Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 155
The Medical Implications of Nuclear War, Institute of
Medicine. @) 1986 by the National Academy of Sciences.
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
Possible Toxic Environments
Following a Nuclear War
JOHN W. BIRKS, PH.D., and SHERRY L. STEPHENS
University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
The direct effects of a nuclear war, the killing and maiming effects of
the blast, the thermal pulse, prompt nuclear radiation, and fire storms,
are too horrifying for the human mind to comprehend. Following a major
nuclear war, approximately 1 billion people would be left dead, and
millions more, probably hundreds of millions more, would be injured
(Ambio, 1982, vol. 11, No. 2-3; Ehrlich et al., 1983; Harwell and Grover,
1985~. Still, 3 to 4 billion people around the world would find themselves
alive, once the thousands of megatons of nuclear energy had been released.
It is this realization that makes it so important to consider what the long-
term environmental effects of a nuclear war would be not for the purpose
of planning better bomb shelters and survival techniques, but in the hope
that a clearer picture of life after a nuclear war may help provide the
incentive necessary to bring about the "aroused understanding and insis-
tence of the peoples of the world" (Einstein*), to bring nuclear weaponry
under control.
Besides the destruction of shelter, food, means of transportation and
commun~cabon, arid radioactive contamination, nuclear war survivors would
find their physical environment, particularly the atmosphere, radically
*The full text of Einstein's statement of January 22, 1947, reads: "Through the release
of atomic energy, our generation has brought into the world the most revolutionary force
since prehistoric man's discovery of fire. The basic power of the universe cannot be fitted
into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalism. For there is no secret and there is no
defense; there is no possibility of control of atomic energy except through the aroused
understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world."
155
OCR for page 156
156
PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
changed. Dust lofted by the clouds generated by atomic bombs and es-
pecially smoke from fires in cities, forests, industries, and oil refineries
would darken the sky. A simple calculation, in which one takes the total
amount of smoke (about 200 million metric tons) that might be introduced
into the atmosphere by the nuclear war fires and distributes it uniformly
over the middle half of the Northern Hemisphere, indicates that more than
99 percent of the sunlight would be absorbed by the smoke cloud (Crutzen
and Birks, 1982; Turco et al., 1983; National Research Council [NRC],
1985~. Although smoke highly absorbs the visible region of the solar
spectrum, it is relatively transparent to the infrared region. As a result,
land surfaces would cool, particularly near the interiors of continents where
the buffering action of the oceans would be less effective. This nuclear
winter effect is the exact opposite of the greenhouse effect which maintains
most of the Earth's surface at above-freezing temperatures during the
warmer seasons.
Nuclear winter would have its greatest impact if the nuclear war occurred
during the summer, because the incremental change in the amount of
sunlight that would reach and warm the Earth's surface would be greatest
then. Furthermore, during summer plants are not in their dormant states
and would be most vulnerable to subfreezing temperatures. Of course, it
is not possible to predict the season in which a nuclear war might break
out.
Some of the most sophisticated computer model calculations of the
climatic effects of a nuclear war are presented in an accompanying article
(Malone, this volume). Temperature perturbations are calculated to be in
the tens of degrees Celsius, and in a fully interactive model the atmospheric
lifetime of the particulate matter is enhanced so that the duration of nuclear
winter would be at least a few months. These qualitative conclusions are
also important in helping assess other environmental stresses associated
with the atmosphere. These include (1) the distribution and transformation
of toxic chemicals released from chemical plants and produced in the
nuclear fires; (2) the partial destruction of the protective ozone layer, with
a consequent increase in the level of biologically damaging ultraviolet
radiation that would impinge on the biosphere once the smoke cloud has
subsided; and (3) the possibility of a global photochemical smog. These
additional environmental effects propagated by the atmosphere are the
focus of this paper.
TOXIC CHEMICALS
A multitude of toxic pollutants would be produced by the pyrolysis and
partial combustion of chemicals, petroleum products, and synthetic ma-
terials stored in strategic, industrial, and urban areas. Military installations,
OCR for page 157
POSSIBLE TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS FOLLOWING A NUCLEI Wow 157
chemical plants, gas and oil refineries, and urban centers contain vast
stores of chemical and petroleum products, as well as the waste products
of defense, industry, and everyday life. The tragedy of Bhopal, India,
where a ruptured storage tank released methyl isocyanate, killing 5,000
people (Chemical and Engineering News, 1985), is a small indication of
what might happen following a nuclear war as the result of explosions
near chemical plants. Clearly, in heavily industrialized regions, the kill
area for nuclear explosions could be greatly increased by the release of
poisonous chemicals into the atmosphere.
The first question that one might logically ask is whether chemical
releases would make the atmosphere lethally toxic on a global or semi-
global basis. The answer is no. Even if an entire year's production of
organic chemicals were released and uniformly mixed over half of the
Northern Hemisphere, the total concentration of all chemical compounds
would still be a factor of 5,000 times less than the 50 percent lethal dose
(LDso) of hydrogen cyanide gas. Of course, most compounds are not
nearly so toxic, and probably only 5-10 percent of a year's chemical
production is in storage at any one time. Similarly, it is also true that
toxic compounds such as carbon monoxide, acrolein, hydrogen chloride,
hydrogen cyanide, sulfur dioxide, phosgene, and the oxides of nitrogen
produced in urban fires could be significant causes of death only on a
local basis. Thus, for the long-term survivors of a nuclear war, the concern
with chemical releases would be similar to concern with delayed radio-
active fallout, namely, mutations leading to cancers and birth defects. In
this sense, we might, by analogy, refer to these effects as arising from
the chemical fallout.
Many of the most important mutagens would be nonvolatile compounds
and would be associated with particulate matter. Once deposited in the
soil and water, many of these compounds would be very stable against
chemical and biological degradation and would be subject to bioaccu-
mulation in a manner similar to that of radioactive isotopes. For example,
a community of people becomes very concerned when a transformer fire,
such as that which occurred in Binghamton, New York, in 1981, contam-
inates an office building with soot rich in polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
(Schecter, 1983~. However, as the result of a nuclear war, of the order
of 1,000 cities of the Earth would become the equivalent of toxic waste
dumps. Also, the lofting of toxic smoke to high altitudes by the fire storms
and by the buoyancy of solar heating (Malone, this volume) would ensure
that these pyrotoxins would be distributed on a global basis as well.
Any realistic estimates of the levels of chemical contamination is vir-
tually impossible, as thousands of different toxic chemicals would be
produced, and the amounts of each would be highly dependent on the
types and mixtures of fuels burned (e.g., wood, petroleum, asphalt, rub
OCR for page 158
158
PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
her, plastics) and the fire conditions, especially temperature and oxygen
concentration. Estimates of biological effects are further complicated by
the wide range of toxicities exhibited by the various isomers of a given
parent compound. Dioxin, for example, is expected to be an important
carcinogen introduced into the environment by the pyrolysis of PCBs and
possibly other chlorine-containing compounds (Turco et al., 1983; NRC,
1985; Birks et al., 19851. However, the highly toxic compound 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) is only one of 75 dioxin isomers. As
seen in Table 1, the relative toxicities of these various isomers span more
than six orders of magnitude.
While cognizant of the enormity of the uncertainty, it is still useful to
make some calculations, however crude, of the increased cancer incidence
that might be expected on a semiglobal basis for a few carcinogens, so
that the seriousness of chemical contamination can be compared with that
of radioactive contamination. To do this for PCBs and TCDD, we have
used the average emission factors found in the Binghamton fire (Schecter,
1983~. Assume that approximately 30 percent of the current world supply
of PCBs (0.3 teragram; 1 Tg = 1 million metric tons) are affected by
nuclear fires, that the soot emission factor is 10 percent (by weight), and
that 15 percent of the soot is composed of unburned PCBs. If the soot is
unifo~ly deposited over one-half of the Northern Hemisphere and mixed
to a depth of 10 cm of soil, the level of contamination is calculated to be
0.1 parts per billion. If the soot fell on one-fourth of the world's freshwater
lakes and if it were evenly mixed throughout the water, it would result
in a calculated concentration of 0.09 parts per trillion (Birks et al., 19851.
In Binghamton, the TCDD isomer of dioxin averaged only about 3.5 parts
per million of the soot, so that the calculated TCDD concentrations in
soil and water would still be lower by more than four orders of magnitude.
Using the same assumptions, the average concentrations of TCDD over
half of the Northern Hemisphere are calculated to be 0.008 parts per billion
in soil and 0.01 parts per quadrillion in freshwater.
Using present recommendations for estimating cancer risk for those
persons drinking water and eating fish from freshwater lakes (U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, 1984), the added risk of contracting can-
cer is calculated to be 10-8 (one chance in 108) for PCBs and 10-5 (one
chance in 105) for the dioxin isomer TCDD.
Considering that the present risk of contracting cancer in one's lifetime
is about 1 in 5, these numbers are not all that frightening. Of course,
many other chemical carcinogens, about which we know even less, would
be produced in the nuclear war fires. Nevertheless, these calculations
strongly suggest that on a global or semiglobal basis, chemical carcino-
genesis may not be a serious impact of nuclear war. We must realize,
however, that the deposition of chemical toxins would be highly irregular.
OCR for page 159
POSSIBLE TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS FOLLOWING A NUCLEAR WAR
TABLE 1 Acute Lethality of Dioxin Isomers
Isomers Cl Positions
LDso (~g/kg) in Guinea Pigs
2,8
2,3,7
2,3,7,8
1,2,3,7,8
1,2,4,7,8
1,2,3,4,7,8
1,2,3,6,7,8
1,2,3,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,9
300,000
29,000
1
3
1,125
73
100
100
7,200
4 x 1 o
a In mice.
159
It is possible that a large fraction of the smoke aerosol would be removed
within the first few hours by precipitation. For example, an estimated 5
to 10 cm of rain fell in Hiroshima 1 to 3 hours after the blast. Dust,
rubble, and large amounts of radioactive matter were concentrated in the
black rain that spread over a wide area, creating many secondary victims
(The Committee for the Compilation of Materials on Damage Caused by
the Atomic Bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 19811. It has been sug-
gested (Knox, 1983) that under certain meteorological conditions, con-
vective clouds would form over burning cities and effectively scrub out
much of the smoke. This remains one of the hotly debated criticisms of
the nuclear winter theory. For the lack of any better evidence, it has been
common to assume that about half of the smoke produced by nuclear fires
would be promptly removed (e.g., NRC, 1985~.
The 1985 NRC study assumed that a total urban area of 250,000 km2
would bum. Assuming that half of the toxic smoke was promptly deposited
in an area of 1 million km2, then the average concentrations of chemical
toxins in soil and water within these urban areas would be higher than
the concentrations calculated above by a factor of about 60. Of course,
these areas would contain a large fraction of the surviving population.
Cancer risks from chemical carcinogens would likewise be increased. The
average cancer risk because of TODD, for example, would be increased
to 7 x 1O-4 for those persons remaining in the urban areas. This is
approximately 10 percent of the cancer risk resulting from exposure to 50
reds of ionizing radiation, which has been estimated as the average ra-
diation dose to nuclear war survivors (Turco et al., 19831. Considering
that this calculation is based on one specific isomer of one class of com-
pounds and that many other carcinogens would be produced by the nuclear
fires, it is not unreasonable to suspect that long-term human and biological
OCR for page 160
160
PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
effects of the chemical fallout would be as important, if not more im-
portant, than that of radioactive fallout. Estimates of the increased cancer
incidence because of inhalation of asbestos fibers released to the atmos-
phere by a nuclear war, for example, is also of the order of 10 percent
of that due to radiation exposure (Birks et al., 19851. It is important to
note that it is possible that synergisms between chemical exposure and
radiation exposure could also increase the cancer incidence following a
nuclear war, but insufficient data exist to evaluate such effects.
An important difference between chemical toxins and radionuclides is
that radioactive contamination is readily detected by relatively inexpensive
Geiger counters, while the TCDD isomer of dioxin, like many other toxic
compounds, can only be determined by use of a gas chromatograph cou-
pled to a mass spectrometer; the cost of the latter instruments are in the
range of $100,000 to $500,000. Thus, an important characteristic of chem-
ical fallout is that living environments, food, and water could not be readily
surveyed in order to determine their safety.
ULTRAVIOLET SPRING
It was first recognized in 1972 that oxides of nitrogen produced in
nuclear fireballs and lofted to the stratosphere could result in severe ozone
depletion (Foley and Ruderman, 1973; Johnston et al., 19731. Ozone in
the stratosphere serves as a protective shield against ultraviolet radiation.
Particularly significant to the biosphere is radiation in the ultraviolet-B
(UV-B) region (280-320 nary). This finding that nuclear explosions could
affect stratospheric ozone came as a result of the earlier recognition by
Crutzen (1971) and Johnston (1971) that oxides of nitrogen serve as ca-
talysts for ozone destruction according to the now well-known cycle of
reactions:
NO + O3 ~ NO2 + O2
NO2 + O > NO + O2
O3 + he ~ O2 + O
Net: 203 > 3O2
Note that nitric oxide (NO) initiates the ozone destruction process, but is
regenerated, so that no net consumption of nitrogen oxides occurs. In fact,
each NO molecule introduced into the stratosphere can destroy about 10~2
to 10~3 ozone molecules during its residence time in the stratosphere
(Brasseur and Solomon, 19841.
In 1975 the National Academy of Sciences evaluated the effect of a
10,000-megaton (Mt) nuclear war on the stratospheric ozone shield (NRC,
19751. That study estimated a 30 to 70 percent reduction in the ozone
OCR for page 161
POSSIBLE TOXIC E - IRONME=S FOLLOWING A NUCLEI Wow 161
column over the Northern Hemisphere and a 20 to 40 percent depletion
for the Southern Hemisphere. Since that time, there has been a modern-
ization of the nuclear arsenals; large multimegaton warheads have been
replaced by more numerous warheads (due to MIRVing Multiple, In-
dependently Targetable, Reentry Vehicles), typically having individual
yields of 100 to 500 kilotons (kt). The degree of ozone depletion is highly
dependent on the height of injection of oxides of nitrogen, and these
smaller warheads produce bomb clouds that stabilize at much lower al-
titudes. The altitude distributions of the nitric oxide injections for the two
scenarios evaluated in the recent 1985 study of the National Academy of
Sciences (NRC, 1985) are superimposed on the ozone concentration profile
in Figure 1. The NRC baseline scenario utilizes exactly half of the strategic
warheads of every type in both the U.S. and Soviet arsenals, except for
any weapons with yields greater than 1.5 Mt. For this scenario oxides of
nitrogen would only be carried to altitudes as high as 18 km, and the
maximal ozone depletion in the Northern Hemisphere, as shown in Figure
2, would be 17 percent. An excursion scenario considers that an additional
100 bombs with yields of 20 Mt each would be detonated. (There are
60
50
40
10
o
Regions of NOX Injection
Baseline lo OO ° oo
Excursion ~ +
. ~ _:~: .: - . :0: . :~^ ~ ~ ^ ~.% or -~-.\ .. ~-v A-.-.-.-.-.-. ~ -,
1 \ 1 1
1o1 1
O3 DENSITY (cm~3)
1 o1 2
low
FIGURE 1 Altitudes of injection of oxides of nitrogen for the NRC baseline
and excursion nuclear war scenarios. The normal ozone concentration profile is
also shown by the solid line. (National Research Council, 1985.)
OCR for page 162
162
-10
PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
I -20
by
~_30
C:
of
N - 0
o
-
-
-
-
, _
~Computed Hemispheric Average Ozone
L ~Column Change as a Function of Time
1 ~
B = Baseline Scenario (6500 Mt)
\ ~E = Excursion Scenario
_\ E ~(Baseline plus 100 x 20 Mt)
-50 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
1
J
0 2 4 6 8 10
TIME (yr)
FIGURE 2 ~ Ozone depletion as a function of time following a nuclear war for
the NRC baseline and excursion scenarios. (National Research Council, 1985.)
thought to be 300 such warheads in the Soviet arsenal.) For this scenario,
oxides of nitrogen would reach an altitude of 37 km, and the maximal
ozone depletion would be 43 percent. Note that the maximum in ozone
depletion would occur after a period of 8 to 12 months, and it would take
on the order of 10 years for ozone concentrations to return to normal.
Thus, once most of the smoke and dust was removed from the atmosphere
and sunlight began to break through, the biosphere would not receive
normal sunlight but, rather, sunlight highly enriched in ultraviolet radia-
tion.
No estimates of ozone depletion have yet taken into account the large
perturbations in atmospheric physics and chemistry resulting from the dust
and smoke emissions. The recent finding by Malone (this volume) that
the solar-heated smoke clouds would rise into the stratosphere is extremely
important in this regard. The introduction of smoke aerosol to the strat-
osphere would be expected to add to ozone destruction in at least three
ways: (1) The absorption of short-wavelength radiation by the smoke
would reduce the rate of oxygen photolysis, thereby decreasing the rate
at which ozone would be produced in the stratosphere. (2) The absorption
of solar radiation by the smoke particles would heat the stratosphere and
increase the rates of reactions that catalyze ozone destruction (e.g., the
NO + O3 reaction given in the cycle above). (3) Reaction of ozone at
OCR for page 163
POSSIBLE TOXIC EWIRONME=S FOLLOWING A NUCLEI Wow 163
the particle surfaces would directly destroy ozone. The particle surface
could catalyze the conversion of ozone to oxygen (2O3 ~ 302) or be
oxidized by ozone to form products such as carbon monoxide t03 + C
(solid) ~ O2 + CO (gas)~. The latter reaction would act to consume the
particles and thereby shorten the duration of the nuclear winter. Although
ozone would be destroyed in either case, UV-B radiation would also be
strongly absorbed by soot particles, so that the effects on the biosphere
would not be felt until most of the soot was either destroyed by ozone or
removed from the stratosphere. This is a very important problem that
should be treated by model calculations in the near future. We are currently
obtaining laboratory data on the reactions of ozone with carbonaceous
particles (S. Stephens, M. Rossi, and D. Golden, manuscript in prepa-
ration) for input into such models.
An increase in UV-B radiation would affect the already stressed eco-
systems of our planet in several ways (Ehrlich et al., 19831. UV-B wave-
lengths of light are absorbed strongly by peptide bonds and by nucleic
and amino acids (National Research Council, 1982), and these energetic
photons can cause chemical changes which affect biological structure and
function. Productivity of terrestrial plants and marine plankton is known
to decrease with even small increases in UV-B levels (Caldwell, 1981;
National Research Council, 19821. Immune system suppression (National
Research Council, 1982), blindness (Pitts, 1983), and other physiological
stress factors caused by UV-B increases would lead to increased incidence
of disease in humans and other mammals. Even normal processes of DNA
repair in bacteria are suppressed by increased UV-B exposure (National
Research Council, 19821.
PHOTOCHEMICAL SMOG FORMATION
The chemistry of the troposphere (the region of the atmosphere between
the ground and the stratosphere, 0-12 km) is very complicated and would
become even more complicated by the addition of millions of tons of dust,
smoke, and gaseous chemicals. A mild example of tropospheric pertur-
bation is seen in a heavily polluted urban center. These population centers
are sources of oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, partially combusted
hydrocarbons, and particulates; it is the interaction of these species with
sunlight that results in the formation of strong oxidants such as ozone.
The potential of a severe global photochemical smog following a nuclear
war was suggested by Crutzen and Birks (1982~. However, a necessary
ingredient to photochemical smog formation is sunlight, and it was their
concern that the absorption of sunlight by smoke might reduce the levels
of oxidant formation that led them to make the first estimates of the amount
of smoke produced in nuclear war fires.
OCR for page 164
164
PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
The darkness of nuclear winter would certainly prevent a photochemical
smog from forming during the early weeks following a nuclear war, and
the parallel removal of gaseous pollutants and particulates would tend to
ameliorate the rate of oxidant formation at later times (Penner, 19831.
Reactions of oxidants with particle surfaces would also tend to prevent a
photochemical smog from forming (Birks et al., 1985~. However, pho-
tochemical smog with high concentrations of ozone could occur near the
edges of pollutant clouds for the period of time that the particulate cloud
cover is still patchy.
Because of their damaging effects on plants and animals, atmospheric
oxidants are generally viewed as undesirable. However, these oxidants,
particularly the hydroxyl radical (OH) derived from the photolysis of
ozone, provide the useful function of cleansing the atmosphere. For ex-
ample, of the order of 100 million tons of reduced sulfur compounds such
as hydrogen sulfide and dimethyl sulfide are emitted to the atmosphere
each year by microoganisms in the soil and ocean. The oxidation of these
compounds to sulfuric acid in the normal atmosphere is initiated by OH.
The highly soluble sulfuric acid is then rapidly removed by rain. Under
the dark clouds of nuclear winter, the OH radical and other oxidants would
be greatly reduced in concentration, and as a result such biogenic emissions
would accumulate to unusually high levels in the atmosphere. Although
lethally toxic levels are not expected to be reached, at least for the sulfur
compounds it is likely that the concentrations would build up to levels
well above the threshold for human smell (Birks et al., 1985~.
CONCLUSIONS
Those who would survive the prompt effects of a nuclear war would
face a radically altered physical environment. A period of weeks to months
of darkened days and subfreezing temperatures would stress the ecosys-
tems, on which mankind ultimately depends, in ways unprecedented in
recorded history. Not only would the distribution of existing food stores
be interrupted, but the growing of food would become impossible. As the
sooty smoke is slowly removed from the atmosphere and the sunshine
begins to break through, it is likely that this light would be highly enriched
in damaging ultraviolet radiation adding a further insult to the already
injured biosphere. There would always be great uncertainty about the
safety of any food eaten, because it could be contaminated by chemical
toxins, in addition to radioactivity. With the lack of sophisticated analytical
instruments, chemical contamination would be impossible to detect.
That the nuclear winter and other environmental effects of a nuclear
war were overlooked for so long should make us wary; the worst effects
OCR for page 165
POSSIBLE TOXIC ENVIRONMENTS FOLLOWING A NUCLEAR WAR 165
of a nuclear war may not yet be discovered and, in fact, may be undis-
coverable except by the actual experience.
Forty years after Hiroshima we are finally beginning to come to grips
with the full consequences of the use of nuclear weapons. The intuition
of the average human being since the first use of these weapons against
population centers has been that a nuclear war would cause the extinction
of our species. In light of recent studies, it appears that this intuition is
much closer to the truth than the enlightened understanding of those who
have advocated doctrines of the survivability and therefore fightability of
a nuclear war.
REFERENCES
Birks, J. W., J. Staehelin, and S. L. Stephens. 1985. Changes in tropospheric composition
and chemistry resulting from a nuclear war. Paper presented at the National Meeting of
the American Chemical Society, Miami, Florida, April 30.
Brasseur, G., and S. Solomon. 1984. P. 464 in Atmospheric Science Library. Vol. 5:
Aeronomy of the Middle Atmosphere. Chemistry and Physics of the Stratosphere and
Mesosphere. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel.
Caldwell, M. M. 1981. P. 169 in Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, 12A, Physiological
Plant Ecology, I, Responses to Physical Environment, edited by O. L. Lange, P. S.
Nobel, C. B. Osmond, and H. Ziegler. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Chemical and Engineering News. 1985. February 11, p. 14.
The Committee for the Compilation of Materials on Damage Caused by the Atomic Bombs
in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 1981. Pp. 87-101 in E. Ishikawa and D. L. Swain (trans.),
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: the Physical, Medical, and Social Effects of the Atomic Bomb-
ings. New York: Basic Books.
Crutzen, P. J. 1971. Ozone production rate in an oxygen-hydrogen oxide atmosphere. J.
Geophys. Res. 76:7311.
Crutzen, P. J., and J. W. Birks. 1982. The atmosphere after a nuclear war: Twilight at
noon. Ambio 11:115-125.
Ehrlich, P. R., J. Harte, M. A. Harwell, P. H. Raven, C. Sagan, G. M. Woodwell, J.
Berry, E. S. Ayensen, A. H. Ehrlich, T. Eisner, S. J. Gould, H. D. Grover, R. Herrera,
R. M. May, E. Mayr, C. P. McKay, H. A. Mooney, N. Meyers, D. Pimentel, and J.
M. Teal. 1983. Long-term biological consequences of nuclear war. Science 222: 1293-
1300.
Foley, H. M., and M. A. Ruderman. 1973. Stratospheric NO production from past nuclear
explosions. J. Geophys. Res. 78:~1411.
Harwell, M. A., and H. D. Grover. 1985. Biological effects of nuclear war I: Impact on
humans. Bioscience 35:570-575.
Johnston, H. S. 1971. Reduction of stratospheric ozone by nitrogen oxide catalysts from
supersonictransportexhaust.Sciencel73:517.
Johnston, H. S., G. Z. Whitten, and J. W. Birks. 1973. Effects of nuclear explosions on
stratospheric nitric oxide and ozone. J. Geophys. Res. 78:6107-6135.
Knox, J. B. 1983. Global Scale Deposition of Radioactivity from a Large Scale Exchange.
UCRL-89907. Livermore, Calif.: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Malone, R. C. 1986. Atmospheric perturbations of large-scale nuclear war. This volume.
National Research Council. 1975. Long-Term Worldwide Effects of Multiple Nuclear
OCR for page 166
166
PHYSICAL EFFECTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Weapon Detonations. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
National Research Council. 1982. Causes and Effects of Stratospheric Ozone Reduction:
An Update. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Research Council. 1985. The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear
Exchange. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
Penner, J. E. 1983. Tropospheric response to a nuclear exchange. UCRL-89956. Livermore,
Calif.: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
Pitts, D. M. 1983. Hearing on the Consequences of Nuclear War on the Global Environment,
97th Cong., 2d session, serial no. 171, pp. 83-101. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
Schecter, A. 1983. Contamination of an office building in Binghamton, New York by
PCBs, dioxins, furans and biphenyls after an electrical panel and electrical transformer
incident. Chemosphere 12:669-680.
Turco, R. P., O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan. 1983. Nuclear
winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclear explosions. Science 222:1283-1292.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. Intermedia Priority Pollutant Guidance Doc-
uments. PCBs, March.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
nuclear winter
