Editing Nuclear fallout (section)

==Effects==
A wide range of [[biological process|biological]] changes may follow the irradiation of animals. These vary from rapid death following high doses of penetrating whole-body radiation, to essentially normal lives for a variable period of time until the development of delayed radiation effects, in a portion of the exposed population, following low dose exposures.

The unit of actual ''exposure'' is the [[Roentgen (unit)|röntgen]], defined in [[ionisation]]s per unit volume of air. All ionisation based instruments (including [[geiger counter]]s and [[ionisation chamber]]s) measure exposure. However, effects depend on the energy per unit mass, not the exposure measured in air. A deposit of 1 joule per kilogram has the unit of 1 [[gray (unit)|gray]] (Gy). For 1 MeV energy gamma rays, an exposure of 1 röntgen in air produces a dose of about 0.01 gray (1 centigray, cGy) in water or surface tissue. Because of shielding by the tissue surrounding the bones, the [[bone marrow]] only receives about 0.67 cGy when the air exposure is 1 röntgen and the surface skin dose is 1 cGy. Some lower values reported for the amount of radiation that would kill 50% of personnel (the {{LD50}}) refer to bone marrow dose, which is only 67% of the air dose.

===Short term===
{{Further|LD50|l1=LD<sub>50</sub>}}
{{More citations needed section|date=December 2024}}
[[File:Fallout shelter sign on a building.JPG|thumb|[[Fallout shelter]] sign on a building in [[New York City]]]]
The dose that would be lethal to 50% of a population is a common parameter used to compare the effects of various fallout types or circumstances. Usually, the term is defined for a specific time, and limited to studies of acute lethality. The common time periods used are 30 days or less for most small laboratory animals and to 60 days for large animals and humans. The LD<Sub>50</Sub> figure assumes that the individuals did not receive other injuries or medical treatment.

In the 1950s, the LD<Sub>50</Sub> for gamma rays was set at 3.5 Gy, while under more dire conditions of war (a bad diet, little medical care, poor nursing) the LD<Sub>50</Sub> was 2.5 Gy (250 rad). There have been few documented cases of survival beyond 6 Gy. One person at [[Chernobyl disaster|Chernobyl]] survived a dose of more than 10 Gy, but many of the persons exposed there were not uniformly exposed over their entire body. If a person is exposed in a non-homogeneous manner then a given dose (averaged over the entire body) is less likely to be lethal. For instance, if a person gets a hand/low arm dose of 100 Gy, which gives them an overall dose of 4 Gy, they are more likely to survive than a person who gets a 4 Gy dose over their entire body. A hand dose of 10 Gy or more would likely result in loss of the hand. A [[United Kingdom|British]] industrial [[radiographer]] who was estimated to have received a hand dose of 100 Gy over the course of his lifetime lost his hand because of [[radiation dermatitis]].<ref>{{cite journal|url=http://oem.bmj.com/content/51/10/713.full.pdf|title=Death of a classified worker probably caused by overexposure to gamma radiation|journal=British Medical Journal|year=1994|volume=54|pages=713–718|access-date=2016-05-22|archive-date=2022-01-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125090735/https://oem.bmj.com/content/oemed/51/10/713.full.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>  Most people become ill after an exposure to 1 Gy or more. [[Fetus]]es are often more vulnerable to radiation and may [[miscarriage|miscarry]], especially in the first [[Trimester (pregnancy)|trimester]].

Because of the large amount of short-lived fission products, the activity and radiation levels of nuclear fallout decrease very quickly after being released; it is reduced by 50% in the first hour after a detonation,<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fallout from a Nuclear Detonation: Description and Management - Radiation Emergency Medical Management |url=https://remm.hhs.gov/nuclearfallout.htm |access-date=2024-08-11 |website=remm.hhs.gov}}</ref> then by 80% during the first day. As a result, early [[Human decontamination|gross decontamination]], such as removing contaminated articles of outer clothing, is more effective than delayed but more thorough cleaning.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Fallout from a Nuclear Detonation: Description and Management - Radiation Emergency Medical Management |url=https://remm.hhs.gov/nuclearfallout.htm |access-date=2024-08-11 |website=remm.hhs.gov}}</ref> Most areas become fairly safe for travel and decontamination after three to five weeks.<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Nature of Radioactive Fallout and Its Effects on Man: Hearings Before the Special Subcommittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, Eighty-fifth Congress, First Session|last=Joint Committee on Atomic Energy|first=US Congress|publisher=U.S. Government Printing Office|year=1957|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=cveGUvsA4kIC&q=nuclear+fallout+tropospheric%2C+of+1+to+30+days&pg=PA1351|pages=1351|access-date=2021-10-21|archive-date=2022-01-25|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125090735/https://books.google.com/books?id=cveGUvsA4kIC&q=nuclear+fallout+tropospheric%2C+of+1+to+30+days&pg=PA1351|url-status=live}}</ref>

One hour after a surface burst, the radiation from fallout in the [[Subsidence crater|crater]] region is 30 grays per hour (Gy/h).{{Clarify|date=February 2008}} Civilian [[dose rate]]s in peacetime range from 30 to 100 μGy per year.


For [[nuclear weapon yield|yields]] of up to 10 [[kiloton|kt]], prompt radiation is the dominant producer of casualties on the battlefield. Humans receiving an acute incapacitating dose (30 Gy) have their performance degraded almost immediately and become ineffective within several hours. However, they do not die until five to six days after exposure, assuming they do not receive any other injuries. Individuals receiving less than a total of 1.5 Gy are not incapacitated. People receiving doses greater than 1.5 Gy become disabled, and some eventually die.

A dose of 5.3 Gy to 8.3 Gy is considered lethal but not immediately incapacitating. Personnel exposed to this amount of radiation have their cognitive performance degraded in two to three hours,<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20170125171152/https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/nuclearwarfare/chapter1/chapter1.pdf NUCLEAR EVENTS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES  by the Borden institute. Chapter 1]</ref><ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20161227080318/https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/nuclearwarfare/chapter7/chapter7.pdf NUCLEAR EVENTS AND THEIR CONSEQUENCES  by the Borden institute. Chapter 7 BEHAVIORAL AND NEUROPHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES WITH EXPOSURE TO IONIZING RADIATION ]</ref> depending on how physically demanding the tasks they must perform are, and remain in this disabled state at least two days. However, at that point they experience a recovery period and can perform non-demanding tasks for about six days, after which they relapse for about four weeks. At this time they begin exhibiting symptoms of [[radiation poisoning]] of sufficient severity to render them totally ineffective. Death follows at approximately six weeks after exposure, although outcomes may vary.

===Long term===
{{See also|Project GABRIEL|Bellesrad|Enewetak Atoll#History|Bikini Atoll#Current habitable state|Project 4.1}}
[[File:Caesium europe.webp|thumb|[[Caesium]]-137 in Western European soil, from the [[Chernobyl disaster]] and its deposition through the weather]]
[[File:Plutionium europe.webp|thumb|[[Plutonium]]-239 and -240 in soil, from [[nuclear weapons test]]s and its deposition through the weather]]
[[Image:Zuni.gif|right|thumb|Comparison of predicted fallout "hotline" with test results in the 3.53&nbsp;Mt 15% fission ''Zuni'' test at Bikini in 1956. The predictions were made under simulated tactical nuclear war conditions aboard ship by Edward A. Schuert]]
[[File:Checking Radiation Exposure Levels (FDA 190) (8227384650).jpg|thumb|right|Following the detonation of the first atomic bomb, [[Low-background steel|pre-war steel]] and post-war steel which is manufactured without atmospheric air, became a valuable commodity for scientists wishing to make extremely precise instruments that detect radioactive emissions, since these two types of steel are the only steels that do not contain trace amounts of fallout.]]

Late or delayed effects of radiation occur following a wide range of doses and dose rates. Delayed effects may appear months to years after [[irradiation]] and include a wide variety of effects involving almost all tissues or organs. Some of the ''possible'' delayed consequences of radiation injury, with the rates above the background prevalence, depending on the absorbed dose, include [[carcinogenesis]], [[cataract]] formation, chronic [[radiodermatitis]], decreased [[fertility]], and [[genetic mutation]]s.<ref name="Simon">{{citation |title=Fallout from Nuclear Weapons Tests and Cancer Risks |publisher=American Scientist |first1=Steven L. |last1=Simon |first2=André |last2=Bouville |first3=Charles E. |last3=Land |volume=94 |issue=1 |pages=48–57 |year=2006 |url=https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/Fallout-PDF |access-date=2018-06-16 |archive-date=2017-02-01 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170201125713/https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/Fallout-PDF |url-status=live }}</ref>{{better source needed|date=October 2016}}

Presently, the only [[teratological]] effect observed in humans following nuclear attacks on highly populated areas is [[microcephaly]] which is the only proven malformation, or congenital abnormality, found in the [[Uterus|in utero]] developing human fetuses present during the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. Of all the pregnant women who were close enough to be exposed to the ''prompt'' burst of intense neutron and gamma doses in the two cities, the total number of children born with [[microcephaly]] was below 50.<ref name="books.google.ie">{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DykKlVU0V-oC&q=microcephaly+hiroshima&pg=PA21|title=Teratology in the Twentieth Century Plus Ten|first=Harold|last=Kalter|date=July 28, 2010|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|via=Google Books|isbn=9789048188208|access-date=October 19, 2020|archive-date=December 21, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211221000552/https://books.google.com/books?id=DykKlVU0V-oC&q=microcephaly+hiroshima&pg=PA21|url-status=live}}</ref> No statistically demonstrable increase of congenital malformations was found among the ''later conceived children'' born to survivors of the nuclear detonations at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.<ref name="books.google.ie"/><ref>{{Cite journal|title=The Children of Atomic Bomb Survivors: A Genetic Study|first=Clark W.|last=Heath|date=August 5, 1992|journal=JAMA|volume=268|issue=5|pages=661–662|doi=10.1001/jama.1992.03490050109039|bibcode=1992RadR..131..229A}}</ref><ref>[http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v88/n3/full/6600748a.html "Sex ratio among offspring of childhood cancer survivors treated with radiotherapy"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130927161530/http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v88/n3/full/6600748a.html |date=2013-09-27 }}. ''British Journal of Cancer''.</ref> The surviving women of Hiroshima and Nagasaki who could conceive and were exposed to substantial amounts of radiation went on and had children with no higher incidence of abnormalities than the Japanese average.<ref>[http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html "Birth defects among the children of atomic-bomb survivors (1948–1954)"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180520224831/http://www.rerf.jp/radefx/genetics_e/birthdef.html |date=2018-05-20 }}. Radiation Effects Research Foundation</ref><ref>[http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/04/11/1 "Nuclear Crises: Hiroshima and Nagasaki cast long shadows over radiation science] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120405235042/http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/04/11/1 |date=2012-04-05 }}. April 11, 2011. www.eenews.net</ref>

The [[Baby Tooth Survey]] founded by the husband and wife team of physicians Eric Reiss and [[Louise Reiss]], was a research effort focused on detecting the presence of [[strontium-90]], a [[carcinogenic|cancer-causing]] radioactive isotope created by the more than 400 atomic tests conducted above ground that is absorbed from water and dairy products into the bones and teeth given its chemical similarity to [[calcium]]. The team sent collection forms to schools in the [[St. Louis, Missouri]] area, hoping to gather 50,000 teeth each year. Ultimately, the project collected over 300,000 teeth from children of various ages before the project was ended in 1970.<ref>Staff. [https://www.nytimes.com/1959/03/19/archives/teeth-to-measure-fallout.html "Teeth to Measure Fall-Out"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722191254/https://www.nytimes.com/1959/03/19/archives/teeth-to-measure-fallout.html |date=2018-07-22 }}, ''[[The New York Times]]'', March 18, 1969.</ref>

Preliminary results of the Baby Tooth Survey were published in the 24 November 1961, edition of the journal ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'', and showed that levels of [[strontium-90]] had risen steadily in children born in the 1950s, with those born later showing the most pronounced increases.<ref>Sullivan, Walter. [https://www.nytimes.com/1961/11/25/archives/babies-surveyed-for-strontium-90-ratio-to-calcium-in-bones-is.html "Babies Surveyed for Strontium 90; Ratio to Calcium in Bones Is Discovered to Be Low A survey has shown that pregnant mothers and their unborn children absorb radioactive strontium, as a substitute for calcium, only about 10 per cent of the time"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180722190129/https://www.nytimes.com/1961/11/25/archives/babies-surveyed-for-strontium-90-ratio-to-calcium-in-bones-is.html |date=2018-07-22 }}, ''[[The New York Times]]'', November 25, 1961.</ref> The results of a more comprehensive study of the elements found in the teeth collected showed that children born after 1963 had levels of strontium-90 in their baby teeth that was 50 times higher than that found in children born before large-scale atomic testing began. The findings helped convince U.S. President [[John F. Kennedy]] to sign the [[Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty]] with the [[United Kingdom]] and [[Soviet Union]], which ended the above-ground [[nuclear weapons testing]] that created the greatest amounts of atmospheric nuclear fallout.<ref name=Reiss>Hevesi, Dennis. [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/science/10reiss.html "Dr. Louise Reiss, Who Helped Ban Atomic Testing, Dies at 90"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190419195654/https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/science/10reiss.html |date=2019-04-19 }}, ''[[The New York Times]]'', January 10, 2011.</ref>

Some considered the baby tooth survey a "campaign [that] effectively employed a variety of media advocacy strategies" to alarm the public and "galvanized" support against atmospheric nuclear testing,{{citation needed|reason='http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/messages/downloadsexceeded.html' isn't a reliable source|date=September 2023}}, and putting an end to such testing was commonly viewed as a positive outcome for a myriad of reasons. The survey could not show at the time, nor in the decades that have elapsed, that the levels of global strontium-90 or fallout in general, were life-threatening, primarily because "50 times the strontium-90 from ''before'' nuclear testing" is a minuscule number, and multiplication of minuscule numbers results in only a slightly larger minuscule number. Moreover, the [[Radiation and Public Health Project]] that currently retains the teeth has had their stance and publications criticized: a 2003 article in ''[[The New York Times]]'' states that many scientists consider the group's work controversial, with little credibility with the scientific establishment, while some scientists consider it "good, careful work".<ref name=NYT>{{cite news
  |url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9403E7D81E39F932A25752C1A9659C8B63&sec=health&spon=&pagewanted=all
  |title=In Baby Teeth, a Test of Fallout; A Long-Shot Search for Nuclear Peril in Molars and Cuspids
  |newspaper=[[The New York Times]]
  |author=Andy Newman
  |date=2003-11-11
  |access-date=2008-12-31
  |archive-date=2022-01-25
  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220125090737/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/nyregion/baby-teeth-test-fallout-long-shot-search-for-nuclear-peril-molars-cuspids.html
  |url-status=live
  }}</ref> In an April 2014 article in ''Popular Science'', Sarah Fecht argues that the group's work, specifically the widely discussed case of [[cherry-picking]] data to suggest that fallout from the [[Radiation and Public Health Project#Fukushima|2011 Fukushima accident caused infant deaths]] in America, is "[[junk science]]", as despite their papers being peer-reviewed, independent attempts to corroborate their results return findings that are not in agreement with what the organization suggests.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/what-can-we-do-about-junk-science-16674140|title=What Can We Do About Junk Science|date=2014-04-08|magazine=Popular Science|author=Sarah Fecht|access-date=2014-05-21|archive-date=2014-05-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140520060329/http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/what-can-we-do-about-junk-science-16674140|url-status=live}}</ref> The organization had earlier suggested the same thing occurred after the [[Ernest J. Sternglass#Three Mile Island|1979 Three Mile Island]] accident, though the Atomic Energy Commission argued this was unfounded.<ref>{{Cite journal  | title = Scientists challenge baby deaths at Three Mile Island  | journal = [[New Scientist]]  | volume = 86  | issue = 1204  | page = 180  | location = London  | date = 24 April 1980  | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=59-_mdEJoRkC&q=sternglass+westinghouse&pg=PA198  | last1 = Information  | first1 = Reed Business  | access-date = 19 October 2020  | archive-date = 25 January 2022  | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20220125090736/https://books.google.com/books?id=59-_mdEJoRkC&q=sternglass+westinghouse&pg=PA198  | url-status = live  }}</ref> The tooth survey, and the organization's new target of pushing for test bans with US nuclear electric power stations, is detailed and critically labelled as the "[[Tooth Fairy]] issue" by the [[Nuclear Regulatory Commission]].<ref name="NRC">{{cite web|url=https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html|title=Backgrounder on Radiation Protection and the "Tooth Fairy" Issue|publisher=U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission|date=2010-02-17|access-date=2010-11-07|archive-date=2017-07-20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170720060330/https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tooth-fairy.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Effects on the environment===
{{Further|Nuclear fallout effects on an ecosystem}}

In the event of a large-scale nuclear exchange, the effects would be drastic on the environment as well as directly to the human population. Within direct blast zones everything would be vaporized and destroyed. Cities damaged but not completely destroyed would lose their water system due to the loss of power and supply lines rupturing.<ref name=Implications>{{Cite book|date=1986-01-01|title=The Medical Implications of Nuclear War|doi=10.17226/940|pmid=25032468|isbn=978-0-309-07866-5|last1=Solomon|first1=Fred|last2=Marston|first2=Robert Q.|last3=Thomas|first3=Lewis}}</ref> Within the local nuclear fallout pattern suburban areas' water supplies would become extremely contaminated. At this point stored water would be the only safe water to use. All surface water within the fallout would be contaminated by falling fission products.<ref name=Implications/>

Within the first few months of the nuclear exchange the nuclear fallout will continue to develop and detriment the environment. Dust, smoke, and [[Radioactive decay|radioactive particles]] will fall hundreds of kilometers downwind of the explosion point and pollute surface water supplies.<ref name=Implications/> [[Iodine-131]] would be the dominant fission product within the first few weeks, and in the months following the dominant fission product would be [[strontium-90]].<ref name=Implications/> These fission products would remain in the fallout dust, resulting in rivers, lakes, sediments, and soils being contaminated with the fallout.<ref name=Implications/>

Rural areas' water supplies would be slightly less polluted by fission particles in intermediate and long-term fallout than cities and suburban areas. Without additional contamination, the lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and runoff would be gradually less contaminated as water continued to flow through its system.<ref name=Implications/>

Groundwater supplies such as aquifers would however remain unpolluted initially in the event of a nuclear fallout. Over time the groundwater could become contaminated with fallout particles, and would remain contaminated for over 10 years after a nuclear engagement.<ref name=Implications/> It would take hundreds or thousands of years for an aquifer to become completely pure.<ref>{{Citation|last=van der Heijde|first=P. K. M.|chapter=Models in Regulation: A Report on Panel Discussions|date=1989|pages=653–656|publisher=Springer Netherlands|isbn=9789401075336|doi=10.1007/978-94-009-2301-0_60|title=Groundwater Contamination: Use of Models in Decision-Making}}</ref> Groundwater would still be safer than surface water supplies and would need to be consumed in smaller doses. Long term, [[Caesium-137|cesium-137]] and strontium-90 would be the major radionuclides affecting the fresh water supplies.<ref name=Implications/>

The dangers of nuclear fallout do not stop at increased risks of cancer and radiation sickness, but also include the presence of radionuclides in human organs from food. A fallout event would leave fission particles in the soil for animals to consume, followed by humans. Radioactively contaminated milk, meat, fish, vegetables, grains and other food would all be dangerous because of fallout.<ref name=Implications/>

From 1945 to 1967 the U.S. conducted hundreds of nuclear weapon tests.<ref name="Shadow 244–274">{{Cite journal|last=Meyers|first=Keith|date=March 14, 2019|title=In the Shadow of the Mushroom Cloud: Nuclear Testing, Radioactive Fallout, and Damage to U.S. Agriculture, 1945 to 1970|journal=The Journal of Economic History|volume=79|issue=1|pages=244–274|doi=10.1017/S002205071800075X|s2cid=134969796|issn=0022-0507|url=http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/258121/files/Abstracts_17_05_18_16_06_27_33__128_196_90_232_0.pdf}}</ref> [[Nuclear weapons testing|Atmospheric testing]] took place over the US mainland during this time and as a consequence scientists have been able to study the effect of nuclear fallout on the environment. Detonations conducted near the surface of the earth irradiated thousands of tons of soil.<ref name="Shadow 244–274"/> Of the material drawn into the atmosphere, portions of radioactive material will be carried by low altitude winds and deposited in surrounding areas as radioactive dust. The material intercepted by high altitude winds will continue to travel. When a radiation cloud at high altitude is exposed to rainfall, the radioactive fallout will contaminate the downwind area below.<ref name="Shadow 244–274"/>

Agricultural fields and plants will absorb the contaminated material and animals will consume the radioactive material. As a result, the nuclear fallout may cause livestock to become ill or die, and if consumed the radioactive material will be passed on to humans.<ref name="Shadow 244–274"/>

The damage to other living organism as a result to nuclear fallout depends on the species.<ref name="Koppe 247–268">{{Citation|last=Koppe|first=Erik V.|chapter=Use of nuclear weapons and protection of the environment during international armed conflict|pages=247–268|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9781107337435|doi=10.1017/cbo9781107337435.018|title=Nuclear Weapons under International Law|year=2014|hdl=1887/35608|chapter-url=https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/35608/E.V.%20Koppe%20-%20Use%20of%20nuclear%20weapons%20and%20protection%20of%20the%20environment%20during%20IAC.pdf?sequence=1|editor1-last=Nystuen|editor1-first=Gro|editor2-last=Casey-Maslen|editor2-first=Stuart|editor3-last=Bersagel|editor3-first=Annie Golden|hdl-access=free|access-date=2019-09-24|archive-date=2019-12-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191214035802/https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/35608/E.V.%20Koppe%20-%20Use%20of%20nuclear%20weapons%20and%20protection%20of%20the%20environment%20during%20IAC.pdf?sequence=1|url-status=live}}</ref> Mammals particularly are extremely sensitive to nuclear radiation, followed by birds, plants, fish, reptiles, crustaceans, insects, moss, lichen, algae, bacteria, mollusks, and viruses.<ref name="Koppe 247–268"/>

Climatologist [[Alan Robock]] and atmospheric and oceanic sciences professor Brian Toon created a model of a hypothetical small-scale nuclear war that would have approximately 100 weapons used. In this scenario, the fires would create enough soot into the atmosphere to block sunlight, lowering global temperatures by more than one degree Celsius.<ref name="Humanitarian 22–26">{{Cite journal|last=Helfand|first=Ira|date=2013|title=The Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear War|journal=Arms Control Today|volume=43|issue=9|pages=22–26|issn=0196-125X|jstor=23629551}}</ref> The result would have the potential of creating widespread food insecurity (nuclear famine).<ref name="Humanitarian 22–26"/> Precipitation across the globe would be disrupted as a result. If enough soot was introduced in the upper atmosphere the planet's ozone layer could potentially be depleted, affecting plant growth and human health.<ref name="Humanitarian 22–26"/>

Radiation from the fallout would linger in soil, plants, and food chains for years. Marine food chains are more vulnerable to the nuclear fallout and the effects of soot in the atmosphere.<ref name="Humanitarian 22–26"/>

Fallout radionuclides' detriment in the human food chain is apparent in the lichen-caribou-eskimo studies in Alaska.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Hanson|first=Wayne C.|date=October 1968|title=Fallout Radionuclides in Northern Alaskan Ecosystems|journal=Archives of Environmental Health|volume=17|issue=4|pages=639–648|doi=10.1080/00039896.1968.10665295|pmid=5693144|issn=0003-9896}}</ref> The primary effect on humans observed was thyroid dysfunction.<ref name="Biosphere 576–583">{{Cite journal|last1=Grover|first1=Herbert D.|last2=Harwell|first2=Mark A.|date=1985|title=Biological Effects of Nuclear War II: Impact on the Biosphere|journal=BioScience|volume=35|issue=9|pages=576–583|doi=10.2307/1309966|issn=0006-3568|jstor=1309966}}</ref> The result of a nuclear fallout is incredibly detrimental to human survival and the biosphere. Fallout alters the quality of our atmosphere, soil, and water and causes species to go extinct.<ref name="Biosphere 576–583"/>