post nuclear progeny question

after a given nuclear conflict, the historical context of wich is now irelevant, given that it is of a magnitute by wich it afects all of the world population, and that of the pre war population enough survive 10 years after the war to alow "normal" demografic population increase, or in other words that, althou the population is at say... 10-20% of the pre war level the demografics are still healthy, how large a percentage of the post war generation would be afected by damaged genetics to the point of disability, how would this evolve with time, and what are the actuall factors involved, wich are the most damaging, exposure during and imediatly after the attacks, or later exposure to falout and intake of contamination from the enwiroment?

wich tipes of radiation are the most dangerous in the longterm, concerning inherent genetic damage?

i know most people wont know much about this, maybe theres someone who knows these things for some reason

i just wached mad max again and cant help but wonder, wouldnt half of those people look like chernobil and depleted uranium victimes

i heard stories about areas in former sssr where rural populations live in areas of extreemly high contamination levels, and basically live shorter, have a higher cancer rate, but go on living, as in no spectacular change has ocured
 
IIRC there have been several long term studies in Hiroshima and Nagasaki on the Insect and Rodent populations.
They have found no statically important rise in the Mutation rate.
Sorry :( none of Norton's Star-son's telephatic Coyote, or Intelligent Squids.
 
after a given nuclear conflict, the historical context of wich is now irelevant, given that it is of a magnitute by wich it afects all of the world population, and that of the pre war population enough survive 10 years after the war to alow "normal" demografic population increase, or in other words that, althou the population is at say... 10-20% of the pre war level the demografics are still healthy, how large a percentage of the post war generation would be afected by damaged genetics to the point of disability, how would this evolve with time, and what are the actuall factors involved, wich are the most damaging, exposure during and imediatly after the attacks, or later exposure to falout and intake of contamination from the enwiroment?

Exposure to radioactivity can harm you in two ways: If the radiation was high (i.e. if you were very close to an A-Bomb) then the you tissue will be irreparably damaged and you will die within a week (your bones won't produce new blood cells, your gut dissolves and so on), today it is theoretically possible to save you with immediat transplantation, but after a nuclear war it will be impossible.
If the dosis is lower or distributed over a longer period you will survive the exposure as most of the damage can be repaired. However in a decade you have likely developped cancer.

So to answer your question the immediat exposure will be so damaging that most people won't survive it.

wich tipes of radiation are the most dangerous in the longterm, concerning inherent genetic damage?

The radiation from within is the most dangerous: If you carry a gram Uranium in your hands there won't be any effects, on the other hand if you eat it ...

So you should be asking what kinds of radioactive isotopes are incorporated:
There are only three Elements in the fallout which you incorporate in large amouth: Iod-131, Strontium-90 and Caesium-137.
The first is incorporated in your Thyroid. It has a half-life of only 8 days. This is both good and bad. Bad if you do incorporate it becaus it will quickly destroy the Tyroid and thus killing you. Good if you don't incorporate it because after a month there won't be any of it left. So Iod-131 will only affect people near the explosion sites. (if the war was fought between USA and USSR there won't be any Iod on the southern Hemisphere)

Strontium and Caesium are incorporated in your bones. They have a half-life of 28.90 years and 30.07 years. This means that the won't kill you outright but will cause
leukemia over the next ten years.

i heard stories about areas in former sssr where rural populations live in areas of extreemly high contamination levels, and basically live shorter, have a higher cancer rate, but go on living, as in no spectacular change has ocured

Yes, that's pretty much what will happen. There will also be much more miscarriages and babies dying in their first years from various mutations which are leathal.
There is a possibility that recessive Alleles will be expressed more as the dominant alleles are knocked out. However that somthing enterily new appears is indeed quiet unlikely.
 
I seem to remember that the consequences of Chenobyl weren't as bad as predicted. My recollection is that the 'predictor' graph plot was based on a 'straight line' but the reality was a 'curved line'
Sorry if this is a bit vague - maybe someone else knows more.
 
So to answer your question the immediat exposure will be so damaging that most people won't survive it.

yes but the imediate damage to population is not relevant, in the end its just statistics

The radiation from within is the most dangerous: If you carry a gram Uranium in your hands there won't be any effects, on the other hand if you eat it ...

Strontium and Caesium are incorporated in your bones. They have a half-life of 28.90 years and 30.07 years. This means that the won't kill you outright but will cause
leukemia over the next ten years.

Yes, that's pretty much what will happen. There will also be much more miscarriages and babies dying in their first years from various mutations which are leathal.
There is a possibility that recessive Alleles will be expressed more as the dominant alleles are knocked out. However that somthing enterily new appears is indeed quiet unlikely.

that was the question, seeing the deformations and still born rate after chernobil, and more alarming, after use of depleted uranium, (are effects of depleted uranium diferent from above said forms of contamination? obviously it causes leukemia and congenital defects) and asuming all surviving population will acumulate one form of contamination or another, probbably all, althou in diferent amounts, is it realistic to expect that a large enough part of new generations would be fisicaly and mentaly capable, ewen if with a huge rate of tumors and other cancer, or would most of the population acumulate to much contamination in their organism, to produce functional offspring

one could asume that the worst-off being mostly stillborn or too defect to survive would simply be counted out of the demografics, and so in seweral generations the populations with the worst genetic damage would die out, but as all the population would be contaminated, and all genetic damage inherent, would this not mean there would be no "healthy" genetic material to stop general degenaration?

i mean if ten babies are born, lets say 6 of them are oficially stillborn, and the four remaining have olnly less disabilitating deformities, and or bening tumors, would the offspring of that generation be worse? or would it get better?

or, if a population has small to nil birthrate during the first 30 post war years, ewen if the entire population is contaminated, would the genetic quality somehow "fix" (recesive alleles mentioned) itself in the next say.. 10 generations? asuming future contamination is as little as posible

and is more damage to unborn human done by contamination acumulated in the mother, or by "traveling" isotopes, particulary gama rays
 
Last edited:
that was the question, seeing the deformations and still born rate after chernobil, and more alarming, after use of depleted uranium, (are effects of depleted uranium diferent from above said forms of contamination? obviously it causes leukemia and congenital defects)

The main difference is, that your body thinks Strontium and Caesium are somthing good and you accumulate it over time. Uranium isn't accumulated.

one could asume that the worst-off being mostly stillborn or too defect to survive would simply be counted out of the demografics, and so in seweral generations the populations with the worst genetic damage would die out, but as all the population would be contaminated, and all genetic damage inherent, would this not mean there would be no "healthy" genetic material to stop general degenaration?

It is very unlikely that no single intact copy of a gene is left. There may be people without Pigments, others with growth problems and so on but someone will have an intact gene of it.

or, if a population has small to nil birthrate during the first 30 post war years, ewen if the entire population is contaminated, would the genetic quality somehow "fix" (recesive alleles mentioned) itself in the next say.. 10 generations? asuming future contamination is as little as posible

Yes, over time all negative Mutation would slowly be elliminated. If for instance someone without an intact Melaninproduction but with an intact gene for growth regulation mates with someone with the opposite deffects some of their children will have none of the defects.

and is more damage to unborn human done by contamination acumulated in the mother, or by "traveling" isotopes, particulary gama rays

More damage is done by the acumlated contamination because it will be partially transfared into the develloping bones of the embryo
 
Top