/sci/ - Science & Math

answer: biodomes

>science fiction movies arent accurate

Next you'll be telling me that Prometheus didn't make any sense!

>>5589192
well of course they aren't, i'm just wondering if any movies got it right, perhaps unintentionally

In Battlestar Galactica the forests and whatnot were portrayed as pretty much intact. Although the cities were too.... so it didn't look much like a nuclear holocaust had happened anyway.

>>5589144


Scifi movies can't be trusted for their accuracy, but there is an aspect to the nuclear wasteland scenario you're missing: Nuclear winter. The idea is that a large scale nuclear war would throw a massive amount of smoke and dust in the upper atmosphere. Enough to make the Earth very dark and very cold for years, similar to the asteroid extinctions.

It's not just movies. In all the Fallout games, no explorable area has more than the slightest vegetation, unless expressly cultivated.

Sure, a salted bomb would also kill most plants and not just animals, but in hundreds of years, seeds would spread in winds to re-populate the continents.

If you want realism, try Threads, a rather accurate depiction of total nuclear war and it's aftermath. Or not, if you're easily depressed.

Full length 1h 52m
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg

>>5589144
Why is it that the rest of nature can bounce back that way and essentially live life radioactively, but we can't? Or is it just that their lifespans are significantly shorter, like ours would be?

A single nuclear disaster isn't a very good comparison to every warhead on earth being launched simultaneously.

>>5589948
bingo, short lifespans and high reproductive yields. couple of them born without legs doesn't matter.
we live long enough that cancer is a real thread, and we have a 9 month gestation period for usually one offspring

>>5589948
Certain plants and animals are resistant to it. It's fairly difficult for radiation to fuck up a DNA chain while its chilling in a cell. Mostly that happens during cell division when the DNA is being transcribed. Plant cells do not divide as often as animal cells. A human will have millions of cells dividing at any given point in time. Certain animals like the cockroach only go through cell division when they're ready to move up to a bigger exoskeleton . This means there would be some unlucky cockroach bastard with a huge number of mutated cells, but most of the population wouldn't be effected. This is when dealing with a short burst of radiation.

>>5589144
You're making a silly assumption that its radiation causing lack of plant growth. I mean you can't even back that up how well do you know how radiation effects growth of plants?
Plant growth near the former chenobyl thermal fission reactor station hasn't been much lacking from the dissaster. In fact the disaster caused irradiation of groundwaters below the plant and even the trees there are irradiated.

The point is there's much more to a thermal nuclear blast than just the fallout and radioactivity. For instance the Immense heat blast could change the chemicals and structure of the soil making it incapable of supporting plant life. The heat could also remove almost all traces of moisture from the soil making it more like a desert sand.

>>5589935
>In all the Fallout games, no explorable area has more than the slightest vegetation unless expressly cultivated.
Well, there aren't much vegetation in deserts even nowadays, especially in the Mojave. There is also the part where you're wondering in a metropolitan cement jungle. I do remember however some Vaults with overgrown flora and the forest where the Nightkin lived in NV. It also seems plausible that people harvest whatever green they can find.

Let's just say you're mostly wrong, but I am not overly familiar with the american west coast.

Could a human remain healthy from conception to the age of sixteen in a place like Chernobyl?

>>5590025
Yes.
The horror stories of cancer ridden deformed children was because of the effect of the immense radiation when the disaster happened on developing fetuses.

>>5590041
Then a human population could survive in such an are indefinitely, albeit with high infant mortality rates, high rates of deformities and short life-spans, could they not?

>>5590045
>an are indefinitely,
*an area indefinitely,
Sorry!

>>5590047
Provided they had sufficient clean food and water and stayed out of hot spots. You can't say they couldn't.
People seem to like to speculate, yet probably don't understand the the medical implications of ionising radiation. However the severity of the disaster would have to be considered, like people obviously couldn't live 100 miles from the sun.

>>5590045
They need to breed like rabbits though with the accumulating radiation and all. I remember a study about the birds around Chernobyl and how the size of their brains decreased over time. It was really weird and they couldn't really understand why did it happen, so I bet there would be a ton of side effects due to consuming the food grown there and interacting with radiation on a daily basis.
So theoretically it's possible to live there, but I doubt anyone would want to, because the whole area would be treated as a quarantine zone with regular needs for shipments of clean food and water.

It would be a zone for welfare queens and kings haha.

>>5590059
>However the severity of the disaster would have to be considered, like people obviously couldn't live 100 miles from the sun.
I don't see how your analogy is relevant. I meant a place like Chernobyl.
I think it also needs to be taken into account that the genetic damage would accumulate over time, much faster than we could evolve. They might stop producing viable offspring after a few generations. :(
>Muh scenario
If they were well prepared they could construct an underground radiation-proof vault, which could contain tens of thousand of fertilized eggs. These could be implanted into women, allowing the society to survive much longer. If pregnant women and infants could spend most of their time inside the vault, this would prolly help too, wouldn't it?

>>5590064
I'm thinking they have no alternatives. Would they not be able to eat and drink locally grown food and water?

>>5590059
>However the severity of the disaster would have to be considered, like people obviously couldn't live 100 miles from the sun.
I don't see how your analogy is relevant. I meant a place like Chernobyl.
I think it also needs to be taken into account that the genetic damage would accumulate over time, much faster than we could evolve. They might stop producing viable offspring after a few generations. :(
B-but muh scenario...
If they were well prepared they could construct an underground radiation-proof vault, which could contain tens of thousand of fertilized eggs. These could be implanted into women, allowing the society to survive much longer. If pregnant women and infants could spend most of their time inside the vault, this would prolly help too, wouldn't it?

>>5590064
I'm thinking they have no alternatives. Would they not be able to eat and drink locally grown food and water?

>>5590067
How do you know genetic damage would accumulate. That seems like an assumption.

>>5589948

See Threads.

We're highly dependent on our intricate societies. Stop the food deliveries for one week, and we descend into feudal barbarism and ritual murder.

Animals can fall back on their inherent skills eg ramming, mauling, and grazing.

>>5590025

Of course. There's a slightly increased risk of cancer, but if there's one thing we can't tolerate it's slightly increased risks of things.

>>5590072
Well, imagine this:
Jane and Steve get mutated by radiation:
Their kids inherit their mutations, but also get their own mutations from radiations.
The same happens to their kids, and their kids, and theirs, and theirs, and so on. Eventually, there's too much damage for any offspring to survive and remain fertile until it reaches sexual maturity.

>>5590087
>Eventually, there's too much damage for any offspring to survive and remain fertile until it reaches sexual maturity.
NOT ENOUGH OFFSPRINGS THEN
BREED MOAR

>>5590556
But they'd all be fucked. Even if you had twenty kids and one of them survived, that kid would have an even worse sucess-rate than you did.

404: file:solution not found

>>5590070
>evolving=/=repairing genetic material

>>5589918

nuclear winter has been confirmed as soviet disinfo from the cold war

>>5590605
Evolution can repair genetic material by weeding out shitty mutated genes. This does of course take millennia at least, which is why it doesn't work in this situation.

We should start a nuclear war to wipe out the evil that is man and restore nature

>>5592194
>Cause immeasurable suffering to the only know sapient species in the universe
>Woo-hoo, nature!
Ashiggydiggy

>>5589935
(not sure if this has been said, haven't read hole thread yet)

This is VERY wrong. Fallout 3 was made by Bethesda, not Interplay or Obsidian, Bethesda actually raped tons of Fallout "lore" with things such as The Brotherhood of Steel and "east coast" Super Mutants. In Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas there's no vegetation because it takes place in the god damn southwest, it's all desert, there actually are various shrubs in the good Fallout games. (1, 2 and nv).

or is this a test so mods know who to ban for
>infantile video games

>>5593911
You obviously haven't seen the disgusting nature of humanity.

>>5594230
I've been to /b/, and I have friends who tell me more of spacedicks and the deep web than I'd care to know. I assumed war and the DW were our low-points in actions and information respectively.

But whatever; we're the best thing we have, why waste it? Homo Sapiens is the only thing that can ever take life from this planet to other worlds, which means we're nature's only hope. Bam.
>Muh Sodom & Gomorrah
2mucholdtestament4u

The Red Forest is a radiation hotspot though. And Pripyat isn't all that safe either. Animals don't develop mutations because they tend to die before being affected or just die at birth (because of said mutations). Sure, there's trees growing and shit, but are radioactive as heck.