are the testing of thousands of nuclear weapons also to blame for global warming?

Question

the us and then ussr were testing nukes everywhere, in water/land/air, could this also contribute to environmental hazards?

Answer 1

sure, why not?

everything else causes it.

the other day the dentist said i had 3 cavities....


...all caused by global warming.

we MUST stop global warming for future generations' teeth.

Answer 2

unfortunately these postings are all over 7 yrs old. So the misinformed individuals who answered will probably never read this response. But anyway! to those who say that dozens?? of bombs have been detonated do some research. there have been well over 1500 known surface detonations of nuclear weapons(by several countries). and thats just what the worlds governments are willing to admit to. The U.K. alone has detonated more than ten in remote parts of Australia. also nuclear test bans from the sixties did not stop surface testing merely limited them testing in Arizona by the us military lasted into the early 1990's. The largest portions of testings did however occur from the 50's through 60's. Does anyone else think its strange that a decade later we discover the giant holes in the ozone layer. around the same time the concept of global warming is pushed onto the scientific scene. keep in mind i am not denying the impact of Coal, CFC's and farting on the environment. I am merely stating that its obvious there is a connection to nuclear testing. and don't forget Chernoyble and fuckuppedajima

Answer 3

inspite of all their means, nuclear bombs have released a negligible volume of capability, whilst in comparison with the organic capability that hits the earth each and every day. the means of the sunlight is massive: a hundred and twenty,000 terrawatts. you're finding at a extensive nuclear "explosion" interior the sky. the only element I question, is the outcomes that weapons tests had on the Ozone layer. i.e. notwithstanding if or not they performed any section in coming up the hollow. The warming continues to be photograph voltaic in beginning, this is the gases we've released that are the subject. They act like wearing a jumper in summer season. No ask your self this is sweaty (raining) at situations interior the summertime.

Answer 4

NO,

There were never thousands of nuclear weapons detonated or test fired. The test ban treaty has been in effect for over 20 years. Global warming is a fairly recent discovery and has nothing to do with the nuclear testing, most of which ended in the 1960s.

A global nuclear war can cause a nuclear winter. The excessive amount of dust in the air would block the sun making the earth colder; not warmer. The huge amount of radiation would definitely have a bad effect on the environment and those hazards can last for thousands of years.

For a better understanding of global warming read my answer to this question: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ApcEC_JBUd_.1zqnYRHHvITty6IX?qid=20070903181016AA5Hecs&show=7#profile-info-AA11808305

Answer 5

No. First off there were never "thousands" of nuclear bombs tested. At best there were a couple hundred and a large part of those were detonated underground. Second, if anything, a nuclear test would counteracting global warming by kicking up a lot of sun-blocking dust. They produce very minimal greenhouse gases.

Answer 6

Nearly anything humans do that generates heat and burns fossil fuels affects the atmosphere. For instance, the space shuttle launches, airlines on long flights, glass manufacturers, and nuclear energy all generate enough heat to have an affect. I believe nuclear testing has a dramatic effect in one test. Keep in mind that one volcano eruption can block out the sun for an extended time and that affects things, as well.

Answer 7

If there was a nuclear war then we would be facing a nuclear winter rather than global warming. Mind you, most of the human race would have been incinerated first so perhaps that would count as global warming in the early days!

Answer 8

Nope.

For one thing, nuclear test explosions could be counted in the dozens, not thousands.

Global warming is mostly due to natural weather cycles, and partly due to methane emissions for livestock, and from industrial air pollution.

This is not the first time the Earth has been subject to cycles of warming and cooling. What do you think ended the Ice Ages? And this warming cycle won't be the last.

Earth is a fragile basket to hold the whole future or mankind, and we should start serious efforts at real space explorations and colonization to avoid extinction due to weather changes or the impact of a meteor or comet.

Doc

Answer 9

Every time a cow burps or farts it contributes to global warming. The only question is, how significant is the impact? More significant than the natural causes (volcanic eruptions, sunspots, etc.)? We don't have enough of a time period to figure that out for sure.

But as far as nuclear weapons go, I can assure you that the storage and disposal of nuclear waste is far worse than any of the pollutants created through testing.

Answer 10

There are two things happening to the earth's atmosphere: the hole in the ozone layer keeps getting bigger, allowing in more dangerous radiation.
The global warming, from so-called greenhouse gases.
Everyone talks about global warming, but I hear very little if anything about the ozone hole.
Something opened that hole. Could it have been nuclear blasts? Atmospheric nuclear tests?
Those are questions I would like to see answered.

Answer 11

Yes. (Thousands haven't been tested however it has contributed to global warming.)
The smoke created by a 100-bomb exchange in the subtropical regions would loft in the stratosphere and stay for years. This would cause global temperatures to decline by 1.25 degrees Celsius, thereby shortening growing seasons for several crops for years. In the early years, some crops would completely miss their growing seasons. Worldwide precipitation would decline by 10 percent.

Megacities, global warming make nuclear war even more dangerous


Nuclear test fall-out killed thousands in US
17:56 01 March 2002
NewScientist.com news service