Better Than a Nuclear Blast

Here's an interesting story about the resilience of marine life at the Bikini Atoll nuclear test site. Back in 1954, an extremely powerful nuclear weapon was detonated there that "generated a wave of heat measuring 99,000ºF and spread mist-like radioactive fallout as far as Japan and Australia." Nevertheless, "much to the surprise of a team of research divers who explored the area, the mile-wide crater left by the detonation has made a remarkable recovery and is now home to a thriving underwater ecosystem." Naturally, like any sensible person, Cato's Indur Goklany reacted to this with a post about how global warming's not so bad:

99,000 degrees Fahrenheit! By comparison the upper-bound estimate for global warming is a puny global temperature increase of 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (less in the ocean). So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself.

I miss the good old days of denialism. That at least make sense. If the environmentalists were just mistaken and there was no global warming, then of course we wouldn't want to take action to stop it. But now there's still demand for rationales for inaction, but the straightforward denialist position has become untenable, so we're getting a lot of really weird ideas.

Public domain photo of Operation Crossroads Event Baker explosion

Comments

So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself.

Small comfort for those individuals among us who would like to go on living. If others would try personal suicide instead of global suicide, the rest of us might even be able to do something about it.

Posted by phil | April 18, 2008 10:17 AM

The Indur Goklany argument is stoopid. Sure, nature will reassert itself, but it may reassert itself by desertifying Iowa and turning Louisiana into a frackin swamp.

That being said, I see some merit in thinking beyond CO2 restriction when we're assessing responses to global warming. I'm as green as the next guy, but it's going to be damn hard to solve this problem purely with a restrictionist approach. We may have to consider a few of the "weird ideas," like sunscreens in space, carbon sequestration, or what have you.

Posted by Ted | April 18, 2008 10:21 AM

You don't understand the political purpose of Cato -- they speak on behalf of invertebrate sea life and other life forms without a spine.

Posted by Don Williams | April 18, 2008 10:22 AM

Goklany's desire to believe that all coral reefs are equally (and infinitely) resilient helps to underline how much of conservative thought these days is really a theology of the invisible hand. Mother Nature, the Market, God -- it's all sort of the same thing.

There can never, by definition, be any need for us to make collective decisions, because all things will be well if we just let them take their own course. Yea, and all manner of things will be well.

Posted by Ted | April 18, 2008 10:34 AM

Goodness! I wonder if an even tinier percentage increase in something, such as the percentage of cyanide in my body, could possibly be harmful given that an average adult body is somewhere around 62% water by weight (varying by gender etc)?

If a human being weighs 175 pounds, that's just under 109 lb of water, or 49.3 kg, or 49,300 grams, or 49,300,000 milligrams.

How, then, could an increase in the cyanide portion of your body weight by a mere 50 or 60 milligrams matter when you have 49,300,000 milligrams of water?

That's an increase of a bit over 0.00010% compared to the water weight. There's no way that such a tiny increase could possibly matter.

Even worse, the whole body would be just under 80,000,000 milligrams, and that cyanide would represent a proportion of .000625%!!!

You'd have to be crazy to think such a proportion would matter.

Posted by El Cid | April 18, 2008 10:34 AM

Actually there is a certain amount of solace to be found in the fact that life is remarkably resilient and will find a way to go on even if humans frak themselves into extinction.

Posted by oneperson | April 18, 2008 10:36 AM

I was startled by his earlier argument that you can't reduce CO2 levels because 2008 is better than 1988, but this argument is far dopier. You know this guy used to represent the U.S. at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm?expertId=144

Posted by Jim Naureckas | April 18, 2008 10:36 AM

If the environmentalists were just mistaken and there was no global warming, then of course we wouldn't want to take action to stop it.

There is global warming. But it does not look to be a catastrophe; some of the environmentalists are mistaken about that. (Some seem to literally believe that it will cause human extinction. Or at least that's how they write.)

The environmentalists are mistaken that is it worthwhile paying huge amounts, now, to prevent the relatively small problems that it will cause in the future.

They are also mistaken in thinking that the anarchic world political system could possibly produce the sort of carbon restrictions they advocate. Do you think the apparat of the Chinese regime cares more about:
(a) keeping the people happy, now in the next few years, with economic growth, and thereby maintaining the regime's position, liberty, and possibly lives? or...
(b) squelching economic growth and returning to the 70's level of output, causing mass poverty, and very likely a revolution which would displace them?

Hmm, if you were a high poohbah in the Chinese regime, which would you pick?

Posted by Leonard | April 18, 2008 10:37 AM

I was startled by his earlier argument that you can't reduce CO2 levels because 2008 is better than 1988, but this argument is far dopier. You know this guy used to represent the U.S. at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/expert.cfm?expertId=144

Posted by Jim Naureckas | April 18, 2008 10:40 AM

(Some seem to literally believe that it will cause human extinction. Or at least that's how they write.)

That's because there actually is a distinct possibility that global warming will lead to human extinction. Start out with Peter Ward's Under A Green Sky, which presents a very plausible, and far from worst-case, scenario.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | April 18, 2008 10:45 AM

Holy shit is this guy stupid.

First of all, the rebirth of a marine ecosystem at Bikini was only possible because the rest of the world had not also been blown to smithereens. This turd is comparing an isolated event with an event that is indeed global. That's insanely moronic. Had the rest of the world, or the rest of the Pacific's reef systems, been blown up, then there'd be no source of coral zygotes that could float to Bikini and get things going again. Likewise, if all the world's ecosystems are affected by climate change, then it won't be so easy for one system to resuscitate another.

Secondly, Bikini's ecosystem has only been allowed to thrive because everybody had to stay the hell away from it for fear of radioactive contamination. It's essentially been a marine reserve ever since the detonation. If it had been open to fishing, it'd be just another fished-out reef.

Posted by tinisoli | April 18, 2008 10:49 AM

We may have to consider a few of the "weird ideas," like sunscreens in space, carbon sequestration, or what have you.

God, no. Geoengineering is a terrible idea.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | April 18, 2008 10:50 AM

Leonard,

Have you heard of Bangladesh? Do you have a sense of how large its population is or of just how much sealevel would have to rise for that population to have to seek higher ground? Global warming doesn't have to come anywhere near destroying life on earth to pose major headaches. Nor are higher sealevels unprecedented; within the last 10,000 years or so, the sealevel has been as much as 10 meters above the current level. Most of Bangladesh is well under 10 meters above sealevel.

Posted by djeri | April 18, 2008 10:51 AM

Ah, but see, djeri, Leonard doesn't live in Bangladesh.

Posted by strasmangelo jones | April 18, 2008 10:54 AM

When I saw nukes, I thought someone was going to seriously suggest what I mockingly thought of:

"Let's detonate a bunch of nukes to get some nuclear winter going and that'll balance out the global warming!"

Posted by CFisher | April 18, 2008 11:05 AM

Try to stop global warming? Conservatives may have their "heads in the sand" about the existence of a global warming threat to humanity but in a way they're more honest about it than liberals. Global warming - if real - is likely unstoppable. Not only is China increasing their CO2 output by 15% a year but the heat stored in the oceans may not dissipate for hundreds of years. Suggesting that by driving Prius's and shopping at Whole Foods that you're somehow saving the planet is no less idiotic than suggesting global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory.

Posted by Nathan | April 18, 2008 11:14 AM

The linked article doesn't say if they found this species.

Posted by roac | April 18, 2008 11:23 AM

And if we repeatedly beat Indur Goklany with sticks, would another denialist hack take his place?

Secondly, Bikini's ecosystem has only been allowed to thrive because everybody had to stay the hell away from it for fear of radioactive contamination.

Likewise, Chernobyl: the animals most affected by the meltdown died early on. The survivors and returners

So there might be an argument on a global perspective for a 'nuke the planet' strategy that renders animals and large areas of land uninhabitable. But only as long as the first trial takes place in an area designated for Cato hacks.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 18, 2008 11:26 AM

I remember, vaguely, a critique of Gray's "Elegy in a Country Churchyard" which went something like this, "One needn't be a Marxist to object to the massive indifference in the poem." Gray's Olympian tone passes over the crimped lives of "village Cromwells" with a rather inhuman acceptance. To say that we should take comfort in the fact that Nature will out is ghastly beyond measure. It's a hop skip and a jump from consolation that life exists without humans (a meaningless truism) to justifying all sorts of things like "Well, he was going to die anyway" and "And remember, this is for posterity, so be honest. How do you feel?"

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 18, 2008 11:28 AM

Give the guy a break. He doesn't say that humans will survive, he's saying that over time, maybe hundreds of years even, life will re-emerge in some other form. Maybe not as much life, maybe the only species left will be cockroaches. But his point is that the Earth will survive, even if it has to kill off mankind in order to do so.

This of course does not mean that we shouldn't "do something" about the end of humankind.

You guys sound like a bunch of knee jerk Republicans, taking everything out of context.

Posted by Todd | April 18, 2008 11:31 AM

Ngh. The flora and fauna that survived the first years after the Chernobyl meltdown has been more or less left untouched since.

in a way they're more honest about it than liberals.

In the way that closing one's eyes, blocking one's ears and singing la-la-la-la very loudly is an honest way to walk across a freeway.

There's a real problem that follows from the idea that countries with a long list of fuckups during their own industrialisation can tell rapid industrialisers like China and India how to go about it. (Not least because those industrialised nations collectively want their cheap crap, and would rather not

But it's utter bullshit to suggest that the conservative stance of 'well, if it's happening, we can't do a thing about it' is anything other than a pathetic cop-out.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 18, 2008 11:37 AM

I guess being succeeded by lichens and moss isn't such a bad thing.

Posted by steve duncan | April 18, 2008 11:40 AM

Entrepreneurial spingineers can get really feverish as they race to concoct THE powerful slogan to sell this or that political product.

Posted by ferd | April 18, 2008 11:45 AM

Todd,
Goklany implies that the concern over global warming's effects on coral reefs is unwarranted because, gee whiz, corals and associated marine organisms are now flourishing in a place that was once blown up. This argument is stupid because he's comparing an isolated event that threatened precisely one place (and was blessed by a long period of protection) to an event that is slowly unfolding across the entire globe. Also, he's comparing an open system with a closed system. His argument wouldn't be so inappropriate if, say, biotic and abiotic factors could flow between Earth and some other planet——feeding and stabilizing one when the other is out of whack. But that is not the case. Coral regrew at Bikini because coral reefs elsewhere were not destroyed and their offspring could drift to and colonize Bikini's scarred marine substrata. If all the world's coral reefs are harmed or destroyed by a increasingly warm and acidic ocean, there'll be no source for regrowth unless we can somehow perfect the husbandry of thousands of coral reef species.

Posted by tinisoli | April 18, 2008 11:48 AM

"Suggesting that by driving Prius's and shopping at Whole Foods that you're somehow saving the planet is no less idiotic than suggesting global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory."

So, if people who are concerned about CO2 emissions do anything on their own individual basis to decrease their output, they're called 'idiotic'. If those same people do nothing to decrease their output, they're called hypocrites. Gee, how fair-minded.

I take it then that Nathan gives us license to burn as much fossil fuel and destroy as much rainforest as possible. After all, he says nothing we do will ever make a difference. Thanks Nathan! We'll take it from here.

Posted by Ferruge | April 18, 2008 11:53 AM

Listen, Cato guys are usually nuts, but let me reiterate, you should always take into account the entire argument, not just certain quotes. Obama taught me that ;)

Here's what he says in the piece:

"So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself. Some, convinced that humanity is the problem, may even welcome such an outcome — no humans, but plenty of nature (over time). [Fifty-four years later at Bikini Atoll, recovery is not complete. Perhaps 28 percent of coral species may still be absent.]"

I mean, the guy admits that all humans might die, and that even after 54 years it hasn't recovered. He would probably be laughing at us if he were to ever to bother to read the comments section here.

Read it again, I don't see how he's arguing or implying anything that would justify ignoring global warming. He's just pointing out the very interesting fact that Bikini has recovered somewhat. Big deal.

I get your point that he's looking at a closed system, and I'll up the stakes. I don't think heat is the problem, I think it's water depth. I distinctly remember from my college marine bio days that corals are very sensitive to the wavelength of light as well. So, if water levels rise, the wavelength changes, and corals die in certain places, maybe migrating to others. Who knows.

Ultimately, it's not an experiment that I want to see carried out in the real world.

Posted by Todd | April 18, 2008 11:59 AM

Try to stop global warming? Conservatives may have their "heads in the sand" about the existence of a global warming threat to humanity but in a way they're more honest about it than liberals. Global warming - if real - is likely unstoppable. Not only is China increasing their CO2 output by 15% a year but the heat stored in the oceans may not dissipate for hundreds of years. Suggesting that by driving Prius's and shopping at Whole Foods that you're somehow saving the planet is no less idiotic than suggesting global warming is a liberal conspiracy theory.

We have a winner here, folks. While reducing carbon emissions to sustainable levels is not logically impossible, that we humans collectively will not do so before we have exhausted all commercially exploitable reserves of carbon is a near certainty. Presumably, many millennia hence, things will return to their status quo ante, but that will be too late for us. In the meantime, your Prius is just polishing the brass on the Titanic.

Posted by TheOtherCyrus | April 18, 2008 12:03 PM

I know Leonard doesn't live in Bangladesh. I just wonder how many folks think about how many refugees a couple of feet or a couple of meters of higher water would produce. Its not that life on the planet is in danger; in many cases its not as not every species is like the polar bear. But minimally the human dislocation and the associated political problems of 1 1/2 percent of the human population (thats Bangladesh alone as I understand things) would make the current refugee problems look miniscule. Add to that all of the difficulties associated with a range of changes in the climate patterns. Thats a very steep an unpredictable adaptation curve even if the currents in the Atlantic, Gulf Stream etc, remain more or less as they are, our food supply isn't somehow disrupted and so on.

Posted by djeri | April 18, 2008 12:12 PM

So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself.

Since humanity would be among the life on earth that was wiped out, I don't know why we're supposed to take comfort from this. I don't think I'll go to my grave any happier knowing that some day a mutant fish species will arise in my stead.

Posted by Stefan | April 18, 2008 12:31 PM

But his point is that the Earth will survive, even if it has to kill off mankind in order to do so.

That's not a point, that's a meaningless truism. It's so banal as to be unworthy of observation. Of course Earth, as a large gas covered planet rotating around a nuclear fireball, will survive. The question at the heart of the global warming debate is will mankind survive, and will it be able to survive while maintaining its current fairly comfortable standard of living?

Posted by Stefan | April 18, 2008 12:36 PM

Todd,
Warmer, more-acidic seas are bad for many corals. Just a slight increase in temp can cause corals to "bleach" because the symbiotic photosynthetic algae can't take the heat and are purged. And acidification (result of more C02 in water) threatens their calcium carbonate skeletons. Either condition can mean death, and the combo of both does not bode well. And again, this is happening all over the place, NOT just on one atoll in the Pacific where things could, in theory, later be replaced by the healthier systems existing elsewhere in the open system. Golkany's application of the Bikini feel-good story is misleading and inappropriate because he ignores the vital role that was played by the communities and ecosystems and organisms that were NOT nuked. It's as thought he thinks that those reef organisms simply materialized out of nowhere to bring Bikini back to some Eden-like state. They didn't.

Posted by tinisoli | April 18, 2008 12:42 PM

Listen, Cato guys are usually nuts, but let me reiterate, you should always take into account the entire argument, not just certain quotes. Obama taught me that ;)

The topic sentence of a piece is usually an important part of the argument.

How often have you heard that coral reefs are fragile and would be wiped out by global warming?

The structure of the piece is "claim is being made that X will cause Y for organism O, here's a case where A didn't cause Y for organism O, [conclusion that X won't cause Y for O is left to reader to infer, guided by title and topic sentence], therefore X will not cause Y for all organisms [which I will not mention is a claim no one has made]. Rejoice!"

Neither the nudge-nudge, wink-wink argument nor the overt argument makes any sense at all.

Posted by brianM | April 18, 2008 1:10 PM

stras,

God, no. Geoengineering is a terrible idea.

No, it isn't, and the article you link to doesn't say anything to the effect that it's a "terrible idea." The author describes some of the potential problems and uncertainties of large-scale climate engineering, but also notes that geoengineering proposals are getting increasing attention in the scientific community. If emissions mitigation proves to be too costly or impractical as an effective response to climate change, we may well turn to geoengineering to address the problem.

Posted by Mixner | April 18, 2008 1:13 PM

If emissions mitigation proves to be too costly or impractical as an effective response to climate change, we may well turn to geoengineering to address the problem.

Minor correction:

"...to address the problem and create others."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 18, 2008 1:18 PM

The thing that bugs me about the global warming movement is that we're getting very concerned about something that will happen 50-100 years from now, yet there's not a peep about Peak Oil, which is going to massively mess with us probably in the next 10-15 years.

Posted by Dean | April 18, 2008 1:33 PM

"So even if global warming wipes out life on earth, global warming catastrophists can take comfort that nature will, as it inevitably must, reassert itself."

this is only bad news if you're invested in the idea that humanity hanging around forever is a good idea.

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 18, 2008 1:35 PM

Shorter Goklany:
Environmentalists say that global warming would endanger coral reefs, but they might be wrong because coral reefs eventually partially recovered from this completely different disaster. I wonder what else they're wrong about? By the way, some environmentalists expect the human race to be completely wiped out by global warming, and they see it as a good thing. I'm just saying.

No, I can't imagine why anyone would be bothered by reading this.

Posted by Cyrus | April 18, 2008 1:55 PM

Minor correction: "...to address the problem and create others."

Any action to address the problem of climate change will create other problems, so this isn't a terribly useful observation. One consequence of the increased production of biofuels, for example, has been to make food more expensive, which mostly impacts the poor. Geoengineering might provide a better mix of costs and benefits than reducing carbon emissions. So might adaptation (spending money to adapt to the warming rather than trying to prevent the warming). The optimum policy will probably include some combination of mitigation and adaptation, but no one really knows yet what the best policy will be.

I see little reason to believe that efforts at large-scale reductions in carbon emissions in the near-term are likely to be successful. We just don't have the technology yet to effectively and economically replace fossil fuels, and the large developing countries, especially China and India, are unlikely to significantly reduce their rate of economic growth for environmental reasons.

Posted by Mixner | April 18, 2008 3:41 PM

What tinsoli says. This is about inane an observation as asking one to look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki: look! both thriving cities! How bad can using A-bombs on a human population be?!

Posted by McKingford | April 18, 2008 4:40 PM

straightforward denialist position has become untenable, so we're getting a lot of really weird ideas.

You bet. The Weekly Standard had an article last week talking about the melting Arctic ice, and how it's TFB for the polar bears: if it gets too bad we can relocate them to Antarctica (!!).

I love this idea. Because the penguins - those flightless birds we love so much...who have evolved into flightless birds precisely because there are no land predators in Antarctica? Well it's about time *they* grew some damn wings. Either that, or maybe we can relocate them to the Arctic...

Posted by McKingford | April 18, 2008 4:45 PM

The thing that bugs me about the global warming movement is that we're getting very concerned about something that will happen 50-100 years from now, yet there's not a peep about Peak Oil, which is going to massively mess with us probably in the next 10-15 years.

Dean,

I think it's rather the opposite. Many of those sounding alarm bells over climate change are concerned of the confluence of Peak Oil and growing CO2 emissions.

Because of our failure to institute sensible policies that would allow a gradual shift from oil to alternative energy sources, we are faced with the very real possibility that coal will be the effective substitute as oil and natural gas supplies dry up. And although oil and natural gas contribute to CO2 growth, they are exponentially better than coal. And so we are looking at the likelihood that precisely when we need to be reducing CO2 emissions to avert catastrophic climate change, we will see a sudden spike in coal use that will exacerbate the situation.

Posted by McKingford | April 18, 2008 4:55 PM

Because of our failure to institute sensible policies that would allow a gradual shift from oil to alternative energy sources.

What sensible policies? Be specific. There are no large-scale cost-effective "clean" alternatives to fossil fuels for the United States at this point. Nuclear is dirty and faces huge public opposition. Wind and solar are too expensive and suffer from other problems (unreliable, intermittent, remote). We've already exploited all major hydroelectric sites, and environmental movement opposition to new ones would be huge anyway.

Posted by Mixner | April 18, 2008 5:25 PM

Re: And acidification (result of more C02 in water) threatens their calcium carbonate skeletons.

How did corals survive when the atmosphere (and presumably the ocean) contained more CO2 than they do now, or are likely to? Or are they not as primeval as I am assuming?

Re: yet there's not a peep about Peak Oil, which is going to massively mess with us probably in the next 10-15 years.

Peak oil is an economic problem, maybe a political one. It is not an environmental problem. We're also a lot more likely to solve and surmount the peak oil problem than we are global warming. And depending on the route we take, that resolution may either exaccerbate global warming or mitugate it.

Re: this is only bad news if you're invested in the idea that humanity hanging around forever is a good idea.

I doubt humanity will hang around forever in its current form. It can (and should) evolve into one or more successor species.

Posted by JonF | April 18, 2008 9:34 PM

To be fair to Goklany, the study of Bikini Atoll does suggest that burning the rest of the planet's fossil fuels won't necessarily lead to the extinction of life on earth. As long as we burn them all at once.

Posted by brooksfoe | April 19, 2008 12:32 AM

That being said, I see some merit in thinking beyond CO2 restriction when we're assessing responses to global warming. I'm as green as the next guy, but it's going to be damn hard to solve this problem purely with a restrictionist approach. We may have to consider a few of the "weird ideas," like sunscreens in space, carbon sequestration, or what have you.
Posted by Ted

The great unmentionable is human overpopulation and the fact that we are well beyond sustainable numbers in terms of sustainable energy, Co2 generation, sustainable ecosystems, and sustainable resources outside oil we are already seeing Peak or past-peak availability globally: (helium, platinum, vanadium, even phosphate rock) and locally, remaining wild areas with 99% of the Earths biological diversity, fresh water & arable land & wood....

The idea that America can keep Open Borders and go to 438 million people as US Census predicts, the world can go to 9 billion - also by 2050 - as we restrict oil and the oil-fueled Green Revlution of agriculture? It defies belief we can do that eliminate CO2 and somehow also protect all the high-breeding populations that have moved into marginal lands in Bangladesh, the Sahel and elsewhere. Not without setting limits for allowable human populations. The current belief is the Earth can only sustain 2 billion people long-term unless fusion can be proven practical and meet 80% of our energy usage - then the Earth can sustain 4 billion, 6 if all humans agree to a severely "green-restricted" lifestyle.

Talk of "exciting alternative energies" that will magically replace hydrocarbons AND provide for the resource demands of 138 million more Americans and 3 billion more globally in under 40 years? And will save us from CO2 and allow African and Muslim families to continue to breed away with 8-18 children, hispanics with 6-7 kid families to their heart's content - is a fucking joke.
We need to cap population by country and region, and end the practice of the world thinking or hoping it can dump the billions of surplus, unwanted people in N America, Europe, Oceana that have stabilized or are reducing their own native populations to more sustainable levels if not for masses of 3rd World refugees demanding to be let in.

*******************
What sensible policies? Be specific. There are no large-scale cost-effective "clean" alternatives to fossil fuels for the United States at this point. Nuclear is dirty and faces huge public opposition. Wind and solar are too expensive and suffer from other problems (unreliable, intermittent, remote). We've already exploited all major hydroelectric sites, and environmental movement opposition to new ones would be huge anyway.
Posted by Mixner

Agree with the post except characterization that nuclear is dirty. It is amazingly clean and 99% of a used fuel assembly could be recycled, plutonium and other transuranics reused, as left with only a few hundred pounds of fission products that decay away in 250-300 years, not the "tens of thousands" that treating transuranics as waste makes people believe.

From Matt's post and from studies on the flourishing wildlife at Bikini Atoll, plant life in Chrnobyl-restricted areas, it is clear nature disagrees about radioactivity being "deadly poison". To the extent it keeps the real poison away - overdevelopment, real pollution, and overexploitation from too many humans on the planet -who fear radioactivity - nuclear radioactive contamination is about the best friend a wildlife preserve or beleagured species could have.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 19, 2008 12:57 AM