8th Century Gamma Ray Burst Irradiated the Earth, Study Finds

[N2NH]

It was recently found that the Earth was likely irradiated with gamma rays from a source in space in 774/775 AD.


In 2012 scientist Fusa Miyake announced the detection of high levels of the isotope Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 in tree rings formed in 775 CE, suggesting that a burst of radiation struck the Earth in the year 774 or 775. Carbon-14 and Beryllium-10 form when radiation from space collides with nitrogen atoms, which then decay to these heavier forms of carbon and beryllium. The earlier research ruled out the nearby explosion of a massive star (a supernova) as nothing was recorded in observations at the time and no remnant has been found...

Drs. Hambaryan and Neuhӓuser have another explanation, consistent with both the carbon-14 measurements and the absence of any recorded events in the sky. They suggest that two compact stellar remnants, i.e. black holes, neutron stars or white dwarfs, collided and merged together. When this happens, some energy is released in the form of gamma rays, the most energetic part of the electromagnetic spectrum that includes visible light. In these mergers, the burst of gamma rays is intense but short, typically lasting less than two seconds. These events are seen in other galaxies many times each year but, in contrast to long duration bursts, without any corresponding visible light. If this is the explanation for the 774 / 775 radiation burst, then the merging stars could not be closer than about 3000 light years, or it would have led to the extinction of some terrestrial life. Based on the carbon-14 measurements, Hambaryan and Neuhӓuser believe the gamma ray burst originated in a system between 3000 and 12000 light years from the Sun.

For those who have said that these events do not happen, here is proof that it not only does, but it has. If it were closer, it would've "led to the extinction of some terrestrial life." Yes, all that life that was on surface of the Earth facing the event.

8th century gamma ray burst irradiated the Earth, study finds (http://phys.org/news/2013-01-8th-century-gamma-ray-irradiated.html#jCp)

[VE7DCW]

It's my understanding that the gamma rays were emitted from a tertiary subspace anomoly located in spatial grid 1593! :yes:

[N8YX]

Option 3:

A nearby magnetar underwent a starquake and the resulting uncoiling of its magnetic field triggered a gamma ray burst. A similar event happened just a few years ago and was the first such event detected by spaceborne instruments.

[n2ize]

I dont; recall anyone saying these events don't happen. Actually they do happen and have been known to be for quite some time. Fortunately they happen to be quite rare within any given galaxy, and generally occur in distant galaxies and are harmless to the earth. However, if a nearby burst were to occur, say within our galaxy (although the probability appears to be extremely small), then all bets are off and the results could be catastrophic.

[N2CHX]

I dont; recall anyone saying these events don't happen.

Really? Obviously you haven't talked to any religious educators lately.

[KC2UGV]

I dont; recall anyone saying these events don't happen. Actually they do happen and have been known to be for quite some time. Fortunately they happen to be quite rare within any given galaxy, and generally occur in distant galaxies and are harmless to the earth. However, if a nearby burst were to occur, say within our galaxy (although the probability appears to be extremely small), then all bets are off and the results could be catastrophic.

We had one happen, in our galaxy. We had a nearby starquake that did this: SGR 1806-20. It was on the other side of the galaxy, and increased the size of our magnetosphere quite a bit. If it were within 3 parsecs, it would have been a life-ending event here.

[N2NH]

We had one happen, in our galaxy. We had a nearby starquake that did this: SGR 1806-20. It was on the other side of the galaxy, and increased the size of our magnetosphere quite a bit. If it were within 3 parsecs, it would have been a life-ending event here.


Current estimates are that a gamma-ray burst will happen in our galaxy, or one nearby, about once every five million years. However, there is a good chance that the radiation would not have an impact on Earth. This is because it all depends on the beaming. Even objects very close to a gamma-ray burst can be unaffected, just so long as they are not in the beam path. However, if an object is in the beam path, the results can be devastating.
There is evidence that suggests that a GRB could have occurred about 450 million years ago, which could have led to a mass extinction. But this is uncertain.
But what if a gamma-ray burst, beamed directly at Earth, happened today? Well, first of all, in that unlikely event, the damage would still depend on how close the burst is. For argument sake, lets assume that it occurred in the Milky Way (http://space.about.com/od/Galaxies/a/Dwarf-Galaxies.htm) galaxy, but very far away from our Solar System (http://space.about.com/od/solarsystem/a/Origins_of_the_Solar_System.htm).
With the gamma-rays beamed directly at us, the radiation would deplete a significant portion of our atmosphere, specifically the ozone layer. Additionally, the photons would cause chemical reactions leading to photochemical smog. This would further deplete our protection from cosmic rays (http://space.about.com/od/nebulae/a/Source-of-Cosmic-Rays.htm).
And then there is the lethal doses of radiation that surface life would be exposed too. The end result would be mass extinctions.
Luckily, the statistical probability of such an event is low. We seem to be in a galaxy where supermassive stars are rare, and binary (http://space.about.com/od/stars/a/Binary-Stars.htm) compact object systems aren't dangerously close. And even if a GRB event happened in our galaxy, the likelihood that the event would be highly beamed directly at us, with nothing between us and it is even more unlikely.

In our Galaxy... once in about 5 million years.

One 3,000 to 12,000 LY away in 775.

So I guess we're safe for another 5 million years?

Don't you believe it.

[N1LAF]

It was recently found that the Earth was likely irradiated with gamma rays from a source in space in 774/775 AD.

For those who have said that these events do not happen, here is proof that it not only does, but it has. If it were closer, it would've "led to the extinction of some terrestrial life." Yes, all that life that was on surface of the Earth facing the event.


I don't know anyone here would dispute this would happen, but it appears that events like this a little more common than originally thought. From what I understand, the gamma ray burst is along the rotational axis of the source object. Interesting reading.

---- More interesting stuff ----------------

Betelgeuse : also known by its Bayer designation Alpha Orionis (α Orionis, α Ori), is the eighth-brightest star in the night sky and second-brightest in the constellation of Orion.

Distance 643 ± 146 ly

Betelgeuse is already old for its size class and is expected to explode relatively soon compared to its age. Solving the riddle of mass-loss will be the key to knowing when a supernova may occur, an event expected in the next million years. Professor J. Craig Wheeler of The University of Texas at Austin predicts Betelgeuse's demise will emit 1046 joules of neutrinos, which will pass through the star's hydrogen envelope in around an hour, then travel at light speed to reach the Solar System centuries later—providing the first evidence of the cataclysm. The supernova could brighten over a two-week period to an apparent magnitude of −12, outshining the Moon in the night sky and becoming easily visible in broad daylight. It would remain at that intensity for two to three months before rapidly dimming. Since its rotational axis is not pointed toward the Earth, Betelgeuse's supernova is unlikely to send a gamma ray burst in the direction of Earth large enough to damage ecosystems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse

[KC2UGV]

In our Galaxy... once in about 5 million years.

One 3,000 to 12,000 LY away in 775.

So I guess we're safe for another 5 million years?

Don't you believe it.

It's estimated it happens once every 10 years or so. Safe? Meh. What are we supposed to do about it anyways? I'm not sure, but I don't think we have the technology to stop magnetars from doing what they do.

[N1LAF]

A gamma-ray burst could affect Earth in much the same way as a supernova -- and at much greater distance -- but only if its jet is directly pointed our way. Astronomers estimate that a gamma-ray burst could affect Earth from up to 10,000 light-years away with each separated by about 15 million years, on average. So far, the closest burst on record, known as GRB 031203, was 1.3 billion light-years away.

http://phys.org/news/2011-12-supernova.html#nRlv

[N1LAF]

How often do supernovae occur?

Although many supernovae have been seen in nearby galaxies, supernova explosions are relatively rare events in our own galaxy, happening once a century or so on average. The last nearby supernova explosion occurred in 1680, It was thought to be just a normal star at the time, but it caused a discrepancy in the observer's star catalogue, which historians finally resolved 300 years later, after the supernova remnant (Cassiopeia A) was discovered and its age estimated. Before 1680, the two most recent supernova explosions were observed by the great astronomers Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler in 1572 and 1604 respectively.

In 1987, there was a supernova explosion in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a companion galaxy to the Milky Way. Supernova 1987A, which is shown at the top of the page, is close enough to continuously observe as it changes over time, thus greatly expanding astronomers' understanding of this fascinating phenomenon.
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/know_l2/supernovae.html

[n2ize]

It's estimated it happens once every 10 years or so. Safe? Meh. What are we supposed to do about it anyways? I'm not sure, but I don't think we have the technology to stop magnetars from doing what they do.

In our galaxy (or others of similar size) the expectation of a GRB lies between once every 500,000 to 1,000,000 years. If one were to occur in our galaxy the degree of impact on earth would depend on many factors, i.e location, distance, collimation, and direction. If it's aimed right at us we could be in for some serious extinction. Now perhaps some people think I shouldn't believe these expectations and assume devastating GRB will occur much more frequently, perhaps once a day or once a week but right now these seem to be pretty good odds based on research. Another factor that works in our favor is that GRB's tend to be tightly collimated thus the odds of a earth shattering GRB would also depend on both the change of occurrence within our galaxy and the change that the earth would be within it's beam.

Yes, GRB's are detected with much greater frequency but the vast majority are generated in very distant galaxies and are of no threat to the earth.

And, as you said, in the improbable worst case scenario there is nothing we are going to do about it anyway.

Of course there is always the chance they are not GRB's at all but the angry fist of God so maybe we can pray them away.. ;)

[suddenseer]

How often do supernovae occur?
Not enough.

http://images.superchevy.com/features/nova/sucp_0709_16_z+1969_chevy_nova_z28+front_view.jpg

[NQ6U]

And, as you said, in the improbable worst case scenario there is nothing we are going to do about it anyway.

Yet, this type of thinking has become so prevalent that a word has been coined to describe it: cosmophobia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iWoiI1E5IKQ

Much more here (http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/cosmophobia/) and here (http://www.cosmophobia.org/start).

[NQ6U]

Not enough.

http://images.superchevy.com/features/nova/sucp_0709_16_z+1969_chevy_nova_z28+front_view.jpg

Estoy tan triste. Mi Nova no va.

[N1LAF]

Not enough.

http://images.superchevy.com/features/nova/sucp_0709_16_z+1969_chevy_nova_z28+front_view.jpg

:agree:

[n2ize]

Yet, this type of thinking has become so prevalent that a word has been coined to describe it: cosmophobia.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=iWoiI1E5IKQ

Much more here (http://lunarscience.nasa.gov/articles/cosmophobia/) and here (http://www.cosmophobia.org/start).

I am not being cosmophobic. Matter of fact a catastrophic cosmic event occurring carries an extremely low probability and ranks the lowest on my list of things that I would even begin to be concerned about. I was merely pointing out that the chances of experiencing such an event are very unlikely and even in the remote chance it were to happen there is nothing we can do to stop it anyway.

[kb2vxa]

It may be interesting to note that when the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963 satellites with gamma ray detectors were put in place to detect violations. They detected several bursts but mysteriously there was no coincidental seismic activity to correlate the evidence. Someone got the bright idea to turn them outward to space and that's when cosmic gamma ray bursts were discovered.

[N2NH]

It may be interesting to note that when the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was signed in 1963 satellites with gamma ray detectors were put in place to detect violations. They detected several bursts but mysteriously there was no coincidental seismic activity to correlate the evidence. Someone got the bright idea to turn them outward to space and that's when cosmic gamma ray bursts were discovered.

They must've been scared to want to know WTF was going on. Seems that when you ask questions or want to know, you're suffering a phobia. Funny, we can control fire for the most part. If someone said why are you worried about that house fire, you can't do anything about it, we'd never have fire departments.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTm-sejmH-uTdrWFHYZjOa9ZAAA2W2FQ547OwfFopgo879hpl1jDQ

[KC2UGV]

They must've been scared to want to know WTF was going on. Seems that when you ask questions or want to know, you're suffering a phobia. Funny, we can control fire for the most part. If someone said why are you worried about that house fire, you can't do anything about it, we'd never have fire departments.

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTm-sejmH-uTdrWFHYZjOa9ZAAA2W2FQ547OwfFopgo879hpl1jDQ

So, what do you propose we do about massive gamma bursts emanating from magnetars over 5 light years away? Run?

[X-Rated]

Not enough.

http://images.superchevy.com/features/nova/sucp_0709_16_z+1969_chevy_nova_z28+front_view.jpg

Where's George? Can't believe he is not taking part in a Chevy thread.

[n2ize]

They must've been scared to want to know WTF was going on. Seems that when you ask questions or want to know, you're suffering a phobia.


Huh ???


Funny, we can control fire for the most part. If someone said why are you worried about that house fire, you can't do anything about it, we'd never have fire departments.


Very weak analogy. Big difference between putting out a fire versus extinguishing a supernova or preventing the merger of binary neutron stars that are many light years away. Of course if it makes you that worried and you can figure out a way to control massive objects light years away in the cosmos or block massive gamma ray bursts then perhaps you can form the "Gamma Ray Burst Department" and be the worlds first Gamma Ray Fighter.

[n2ize]

So, what do you propose we do about massive gamma bursts emanating from magnetars over 5 light years away? Run?

Grab a firehose and put them out. :snicker:

[N2NH]

So, what do you propose we do about massive gamma bursts emanating from magnetars over 5 light years away? Run?

Well, first of all, Water acts as a retardant. It takes awhile for the atmosphere to burn away, so being able to wait it out would help. Then, although there is evidence that Gamma Rays will penetrate rock, that too acts to slow the effects down. It was the one thing that all those bomb shelters failed to be engineered for. The effects of gamma radiation from nuclear bombs.

A bit about shielding. An axiom I used to hear a lot was Piss Poor Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance. Given a brain, there is usually an excellent solution for nearly everything. If you don't have the money, plan for the best you can afford. If you do, build something that will protect even if a nuke is detonated a few miles overhead. then add 100% to it. Does it just have to be for GRBs? Nope. It can protect from tornadoes, hurricanes, war, just think a bit and it becomes quite useful.

Just a start: Shielding LInk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection#Shielding_design)

Or you could do it the way John came up with. Build a rocket and douse the source with a bucket of water.

[n2ize]

Well, first of all, Water acts as a retardant. It takes awhile for the atmosphere to burn away, so being able to wait it out would help.

Water isn't going to do anything in such a situation/



Then, although there is evidence that Gamma Rays will penetrate rock, that too acts to slow the effects down. It was the one thing that all those bomb shelters failed to be engineered for. The effects of gamma radiation from nuclear bombs.

Actually most typical fallout shelters were designed to protect occupants against gamma radiation. The offered significant protection from gamma radiation due to atomic bombs. Bear in mind that the gamma radiation from a nearby GRB directed right at the earth dwarfs the gamma radiation from an atomic blast and or atomic fallout.


A bit about shielding. An axiom I used to hear a lot was Piss Poor Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance. Given a brain, there is usually an excellent solution for nearly everything. If you don't have the money, plan for the best you can afford. If you do, build something that will protect even if a nuke is detonated a few miles overhead. then add 100% to it. Does it just have to be for GRBs? Nope. It can protect from tornadoes, hurricanes, war, just think a bit and it becomes quite useful.

Actually, shielding yourself from gamma rays from a GRB is not the issue unless you are on the side of the earth facing the jet of gamma radiation. Very little gamma radiation itself would reach the surface of the earth elsewhere . The key issue is the effects the gamma radiation would have on the upper atmosphere, namely massive depletion of the ozone layer which would cause overall depletion of the food chain, the bonding of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere to form oxides of nitrogen which could effectively block out sunlight causing year round winter and further loss of food sources. In general there would likely be mass extinction across the globe and, even if you do somehow survive for a little while there would probably not be much of a world left to crawl back into.

Incidentally, if you are going to build a shelter to protect you from an atomic blast directly overhead (a few miles above you) you are not going to need a fallout/radiation shelter, you are going to need a blast shelter. The requirements for building an effective blast shelter are way beyond the scope of a do it yourself home owners project with respect to actual design, constriction and cost. To be effective they must be designed by experts, will cost way way more than your home, and still won't save your life if you are directly under or very close to ground zero. And even if people could build effective shelters against GRB's they will more than likely not be near their shelters when the GRB occurs.

As for me I am not going to worry about it as the odds of it happening in my lifetime or even thousands of my lifetimes is awfully miniscule. And even if it does happen tomorrow, well, nobody ever said I am going to live forever. Then again, if I am immortal then I have nothing to worry about anyway. In any event a GRB directly clobbering the earth is the least of my worries.

[KC2UGV]

Well, first of all, Water acts as a retardant.

So, we need to move under the ocean?


It takes awhile for the atmosphere to burn away, so being able to wait it out would help. Then, although there is evidence that Gamma Rays will penetrate rock, that too acts to slow the effects down. It was the one thing that all those bomb shelters failed to be engineered for. The effects of gamma radiation from nuclear bombs.


Wait it out? lolololol

Wait it out for what? The ecosystem to recover?



A bit about shielding. An axiom I used to hear a lot was Piss Poor Planning Produces Piss Poor Performance. Given a brain, there is usually an excellent solution for nearly everything. If you don't have the money, plan for the best you can afford. If you do, build something that will protect even if a nuke is detonated a few miles overhead. then add 100% to it. Does it just have to be for GRBs? Nope. It can protect from tornadoes, hurricanes, war, just think a bit and it becomes quite useful.

Just a start: Shielding LInk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection#Shielding_design)


Ok. Cool. Let's plan for a life ending event on this planet. What's your plan? A self-contained, fusion powered ecosystem built underground, designed to support 1000 people?



Or you could do it the way John came up with. Build a rocket and douse the source with a bucket of water.

Douse what? The atmosphere? For what purpose? Water vapor does a piss poor job at blocking gamma radiation. Not to mention, the part that would need dousing (The earths magnetic shell) is at 0 atmospheres (Or, damned close). Spray water up there, it instantly boils, and ejects itself out into space.

There is no way to prepare for a life ending event. It's exactly what it says: Life ending. The only possible solution to save mankind to is colonize other star systems.

[NQ6U]

And all this discussion assumes that our species is worth saving to begin with. Arguments to the contrary could be made.

[N2RJ]

I don't mind having humanity around despite its faults.

[N8YX]

Ban GRBs. It's for the children.

[KA9MOT]

You know what happens when you get too much Gamma Radiation.....

8733

[N8YX]

You get accused of illegal steroid usage?

[X-Rated]

You get accused of illegal steroid usage?

And become a blood relative of the Wicked Witch of the West and become green.

[N2NH]

So, we need to move under the ocean?

No. We could easily build houses with these factored in.


Wait it out? lolololol

Wait it out for what? The ecosystem to recover?

A long Gamma Ray Burst runs over 2 seconds. In that time a lot of life will get vaporized, but only on the side of the earth facing the source. That leaves just under half the planet untouched.


Ok. Cool. Let's plan for a life ending event on this planet. What's your plan? A self-contained, fusion powered ecosystem built underground, designed to support 1000 people?

Nope. That could be done, but more likely it would be easier to just build them into houses like tornado shelters.

Douse what? The atmosphere? For what purpose? Water vapor does a piss poor job at blocking gamma radiation. Not to mention, the part that would need dousing (The earths magnetic shell) is at 0 atmospheres (Or, damned close). Spray water up there, it instantly boils, and ejects itself out into space.

There is no way to prepare for a life ending event. It's exactly what it says: Life ending. The only possible solution to save mankind to is colonize other star systems.

The water comment was an aside based on what IZE said. Any decent engineer will tell you that we are only using a small fraction of our resources and can design a lot more stuff than we have been accustomed to.

That is also an excellent solution, but one that I feel is unlikely. We aren't motivated. Then there's the Nixon factor. He cut the Apollo flights and cut the funds for the Space Shuttle. It's entirely likely that his cuts caused both the accidents that the shuttle had during its use.

[n2ize]

No. We could easily build houses with these factored in.



A long Gamma Ray Burst runs over 2 seconds. In that time a lot of life will get vaporized, but only on the side of the earth facing the source. That leaves just under half the planet untouched.

Not entirely true if you bothered to read my posting above. The problem is not so much the gamma rays that strike the surface of the earth, though those would effectively destroy plant, animal, and human life leading to severe illness and mass extinction, The major issue will be the effect on the atmosphere. The majority of the high energy annd highly intense gamma rays are adsorbed by the upper atmosphere which would severely deplete a large percentage the ozone layer ultimately destroying the food chain and causing mass extinction. In addition without the protection of the ozone layer photochemical reactions of UV on oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere will cause oxides of nitrogen to form creating a smog which could effectively block out a significant amount of sunlight leading to years upon years of permanent winter.

It is highly unlikely that your "bomb shelter" is going to protect you significantly from the intense high energy field that would be beamed towards the earth. And even if it did when you do crawl out from your hole you will most likely find a world very different from what you remember. A world that would not sustain you for very long.

You are talking about a mass life terminating event. In the extremely remote probability that such event were to happen we've bought the farm and all further bets are off.

BTW we all stand a much greater chance of dying from old age than being the victim of a catastrophic cosmic event.

[KC2UGV]

No. We could easily build houses with these factored in.


Build houses with oceans factored in?



A long Gamma Ray Burst runs over 2 seconds. In that time a lot of life will get vaporized, but only on the side of the earth facing the source. That leaves just under half the planet untouched.


You do realize the effects of half of the life on the planet being vaporized would have? Not to mention the larger effects, such as a lack of magnetosphere?



Nope. That could be done, but more likely it would be easier to just build them into houses like tornado shelters.


Build fusion powered ecosystems into houses? You do realize, we haven't mastered fusion yet, right? And that no home has the floor space to sustain 2 people, let along an average sized family, right?



The water comment was an aside based on what IZE said. Any decent engineer will tell you that we are only using a small fraction of our resources and can design a lot more stuff than we have been accustomed to.


If we were to build a Dyson sphere, we might have a chance of doing something. However, a Dyson sphere would required the resources of an estimated 4 solar systems to construct.



That is also an excellent solution, but one that I feel is unlikely. We aren't motivated. Then there's the Nixon factor. He cut the Apollo flights and cut the funds for the Space Shuttle. It's entirely likely that his cuts caused both the accidents that the shuttle had during its use.

What is an excellent solution? The fusion powered underground shelter designed to support 1000 people? Get back at me when we've mastered fusion, then you might be onto something.

[KA9MOT]

We could build houses lined with 2 inches of lead.... but then we'd all die of lead poisoning........

I guess that in the end, someday.... eventually.......we're all going to die. Some of us sooner than others. Nothing to worry about, it's inevitable. I just hope I get to see and learn about it all before then.

Speaking of which... did anybody watch that show on TV last night about the Giant Squid..... Amazing!

[N2NH]

Water isn't going to do anything in such a situation/

I've got a link on gamma radiation shielding that sez you're full of shaving cream. Show me one that refutes what the experts said in mine.


Actually most typical fallout shelters were designed to protect occupants against gamma radiation. The offered significant protection from gamma radiation due to atomic bombs. Bear in mind that the gamma radiation from a nearby GRB directed right at the earth dwarfs the gamma radiation from an atomic blast and or atomic fallout.

So it is overengineered. That's means that it's not good for shielding from nuke generated gamma rays?


Actually, shielding yourself from gamma rays from a GRB is not the issue unless you are on the side of the earth facing the jet of gamma radiation. Very little gamma radiation itself would reach the surface of the earth elsewhere . The key issue is the effects the gamma radiation would have on the upper atmosphere, namely massive depletion of the ozone layer which would cause overall depletion of the food chain, the bonding of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere to form oxides of nitrogen which could effectively block out sunlight causing year round winter and further loss of food sources. In general there would likely be mass extinction across the globe and, even if you do somehow survive for a little while there would probably not be much of a world left to crawl back into.

Already said what you have in the first two sentences and the rest have been addressed elsewhere too.


Incidentally, if you are going to build a shelter to protect you from an atomic blast directly overhead (a few miles above you) you are not going to need a fallout/radiation shelter, you are going to need a blast shelter. The requirements for building an effective blast shelter are way beyond the scope of a do it yourself home owners project with respect to actual design, constriction and cost. To be effective they must be designed by experts, will cost way way more than your home, and still won't save your life if you are directly under or very close to ground zero. And even if people could build effective shelters against GRB's they will more than likely not be near their shelters when the GRB occurs.

As for me I am not going to worry about it as the odds of it happening in my lifetime or even thousands of my lifetimes is awfully miniscule. And even if it does happen tomorrow, well, nobody ever said I am going to live forever. Then again, if I am immortal then I have nothing to worry about anyway. In any event a GRB directly clobbering the earth is the least of my worries.

Nuke detonations are not detonated on or just above the ground. They are usually detonated at a certain altitude above the ground. There are ways to protect from this other than with giga-buck military shelters.

[N2NH]

Build houses with oceans factored in?

Now you're getting way off topic. At no place have I seen the word "ocean" until now.


You do realize the effects of half of the life on the planet being vaporized would have? Not to mention the larger effects, such as a lack of magnetosphere?

We are planning on colonizing the Moon and Mars. Neither has one now. I'm certain that has been taken into account since the plans have been made.


Build fusion powered ecosystems into houses? You do realize, we haven't mastered fusion yet, right? And that no home has the floor space to sustain 2 people, let along an average sized family, right?

You're the one who brought up fusion. So, I guess that you have belatedly figured that out?


If we were to build a Dyson sphere, we might have a chance of doing something. However, a Dyson sphere would required the resources of an estimated 4 solar systems to construct.

So, you brought this up why?


What is an excellent solution? The fusion powered underground shelter designed to support 1000 people? Get back at me when we've mastered fusion, then you might be onto something.

Pre-planned failure. You bring up fusion and declare failure. And we wonder why nothing gets done in this country anymore. This was addressed in my last post to you. If you wish to ignore it, that's up to you, but it's up to me to declare this conversation over if I cannot communicate in a meaningful way.

[KC2UGV]

Now you're getting way off topic. At no place have I seen the word "ocean" until now.


I suggested that we could build colonies under water, in order to use the ocean as a shield from gamma radiation. You said, "We could take that into account".



We are planning on colonizing the Moon and Mars. Neither has one now. I'm certain that has been taken into account since the plans have been made.


Something tells me you have no idea the challenges behind getting a team to Mars and back, let alone colonizing. Not to mention: The gamma radiation would affect those planets the same as ours.



You're the one who brought up fusion. So, I guess that you have belatedly figured that out?


Of course not. But it would be one of the few possible manners to escape a life ending event on our planet.



So, you brought this up why?


See above.



Pre-planned failure. You bring up fusion and declare failure. And we wonder why nothing gets done in this country anymore. This was addressed in my last post to you. If you wish to ignore it, that's up to you, but it's up to me to declare this conversation over if I cannot communicate in a meaningful way.

I bring up the reasons why "Planning to save humanity from a gamma burst from a magnetar" are non-starters from the gate. It would require either a mastery of fusion, or construction of a Dyson sphere, in order to master enough energy that could sustain a generation, let alone many generations, post a life-ending cosmic event.

[N2NH]

Not entirely true if you bothered to read my posting above. The problem is not so much the gamma rays that strike the surface of the earth, though those would effectively destroy plant, animal, and human life leading to severe illness and mass extinction, The major issue will be the effect on the atmosphere. The majority of the high energy annd highly intense gamma rays are adsorbed by the upper atmosphere which would severely deplete a large percentage the ozone layer ultimately destroying the food chain and causing mass extinction. In addition without the protection of the ozone layer photochemical reactions of UV on oxygen and nitrogen in the atmosphere will cause oxides of nitrogen to form creating a smog which could effectively block out a significant amount of sunlight leading to years upon years of permanent winter.

It is highly unlikely that your "bomb shelter" is going to protect you significantly from the intense high energy field that would be beamed towards the earth. And even if it did when you do crawl out from your hole you will most likely find a world very different from what you remember. A world that would not sustain you for very long.

You are talking about a mass life terminating event. In the extremely remote probability that such event were to happen we've bought the farm and all further bets are off.

BTW we all stand a much greater chance of dying from old age than being the victim of a catastrophic cosmic event.

This from the same guy who in this same thread said that it would only kill those on the side facing the source of the gamma radiation. You are a man of paradoxical qualities John.

We all stand a better chance of dying of old age than:

Being killed in a hurricane.

Being killed by a tornado.

Being mauled by a bear.

Winning the Lottery.

Being hit by lightning.

Drowning.

Being attacked by a shark.

Being killed by a tsunami.

Having a fatal car accident.

Becoming a millionaire.

Visiting Madagascar.

[n2ize]

This from the same guy who in this same thread said that it would only kill those on the side facing the source of the gamma radiation. You are a man of paradoxical qualities John.

.

I never said any such thing. What I did say is that it would cause mass extinction from several effects. Mass numbers humans, animals and plants over half of the earth would die off from the effects of the intense gamma radiation. Half the world being vapourized is As Corey pointed out the loss of the magnetosphere would be another factor. The mass depletion of the ozone layer would also deplete any of the remaining food chain leading to mass extinction worldwide. Not to mention with the ozone layer gone UV radiation would start chemical reactions in the atmosphere forming oxides of nitrogen producing a blanket of smog that would lead to permanent winter.


But if you think that you are going to dig your little shelter and crawl inside just in time to save yourself from a mass extinction cosmic event that has a < 1 in a million chance of occurring and then crawl out when its all over then by all means I wish you the best of luck. Keep dreamin man... keep on dreamin.

[n2ize]

Now you're getting way off topic. At no place have I seen the word "ocean" until now.



We are planning on colonizing the Moon and Mars. Neither has one now. I'm certain that has been taken into account since the plans have been made.



You're the one who brought up fusion. So, I guess that you have belatedly figured that out?



So, you brought this up why?



Pre-planned failure. You bring up fusion and declare failure. And we wonder why nothing gets done in this country anymore. This was addressed in my last post to you. If you wish to ignore it, that's up to you, but it's up to me to declare this conversation over if I cannot communicate in a meaningful way.

Oh, by the way, the quotes that you attributed to me above were made by Corey.

[N2NH]

I suggested that we could build colonies under water, in order to use the ocean as a shield from gamma radiation. You said, "We could take that into account".

I see. I meant that we could live either in a shell with water encompassing it or under a small man-made lake.


Something tells me you have no idea the challenges behind getting a team to Mars and back, let alone colonizing. Not to mention: The gamma radiation would affect those planets the same as ours.

I never said I did. I'm saying NASA is making the preparations. If you have any issues with the Mission to Mars they've been studying, I suggest you make your suggestions and comments to them. I know that gamma radiation will boil off the atmosphere and in a very short time kill all life on the surface of the planet facing the gamma source. I also know that water retards the effects to life in lakes and rivers and even later in deeper waters. Eventually, if the source lasts long enough, it will sterilize a planet, which is why many scientists do not think there is very much chance for life to exist in the denser areas of the galaxy, such as near the center.



I bring up the reasons why "Planning to save humanity from a gamma burst from a magnetar" are non-starters from the gate. It would require either a mastery of fusion, or construction of a Dyson sphere, in order to master enough energy that could sustain a generation, let alone many generations, post a life-ending cosmic event.

For a long-term event, probably. Many GRBs are less than 2 seconds. There are episodic extinction events that have occurred in Earths past, but the jury is out over whether they were caused by GRBs. It IS probable. While the ozone layer would be depleted by 25% in a 10-Second burst, there would be long-term ramifications, but given that the Earth has been around 5 Billion years and that there are episodic extinctions, life is pretty resiliant. Building a shelter with other secondary uses is viable for protection in a short-term GRB event.

[N2NH]

Deleted. Erroneous post.

[N2NH]

Deleted erroneous post.

[N2NH]

OTOH, here is a quote from a shelter manufacturer:


Depends on what we encounter:

Gamma Ray Bursts: If we get a direct hit from a gamma ray burst, if you are not well protected chances are you will not survive.
Solar Storms / Solar Flares: 11 years cycles which hits a minimum and a maximum activity. See NOAA - Space Environement Center (http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/index.html)
Super Volcano: This would depend on how close you are to the eruption and/or if you have supplies. See Yellowstone Super Volcano (http://www.earthmountainview.com/yellowstone/yellowstone.htm)
Nuclear War: This once again would depend on how many were released, how far away, and how long you have made preparations to stay in your shelter.



Anyone who sees a problem can call 218.269.1565 / 612.801.5787.

LINK (http://www.weldersonwheels.com/Shelters/index.html)

[KC2UGV]

I see. I meant that we could live either in a shell with water encompassing it or under a small man-made lake.


Shell of water around a house, or living under a shallow lake wont work. We're talking 5000-8000 ft deep to offer protection. Of course, we still need the near boundless energy supply to power your self-contained ecosystem, since you wont be getting much sunlight. And, last I checked, we are far away from fusion.



I never said I did. I'm saying NASA is making the preparations. If you have any issues with the Mission to Mars they've been studying, I suggest you make your suggestions and comments to them. I know that gamma radiation will boil off the atmosphere and in a very short time kill all life on the surface of the planet facing the gamma source. I also know that water retards the effects to life in lakes and rivers and even later in deeper waters. Eventually, if the source lasts long enough, it will sterilize a planet, which is why many scientists do not think there is very much chance for life to exist in the denser areas of the galaxy, such as near the center.


I have no issue with the Mars missions. They are moving along nicely. You should watch the PBS Series "Can We Make it to Mars?" Enlightening.

Think about what you are saying: Boil off the atmosphere. How do you survive on a planet with no atmosphere? You can't, unless you have a near limitless energy supply. And, we don't.



For a long-term event, probably. Many GRBs are less than 2 seconds. There are episodic extinction events that have occurred in Earths past, but the jury is out over whether they were caused by GRBs. It IS probable. While the ozone layer would be depleted by 25% in a 10-Second burst, there would be long-term ramifications, but given that the Earth has been around 5 Billion years and that there are episodic extinctions, life is pretty resiliant. Building a shelter with other secondary uses is viable for protection in a short-term GRB event.

Life, in general is very resilient. Human life, and life as we know it is not. My point is, your shelter would be useless, unless you had a energy source that was near limitless to power a self-contained, protected ecosystem. Or, you had a Dyson Sphere.

[n2ize]

So your whole fusion reactors don't exist argument should be directed at him then shouldn't it?

Have you had your eyesight checked lately ? The arguments you are attributing to me are argument that I never made. I never used the word "fusion reactors" in this thread.

[N2NH]

Ok. Cool. Let's plan for a life ending event on this planet. What's your plan? A self-contained, fusion powered ecosystem built underground, designed to support 1000 people?


Build fusion powered ecosystems into houses? You do realize, we haven't mastered fusion yet, right? And that no home has the floor space to sustain 2 people, let along an average sized family, right?

Problem is yours. I didn't mention fusion. You did. Apparently you are arguing with yourself.

[N2NH]

Have you had your eyesight checked lately ? The arguments you are attributing to me are argument that I never made. I never used the word "fusion reactors" in this thread.

My mistake. Not my eyesight, but the editor hiccuped and seems to have put you into the middle of a post I was making. Sorry.

[N2NH]

Oh, by the way, the quotes that you attributed to me above were made by Corey.

Thanks. Sorry I made the mistake when the editor hiccuped.

[KA9MOT]

YUUUUP!!!!! The experts can't agree...... we're all gonna die! :nicethread:

[KC2UGV]

Problem is yours. I didn't mention fusion. You did. Apparently you are arguing with yourself.

You're suggesting we try to do something. I identified the problem with doing something.

So, how do you suggest we circumvent the physics involved in surviving a global life ending event that doesn't include building a Dyson Sphere, or a fusion reactor? What do you suggest we do? Cower in fear about events we can't control, and can't protect against?

[n2ize]

Problem is yours. I didn't mention fusion. You did. Apparently you are arguing with yourself.

Yes,he did mention it because he was trying to explain that with no atmosphere you are going to need a limitless energy supply if you expect to sustain any type of human life, i.e. providing oxygen to breathe, providing food, etc. on a planet which no longer has an atmosphere and can no longer sustain life as we know it. . Even if you can build yourself a shelter well over a mile or two beneath the sea, or deep enough underground to protect you from dying from the intense high energy burst of gamma rays the world you climb back into is no longer going to be capable of sustaining life. You are going to need to stay underground or deep under the sea and have an unlimited supply of energy to provide the vast amounts of energy to maintain an. As Corey pointed out, fusion would be one of the only solutions but, unfortunately it is not developed to the point where it would be a viable means of providing the energy we would require.. Perhaps somewhere in the future the technology will be developed to the point where we can begin to consider it as a viable solution under such circumstances. But as it stands now and in the foreseeable future if an intense GRB were to strike the earth head on we will have bought the farm. A backyard fallout or tornado shelter is certainly not going to protect you and, even if it did you are faced with the issue of an planet that can no longer sustain life. In any event the fusion reactor is quite relevant to this discussion which is why it waas brought up.

[N2NH]

You're suggesting we try to do something. I identified the problem with doing something.

So, how do you suggest we circumvent the physics involved in surviving a global life ending event that doesn't include building a Dyson Sphere, or a fusion reactor? What do you suggest we do? Cower in fear about events we can't control, and can't protect against?

You suggested doing something that presently can't be done, then made the point that it couldn't be done. Right.

So by your logic, the guy who figured out he could keep his house from being consumed by fire using water, that guy was cowering in fear? Glad to be in the same company.

It's funny, when people talk about things that can't be done, I think of all those people going to the theatre in the '30s and watching Flash Gordon. And thinking that we'd never get to Moon for at least a century...

[X-Rated]

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTk5NTM4MTI0N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwNjgzNzgyMQ@@._ V1._SY317_CR2,0,214,317_.jpg

Maybe get mooned.

[N2NH]

Yes,he did mention it because he was trying to explain that with no atmosphere you are going to need a limitless energy supply if you expect to sustain any type of human life, i.e. providing oxygen to breathe, providing food, etc. on a planet which no longer has an atmosphere and can no longer sustain life as we know it. . Even if you can build yourself a shelter well over a mile or two beneath the sea, or deep enough underground to protect you from dying from the intense high energy burst of gamma rays the world you climb back into is no longer going to be capable of sustaining life. You are going to need to stay underground or deep under the sea and have an unlimited supply of energy to provide the vast amounts of energy to maintain an. As Corey pointed out, fusion would be one of the only solutions but, unfortunately it is not developed to the point where it would be a viable means of providing the energy we would require.. Perhaps somewhere in the future the technology will be developed to the point where we can begin to consider it as a viable solution under such circumstances. But as it stands now and in the foreseeable future if an intense GRB were to strike the earth head on we will have bought the farm. A backyard fallout or tornado shelter is certainly not going to protect you and, even if it did you are faced with the issue of an planet that can no longer sustain life. In any event the fusion reactor is quite relevant to this discussion which is why it waas brought up.


I'm glad nobody told the astronauts at the ISS that. NASA has them convinced that they can go to a safe room if there's activity on the Sun that's headed their way.

There are a lot more options than "Fusion" out there. That is ludicrous. Glad I didn't bring that up. I'm certain that John would've pinned my ass to the wall and accused me of having Alzheimers.

[KC2UGV]

You suggested doing something that presently can't be done, then made the point that it couldn't be done. Right.


I presented the only two options available to survive a global, life ending cosmic event. There are no other options. You can choose between a Dyson Sphere, or a fusion powered ecosystem that is buried under 5000ft of water, or half mile or so underground. Those are the only two options that would provide survivability in that situation you presented.



So by your logic, the guy who figured out he could keep his house from being consumed by fire using water, that guy was cowering in fear? Glad to be in the same company.


He was if there was no water to be had in quantities enough to put out a fire. It's akin to pissing onto a raging brush fire.



It's funny, when people talk about things that can't be done, I think of all those people going to the theatre in the '30s and watching Flash Gordon. And thinking that we'd never get to Moon for at least a century...

And, in the 30's, it was not possible to get to the moon, until technological innovation made it possible.

In the case of a life ending global event, there's not much to plan for, until we can get an energy source powerful enough to support a disconnected ecosystem.

[N1LAF]

Hypothetical effects of gamma-ray bursts in future

The greatest danger is believed to come from Wolf–Rayet stars, regarded by astronomers as likely GRB candidates. When such stars transition to supernovas, they may emit intense beams of gamma rays, and if Earth were to lie in the beam zone, devastating effects may occur. Gamma rays would not penetrate Earth's atmosphere to impact the surface directly, but they would chemically damage the stratosphere.

For example, if WR 104 were to hit Earth with a burst of 10 seconds duration, its gamma rays could deplete about 25 percent of the world's ozone layer. This would result in mass extinction, food chain depletion, and starvation. The side of Earth facing the GRB would receive potentially lethal radiation exposure, which can cause radiation sickness in the short term, and in the long term result in serious impacts to life due to ozone layer depletion.
Effects after exposure to the gamma-ray burst on Earth's atmosphere

Longer-term, gamma ray energy may cause chemical reactions involving oxygen and nitrogen molecules which may create nitrogen oxide then nitrogen dioxide gas, causing photochemical smog. The GRB may produce enough of the gas to cover the sky and darken it. Gas would prevent sunlight from reaching Earth's surface, producing a cosmic winter effect, and may even further deplete the ozone layer, thus exposing the whole of the Earth to all types of cosmic radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst

[n2ize]

In the case of a life ending global event, there's not much to plan for, until we can get an energy source powerful enough to support a disconnected ecosystem.

It seems that John's already got one down in his tornado shelter... BWAHHH HA HA HA HA :lol::lol::snicker::snicker:

[N2NH]

I presented the only two options available to survive a global, life ending cosmic event. There are no other options. You can choose between a Dyson Sphere, or a fusion powered ecosystem that is buried under 5000ft of water, or half mile or so underground. Those are the only two options that would provide survivability in that situation you presented.

If neither is viable then they are not options are they? The option I provided would work for most GRBs of lesser intensity, and other emergencies.


He was if there was no water to be had in quantities enough to put out a fire. It's akin to pissing onto a raging brush fire.

Big assumption. There was a first time. Just like there was a first time someone ate an oyster. But that kind of bravery is non-existent today so it never happened in most peoples minds. They cannot conceive it.

[quot]And, in the 30's, it was not possible to get to the moon, until technological innovation made it possible.[/quote]

Innovation? Oh, right, innovators. Those 'scared' people.


In the case of a life ending global event, there's not much to plan for, until we can get an energy source powerful enough to support a disconnected ecosystem.


But innovation is impossible. Realize that Flash Gordon was in theatres in 1936 when as you said it was impossible to do. At the time. Thanks to the efforts of Goddard and Von Braun, the technology existed by 1944 with the V-2. It was ballistic, but Von Braun used the same technology to get us to the Moon, and later into interstellar space.

Eight years. He must've been very scared.:yes:

[N2NH]

It seems that John's already got one down in his tornado shelter... BWAHHH HA HA HA HA :lol::lol::snicker::snicker:

John is here is is there, John is everywhere. It has always been commonplace for people to misunderstand genius and foresight for idiocy. It still is. We have a name for it these days.

Projection.

[n2ize]

If neither is viable then they are not options are they? The option I provided would work for most GRBs of lesser intensity, and other emergencies.


Yeah, good luck in your tornado shelter. I hear it comes with a built in atmosphere... BWAHHH HA HA HA HA SNICKER SNICKER... :lol::lol::lol::snicker::snicker:

[KC2UGV]

If neither is viable then they are not options are they? The option I provided would work for most GRBs of lesser intensity, and other emergencies.


Right. Basically, it boils down to: Currently, there are no options for survival from a global, life ending event.

Hell, for GRB's of lesser intensity, living in the bottom 5 floors of a 30 story condo suffice. For lesser events, being indoors during the duration would work. However, you were talking about building a survival shelter to protect against life-ending global cosmic events.



Big assumption. There was a first time. Just like there was a first time someone ate an oyster. But that kind of bravery is non-existent today so it never happened in most peoples minds. They cannot conceive it.


And, the first time someone builds either a working fusion reactor, or a Dyson sphere, I'll be on board saying it's possible to protect against a global, life ending cosmic event.



Innovation? Oh, right, innovators. Those 'scared' people.

But innovation is impossible. Realize that Flash Gordon was in theatres in 1936 when as you said it was impossible to do. At the time. Thanks to the efforts of Goddard and Von Braun, the technology existed by 1944 with the V-2. It was ballistic, but Von Braun used the same technology to get us to the Moon, and later into interstellar space.

Eight years. He must've been very scared.:yes:

Sigh. There was a lot more involved than just building a bigger rocket to get us to the moon. And, yes, in 8 years, we made the required leaps. Maybe in 8 years, someone will figure out how to harness a fusion reaction, or build a Dyson Sphere. Until such a time, we can not protect against a global, life ending cosmic event.

[n2ize]

If neither is viable then they are not options are they? The option I provided would work for most GRBs of lesser intensity, and other emergencies.



Big assumption. There was a first time. Just like there was a first time someone ate an oyster. But that kind of bravery is non-existent today so it never happened in most peoples minds. They cannot conceive it.



Hey John... We don;t need any innovation. We can already take care of all those GRB's that are going to be coming our way. If you spot a supernova or GRB just report it to the fire department. They'll send a warp 10 rocketship up there with a hose crew and put it out just for you... :lol::lol::snicker::snicker::snicker::snicker::sni cker:

[N1LAF]

...

And, the first time someone builds either a working fusion reactor, or a Dyson sphere, I'll be on board saying it's possible to protect against a global, life ending cosmic event.

... someone will figure out how to harness a fusion reaction, or build a Dyson Sphere. Until such a time, we can not protect against a global, life ending cosmic event.

Yeah, and what about against renegade black holes, think a Dyson sphere has a chance? Anything?

Just looking at the possibilities

[KC2UGV]

Yeah, and what about against renegade black holes, think a Dyson sphere has a chance? Anything?

Just looking at the possibilities

A Dyson sphere? Yes, if done correctly. And, if we have the ability to build a Dyson Sphere, we also would have interstellar travel :)

[N2NH]

Gamma (γ) Gamma radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation#Gamma) penetrates further through matter than alpha or beta radiation. Most of the design of a typical fallout shelter is intended to protect against gamma rays (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_radiation). Gamma rays are better absorbed by materials with high atomic numbers and high density, although neither effect is important compared to the total mass per area in the path of the gamma ray. Thus, lead is only modestly better as a gamma shield than an equal mass of another shielding material such as aluminum, concrete, water or soil.
Some gamma radiation from fallout will penetrate into even the best shelters. However, the radiation dose received while inside a shelter can be significantly reduced with proper shielding. Ten halving thicknesses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_protection#Shielding_design) of a given material can reduce gamma exposure to less than 1/1000 of unshielded exposure.




Measures to lower the gamma dose rate The gamma dose rate due to the contamination brought into the shelter on the clothing of a person is likely to be small (by wartime standards) compared to gamma radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation#Gamma) that penetrates through the walls of the shelter. The following measures can be taken to reduce the amount of gamma radiation entering the shelter:



Roofs and gutters can be cleaned to lower the dose rate in the house.
The top inch of soil in the area near the house can be either removed or dug up and mixed with the subsoil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsoil). This reduces the dose rate as the gamma rays have to pass through the topsoil before they can irradiate anything above.
Nearby roads can be rinsed and washed down to remove dust and debris; the fallout (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout) would collect in the sewers and gutters for easier disposal. In Kiev (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev) after the Chernobyl accident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident) a program of road washing was used to control the spread of radioactivity.
Windows can be bricked up, or the sill raised to reduce the hole in the shielding formed by the wall.
Gaps in the shielding can be blocked using containers of water. While water has a much lower density than that of lead, it is still able to shield some gamma rays.
Earth (or other dense material) can be heaped up against the exposed walls of the building; this forces the gamma rays to pass through a thicker layer of shielding before entering the house.
Nearby trees can be removed to reduce the dose due to fallout which is on the branches and leaves. It has been suggested by the US government that a fallout shelter should not be dug close to trees for this reason.



Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter#Shielding)

[KC2UGV]

Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout_shelter#Shielding)

Great. You build that. Meanwhile, in a global, life ending cosmic event; you can watch the ecosystem of the planet disappear. You going to shield the entirety of middle US, where all of our food is grown?

[N2NH]

Great. You build that. Meanwhile, in a global, life ending cosmic event; you can watch the ecosystem of the planet disappear. You going to shield the entirety of middle US, where all of our food is grown?

I'll be certain to tell California that. We also have a lot of farms here. In season, much of the supermarket food here is locally produced. Same with New England.

[KC2UGV]

I'll be certain to tell California that. We also have a lot of farms here. In season, much of the supermarket food here is locally produced. Same with New England.

Even better. You're plan is to shield all of the land producing food as well in CA and New England?

[n2ize]

Even better. You're plan is to shield all of the land producing food as well in CA and New England?

And even if he could manage that it the food still won't grow because the atmosphere will be screwed up, perhaps for decades. So mass extinction will still occur. He would have to build his shelter so that it shields the upper levels of the atmosphere.

[N2NH]

And even if he could manage that it the food still won't grow because the atmosphere will be screwed up, perhaps for decades. So mass extinction will still occur. He would have to build his shelter so that it shields the upper levels of the atmosphere.

I'm not familiar how to do that John. You'll have to show me.

Just like I'm not familiar with how we can build a Dyson Sphere and fusion reactor. I've yet to see any of this built.

Of course, my links work with existing technology that, some say, doesn't exist right now.

Just another day on the Island.

The real problem isn't the shelter. It isn't with the atmosphere. The atmosphere will recover since only 1/2 (or less) of it will feel the effects of the GRB.

The real problem is knowing when that sucker is headed our way and for how long it will last.

[N2NH]

Even better. You're plan is to shield all of the land producing food as well in CA and New England?

Just get some seed packets and when you get a chance, plant them. Not so hard to figure now. Negativity. Always negativity.

If the scientific theory is right, some if not all of the previous periodic extinctions were caused by GRBs. We're here aren't we?

[KC2UGV]

Just get some seed packets and when you get a chance, plant them. Not so hard to figure now. Negativity. Always negativity.

If the scientific theory is right, some if not all of the previous periodic extinctions were caused by GRBs. We're here aren't we?

Seed packets? Plant them afterwards?

What are you going to do for the next 6 months? The next year while you prepare the soil to be able to grow again? What will grow in the new climate? What will grow in extremely radiated conditions?

Yes, we are here after all those mass extinction events. However, the dinosaurs aren't. And, can you name a mass extinction even that occurred post our arrival on the planet?

[KC2UGV]

I'm not familiar how to do that John. You'll have to show me.

Just like I'm not familiar with how we can build a Dyson Sphere and fusion reactor. I've yet to see any of this built.


You can't shield the atmosphere without fusion reactors. Your energy source to survive needs to come from somewhere. You eliminated the sun (Via shielding , so you need your own controlled fusion source.

Or, you can build a Dyson Sphere, and it'll shield you, while collecting near 100% of the sun's energy.



Of course, my links work with existing technology that, some say, doesn't exist right now.

Just another day on the Island.


Your links did not discuss a global-life ending event. Find a source that discusses surviving a global, life ending event.



The real problem isn't the shelter. It isn't with the atmosphere. The atmosphere will recover since only 1/2 (or less) of it will feel the effects of the GRB.

The real problem is knowing when that sucker is headed our way and for how long it will last.

The real problem is the supporting for humans for extended periods of time, while the planet recovers. Or, shielding everything.

And, of course, there is no way to figure out when one of them will happen. We don't even know how to predict an earthquake, let alone detecting micrometer sized changes on a magnetar, or when a supernova occurs. By the time we see any of those, it's already happened. 50,000 years ago.

[N2NH]

Seed packets? Plant them afterwards?

What are you going to do for the next 6 months? The next year while you prepare the soil to be able to grow again? What will grow in the new climate? What will grow in extremely radiated conditions?

Yes, we are here after all those mass extinction events. However, the dinosaurs aren't. And, can you name a mass extinction even that occurred post our arrival on the planet?

Unless we are from another star system, we are indigenous (since we are splitting hairs). There was a major extinction event 12,000 to 20,000 years ago.


The extinction of the large mammals of North and South America was recognised in the early 19th century. For many years it was thought that the inhospitable ice-age climate caused their extinction – even though it happened at a time when the climate was improving, at the end of the last ice age in the late Pleistocene period (around 14,000 years ago).

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/extinctions/page-3


...the Pleistocene was also characterized by the presence of distinctive large land mammals and birds. Mammoths and their cousins the mastodons (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/mammal/mammoth/about_mammoths.html), longhorned bison, saber-toothed cats, giant ground sloths, and many other large mammals characterized Pleistocene habitats in North America, Asia, and Europe. Native horses and camels galloped across the plains of North America. Great teratorn birds with 25-foot wingspans stalked prey. Around the end of the Pleistocene, all these creatures went extinct (the horses living in North America today are all descendants of animals brought from Europe in historic times). It was during the Pleistocene that the most recent episodes of global cooling, or ice ages, took place. Much of the world's temperate zones were alternately covered by glaciers during cool periods and uncovered during the warmer interglacial periods when the glaciers retreated. Did this cause the Pleistocene extinctions? It doesn't seem likely; the large mammals of the Pleistocene weathered several climate shifts.

Pleistocene Extinction Event (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/pleistocene.php)

Pleistocene extinctions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pleistocene_extinctions)

The jury is out on what caused the extinctions. In this case, it is unlikely that a GRB caused it.

[N2NH]

You can't shield the atmosphere without fusion reactors. Your energy source to survive needs to come from somewhere. You eliminated the sun (Via shielding , so you need your own controlled fusion source.

Or, you can build a Dyson Sphere, and it'll shield you, while collecting near 100% of the sun's energy.

You could do a simple thing and put some solar panels/a windmill outside.


Your links did not discuss a global-life ending event. Find a source that discusses surviving a global, life ending event.

That's like finding a scientific link to Near Death Experience. The last major GRB happened long before any civilization that we know of today. We can extrapolate based on the information that we have found elsewhere with lesser events, but not the big kahuna. So we have to go with science on this one and accept their findings. With that information an idea of what a GRB would entail could be drawn and one could make a shelter based on that.

[KC2UGV]

The jury is out on what caused the extinctions. In this case, it is unlikely that a GRB caused it.

That's awesome. I thought we were talking about global, life ending mass extinctions, caused by GRBs? Not something indeterminate. If it's indeterminate, I can say if we could or couldn't protect against it.

[KC2UGV]

You could do a simple thing and put some solar panels/a windmill outside.


Both of which are less than 50% efficient. Not enough to power enough grow lights to support the human population.



That's like finding a scientific link to Near Death Experience. The last major GRB happened long before any civilization that we know of today. We can extrapolate based on the information that we have found elsewhere with lesser events, but not the big kahuna. So we have to go with science on this one and accept their findings. With that information an idea of what a GRB would entail could be drawn and one could make a shelter based on that.

Ah, the last major GRB happened long before we were around, eh?

[N2NH]

That's awesome. I thought we were talking about global, life ending mass extinctions, caused by GRBs? Not something indeterminate. If it's indeterminate, I can say if we could or couldn't protect against it.

yah. We can. Nobody ever flew to the Moon, but based on what science knew, they were able to create a habitat that not only got astronauts to the Moon and back, but protected them from *gasp* Radiation. Even gamma rays. Back in the 1960s.

[n2ize]

I'm not familiar how to do that John. You'll have to show me.

Just like I'm not familiar with how we can build a Dyson Sphere and fusion reactor. I've yet to see any of this built.

Of course, my links work with existing technology that, some say, doesn't exist right now.

Just another day on the Island.

The real problem isn't the shelter. It isn't with the atmosphere. The atmosphere will recover since only 1/2 (or less) of it will feel the effects of the GRB.

The real problem is knowing when that sucker is headed our way and for how long it will last.

I think you are missing the boat with regards to the magnitude of the impact we are talking about. The real problem IS with the atmosphere as it will adsorb the majority of the burst and be negatively affected.over the entire planet. With a good chunk of the ozone layer gone ionizing radiation (such as UV) which is normally blocked by the ozone layer will be free to reach the surface of the earth at high intensity. Ionizing radiation, such as UV is very powerful initiator of chemical reactions involving nitrogen and oxygen, the two major gases our atmosphere is composed of. When these elements react the form oxides of nitrogen which dispersed in the sky produce dense smog which effectively blocks the suns energy resulting in what is called a "cosmic winter" basically bitter cold winter year round everywhere for perhaps a decade or more.

If you think you are going to go down into your fallout shelter and come back out in a few days or weeks and start growing food you are grossly mistaken. yeah, some species may survive but it is highly questionably which and how many. All it takes is a few weeks without food production and distribution and people will start dying off en mass. Now imagine not being able to produce food for years or perhaps a decade.

[KC2UGV]

yah. We can. Nobody ever flew to the Moon, but based on what science knew, they were able to create a habitat that not only got astronauts to the Moon and back, but protected them from *gasp* Radiation. Even gamma rays. Back in the 1960s.

Yep... And that habitat is barely enough to do a round trip. Remember? We almost lost a crew there. Now, maybe 30 days on the ISS unsupported.

You might want to take my advice, and watch "Can We Make it to Mars?" Neil deGrasse Tyson hosts it. Most of the points you are suggesting we can do are brought up as obstacles for an 8 month round trip.

We're working on them. We'll get there.

But, what you are suggesting would be akin to just sending people there now. We don't have the technology to do it, so just send them anyways. Technology will catch up, right?

Since we don't have the technology to power a disconnected ecosystem for a generation, trying to survive a global, life ending event on this planet is a futile effort. It's some we can re-explore once we've broken the key to fusion.

[n2ize]

I'm not familiar how to do that John. You'll have to show me.

Just like I'm not familiar with how we can build a Dyson Sphere and fusion reactor. I've yet to see any of this built.

Of course, my links work with existing technology that, some say, doesn't exist right now.



Your links don't refer to what we are discussing here. Your links refer to building a simple fallout shelter designed to protect you against atomic fallout well beyond the blast zone from a man made atomic weapon. A fallout shelter is not going to save you from catastrophic destruction of the ozone layer and the inability to produce food for extended periods.. I suspect you fail to comprehend the magnitude of such an event. It is not a matter of simple sheltering and then crawling out in a couple weeks and continuing on as usual.

[N2NH]

Yep... And that habitat is barely enough to do a round trip. Remember? We almost lost a crew there. Now, maybe 30 days on the ISS unsupported.

You might want to take my advice, and watch "Can We Make it to Mars?" Neil deGrasse Tyson hosts it. Most of the points you are suggesting we can do are brought up as obstacles for an 8 month round trip.

We're working on them. We'll get there.

But, what you are suggesting would be akin to just sending people there now. We don't have the technology to do it, so just send them anyways. Technology will catch up, right?

Since we don't have the technology to power a disconnected ecosystem for a generation, trying to survive a global, life ending event on this planet is a futile effort. It's some we can re-explore once we've broken the key to fusion.

A) Worked for the CCCP (USSR) during the days of the space race.

B) The saying "any port in a storm" comes to mind. If you have a choice of living in a shelter or out in the open, I suppose that by this logic the shelter should be spurned?

C) I'm thinking that the Ozone depletion will be temporary. As it was in the 60s-80s. Much of it has been replenished since then. We know less about how that happened than about GRBs and that's saying a lot.



Yes, an ozone hole above Antarctica still forms each year – just six years ago in 2006 it reached its largest size ever, covering more than 11 million square miles. The ozone hole this year is back, but is somewhat smaller than in the past because of the usual variations in Antarctic weather conditions. In the long term, worldwide adherence to the Montreal Protocol and its amendments has scientists expecting that the ozone layer will once again reach full strength – but they don't expect a return to 1980 global levels until 2050. The ozone hole itself could be completely eliminated by 2065. It will be a slow recovery and there may be obstacles along the way.

So, will it be livable? Most probably. Will there be health risks? Most assuredly. Chances are that your lifespan will not be as long, but that means procreate often and earlier than we do now. It's survival. I could be wrong, but radiation seems to affect men more than women. So, you will have plenty of chances to "be fruitful and multiply."

NASA Ozone Hole (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone-history.html)

[N2NH]

Yep... And that habitat is barely enough to do a round trip. Remember? We almost lost a crew there.

But had nothing whatsoever to do with GRBs. That was a mechanical breakdown. Still, using the primitive technology available at the time, they survived. Much as we can now with a little ingenuity. The sure as hell didn't say 'Well that's that. They're toast. There's nothing we can do.'

[n2ize]

A) Worked for the CCCP (USSR) during the days of the space race.





So, will it be livable? Most probably. Will there be health risks? Most assuredly. Chances are that your lifespan will not be as long, but that means procreate often and earlier than we do now. It's survival. I could be wrong, but radiation seems to affect men more than women. So, you will have plenty of chances to "be fruitful and multiply."

NASA Ozone Hole (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone-history.html)

You are underestimating the severity of such an event and the amount of gamma energy that would be released by such an event..


(a typical burst releases as much energy in a few seconds as the Sun will in its entire 10-billion-year lifetime)

cited from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst#Effects_after_exposure_to_the_gamma-ray_burst_on_Earth.27s_atmosphere

and


Depending on distance, a gamma flash and its ultraviolet radiation could damage even the most radiation resistant organism known, the bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans. These bacteria can endure 2,000 times more radiation than humans. Life surviving an initial onslaught would have to contend with a potentially lethal aftereffect, depletion of the atmosphere's protective ozone layer by the burst

cited

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst#Rates_and_potential_effects_on_life_on_E arth




B) The saying "any port in a storm" comes to mind. If you have a choice of living in a shelter or out in the open, I suppose that by this logic the shelter should be spurned?


By all means build yourself a fallout shelter and head down there if you are fortunate enough to receive advanced warning and can get to your shelter in time. If you are on the side of the planet facing the radiation beam your shelter will probably not offer you much, if any protection anyways. . But assuming it does protect you from enough of the radiation to keep you alive for a little while good luck dealing with a planet with an atmosphere that no longer supports life.


C) I'm thinking that the Ozone depletion will be temporary. As it was in the 60s-80s. Much of it has been replenished since then. We know less about how that happened than about GRBs and that's saying a lot.

If the earth gets hit by a powerful GRB the hole in the ozone layer during the 60's - 80's will look like a joke compared to the amount of depletion caused by a GRB. Not to mention photochemical smog formed when ionizing UV radiation causes oxides of nitrogen to form in the atmosphere. Yes, eventually the atmosphere may recover but it may take a decade or more. In the mean time you can watch the mass extinction taking place due to mass starvation. not to mention the mass deaths due to gamma ray exposure. And we are not even talking about the social implications, mass hysteria, killings, maybe even wars fought over the remaining and rapidly depleting food supply as millions upon millions fight to survive in their last remaining days.

The best chance you have of "surviving" is that an intense GRB has roughly a 1 in 5 million chance of happening. So, in all likelihood you'll never get the chance to test out that fallout shelter... except maybe for a man made nuclear war.

[KC2UGV]

A) Worked for the CCCP (USSR) during the days of the space race.


No, it really didn't. Are you aware of how many cosmonauts died?



B) The saying "any port in a storm" comes to mind. If you have a choice of living in a shelter or out in the open, I suppose that by this logic the shelter should be spurned?


We're not talking about a storm. "Storms" we get all the time (ie, solar flares, etc etc). It's akin to expecting a tornado shelter to save you from a tsunami. The only way to save yourself from a tsunami is to move where it wont be.



C) I'm thinking that the Ozone depletion will be temporary. As it was in the 60s-80s. Much of it has been replenished since then. We know less about how that happened than about GRBs and that's saying a lot.


I'm thinking it'd be temporary as well. Maybe last 100 years or so. During that time, everything on the planet will be irradiated, and food wont be able to be grown on the surface, and people wont be able to dwell on the surface.



So, will it be livable? Most probably. Will there be health risks? Most assuredly. Chances are that your lifespan will not be as long, but that means procreate often and earlier than we do now. It's survival. I could be wrong, but radiation seems to affect men more than women. So, you will have plenty of chances to "be fruitful and multiply."

NASA Ozone Hole (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone-history.html)

"Livable"? Depends on the definition of "livable". Is Love Canal "livable"? By certain definitions, sure. By human definitions, not so much. Now, multiply it by 1000.

Being fruitful and multiplying. Well, seeing as one of the first results of extreme irradiation is infertility, I'm not so sure.


But had nothing whatsoever to do with GRBs. That was a mechanical breakdown. Still, using the primitive technology available at the time, they survived. Much as we can now with a little ingenuity. The sure as hell didn't say 'Well that's that. They're toast. There's nothing we can do.'

Yes, a mechanical breakdown. Which almost cost the crew their lives, after only a few days. 6 hours more, and they would be dead. The ISS can sustain for 120 days or so, I believe, with zero support. Pas that, life on the ISS will get very uncomfortable, to say the least.

The problem we're running into is thus: We don't have the technology RIGHT NOW to start planning on how to survive a global, life ending cosmic event. We are not able to sustain ourselves on this planet without access to the energy from the sun, currently. And, the first thing to go after a GRB will be the sun's energy.

[kb2vxa]

I just love the semantics here, consider the oxymoron "surviving a life ending event". Wake up and smell the coffee, regardless of technology nothing survives a life ending event. Think about it, you haven't as yet done so.

[N2NH]

I just love the semantics here, consider the oxymoron "surviving a life ending event". Wake up and smell the coffee, regardless of technology nothing survives a life ending event. Think about it, you haven't as yet done so.

Yah. You can not survive death. Thing is that all life ends in death, so there isn't any risk in the general scheme of things. OTOH, if you were going to meet your childhood sweetheart for the first time in 50 years that day, well, karma's a bitch.

[kb2vxa]

If it's karma you must have done something nasty now meeting a vision of an angel only to be greeted by a 300lb mountain of flab rolls with legs that look like panty hose stuffed with grapes.