess, of evolution) to acts such as unleashing chemical weapons, nuclear bombs or systemic genocide.
We seriously need to get our act together, you know ?