Facilities Use Agreement - State Of North Dakota: Fill & Download for Free

Taken from another answer of mine… the footnotes will take you there.Nuclear WinterThe average warhead size in the USA arsenal is 330 KT. The Russian average is higher, but not enough to change this outcome. To cause a nuclear winter the debris clouds and smoke have to be elevated above the troposphere into the high stratosphere. Any debris or smoke that is released into the troposphere (below 70,000 feet) quickly rains out in the weather within a few days to a week or so max.Nuclear weapons yields do not affect the environment on a linear scale , that is to say that a 1 megaton bomb, even though it is 10 x more energy than 100 KT bomb, doesn't mean it produces 10 x more destruction. Thermal radiation decays as the inverse square while blast decays as the inverse cube of distance from the detonation point. Much of that extra heat and energy goes straight up and drops off quickly as distance is increased from the point of detonation. With smaller yields the energy is not enough to breach the stratosphere, and for bombs that are not multi-megaton the earth has its own protection mechanism for particles released in the troposphere called the weather, and it is extremely efficient.The only way to get particles to stay aloft longer is to blast them considerably higher than 70,000 feet. The reason this will not happen today is that the US and Russia have eliminated megaton size weapons from the high alert strategic forces (ICBM’s & SLBM’s). The small quantities left of the B-83 variable yield ≈ 20 KT - 1.2 MT gravity bomb are slated for retirement in 2025.To get anything above 70,000 feet you need yields substantially above 1 megaton. The bombs deployed today will throw debris up 50,000 - 60,000 feet into the atmosphere and all of that will rain back down to the earth in hours and days later near the point of detonation.Firestorms and other bad science that led to the wrong conclusions.A lot of new knowledge on pyrocumulonimbus cloud formation and soot into the lower stratosphere is still being interpreted. Until the early 2000’s it was thought the boundary layer between the troposphere and stratosphere presented a greater barrier for smoke, however, smoke columns rising into the lower stratosphere have been observed. This indicates that there is a long term lasting effect, but to what extent is still unanswered.A 2010 study by the American Meteorological Society is the first modern attempt to quantify these effects. In their report, they tracked the effects of 17 stratospheric smoke plumes in 2002. What they found is that the average time the smoke plumes presence in the stratosphere was detectable, was only about 2 months. The report indicates that particles of carbon soot start to clump together at some point after interacting with sunlight and then drop out of the stratosphere quickly. [74] This happens in weeks not in years, a major contradiction to the premise of nuclear winter theories. What is not known is there a tipping point of equilibrium that would keep the soot aloft if there was enough of it. So like many things, there is a certain element of the unknown in this.What is known is that the TTAPS study made famous by Carl Sagan and his team, used exaggerated volumes of soot and smoke in their model. Their assumptions for a nuclear winter were significantly off in their calculations and in 1990 the original team largely retracted their study as being invalid.[75] Key government studies since then have shown that the available combustible materials used in the models in TTAPS were significantly overstated and this has flawed all the studies since that have used the TTAPS study as the basis of their work.The papers by TTAPS and Ehrlich et al., amplified the risk by making numerous assumptions which embodied the worst case for the possible effects of a nuclear war. Martin pointed out that they did so by such devices as assuming targeting scenarios that would generate enough dust and smoke to produce a nuclear winter – reminiscent of the SRES scenarios in climate change later. They also suggested there was a sharp threshold above which severe nuclear winter effects would be triggered; there was little scientific justification for this assumption, but it was convenient for policy purposes, especially as Sagan had suggested that nuclear arsenals should be reduced below such a threshold.TTAPS also used a one-dimensional model which showed dramatic temperature reductions over land but little change over oceans. The authors did discuss the moderating effect of the oceans in the text, but most readers and commentators concentrated on the tables and the abstract, where the extreme land results were highlighted. Ehrlich et al., then focused on the land results from TTAPS over the whole globe in assessing the biological effects of nuclear winter, and suggested all manner of disasters from nuclear war, including, for example, decreases in stratospheric ozone and resulting increases in ultraviolet radiation – once the smoke and dust had cleared, of course – while ignoring the point above (acknowledged by Crutzen and Birks) that changes in the size of warheads had largely removed this threat. They even raised (only in the summary and conclusion, rather than in the body of the text) the possibility of human extinction, without explaining precisely how the whole of humanity might die, and failed to mention factors which might ameliorate problems. Martin concluded that the TTAPS and Ehrlich et al., papers are not ‘value-neutral’ pieces of research, but ‘pushed’ certain conclusions on readers through technical assumptions in model construction, selection of evidence and highlighting of results[76]The nuclear winter theory relies heavily on the worst case scenario of many of the events that would unfold during a nuclear exchange and as such exaggerates the effect dramatically. [77] A contemporary example of prediction not accurately modeling reality is the forecast effects of the Iraqis setting 600 oil rigs ablaze in 1991.Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats of igniting the country's 800 or so oil wells were made, speculation on the cumulative climatic effect of this, presented at the World Climate Conference in Geneva that November in 1990, ranged from a nuclear winter type scenario, to heavy acid rain and even short term immediate global warming.As threatened, the wells were set ablaze by the retreating Iraqis in March of 1991 and the 600 or so successfully set Kuwaiti oil wells were not fully extinguished until November 6, 1991, eight months after the end of the war During this time they consumed an estimated six million barrels of oil daily at their peak intensity.In articles printed in the Wilmington morning star and the Baltimore Sun newspapers of January 1991, prominent authors of nuclear winter papers — Richard P. Turco, John W. Birks, Carl Sagan, Alan Robock and Paul Crutzen —together collectively stated that they expected catastrophic nuclear winter like effects with continental-sized effects of "sub-freezing" temperatures as a result of the Iraqis going through with their threats of igniting 300 to 500 pressurized oil wells that could subsequently burn for several months. [78]Carl Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that his predictions obviously did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6 °C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared.”The problems with the models that started the nuclear winter debate, the models used by Sagan and other teams of scientists at that time, is obvious when you look at the detail. The analysis was done at extremely low resolution and with no feedback loops. It was a 2D model, not a 3D model, so the volume and altitude of particles, heat flux, fuel loading were never actually calculated. The numbers were made uniform and plugged in as a single result for the entire world. So the heat flux, fuel loading, soot, smoke and debris was uniform no mater if the city was Fargo North Dakota or Los Angeles. It was inherently wrong and fatally flawed. [79] [80]The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the National Science Foundation, Peter Hobbs, stated that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers (used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis)... were probably a little overblown.” [81]In a paper by the United States Department of Homeland Security finalized in 2010, fire experts stated that due to the nature of modern city design and construction, with the US serving as an example, a firestorm is unlikely after a nuclear detonation in a modern city. This is not to say that fires will not occur over a large area after a detonation, but that the fires would not coalesce and form the all-important stratosphere punching firestorm plume that the nuclear winter papers require as a prerequisite assumption in their climate computer models. Additional recent studies on smoke columns indicate that nearly every possible fire scenario results in little to no stratospheric injection of smoke.. [82]The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki for example, did not produce a firestorm. This was similarly noted as early as 1986-88, when the assumed quantity of fuel loading (the amount of fuel per square meter) in cities underpinning the winter models was found to be too high and intentionally creates heat fluxes that lofts smoke into the lower stratosphere, yet assessments "more characteristic of conditions" to be found in real-world modern cities, had found that the fuel loading, and hence the heat flux the results from burning, would rarely loft smoke much higher than 4 km. [83]The scenarios contributing to a firestorm are also dependent on the size of bombs being used. Only bombs in the +1 megaton range and higher would ignite a sufficiently large area for firestorms to coalesce crossing over from sparsely located high fuel-load areas into these lower fuel-loaded areas in a mixed city model, such as Nashville. [84][85]Despite the initial searing heat and the explosive overpressure, this typical American wood frame house did not burn with a flash heat exposure 25 watts per square centimeter. The fuel loading and construction material of modern American cities, has only 20% of the necessary fuel to start a firestorm. Most fires in Hiroshima can be traced to overturned charcoal cookers used extensively at the time in residential cooking.[86]Compounded by closely pack dwellings on narrow streets that were heavily ladened with flammable materials.Continued from aboveA 2015 report from The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, titled “THE UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE” summarizes the view on the threat of a nuclear winter as this:For a period of a few years in the 1980s, a lively scientific debate unfolded, with skeptics detailing perceived sins of both omission and commission on the part of the global climate modelers touting the winter scenario, while the latter responded vigorously. It should be noted that the Department of Defense—in the persons of two of the coauthors of this paper (Frankel and Ullrich)—provided evenhanded funding to both the skeptics and proponents of nuclear winter. Eventually, based first on further fuel inventory research sponsored by the Department of Defense and later on decreasing arsenal sizes, a consensus emerged that whatever modeling issues might remain contentious, there would nonetheless be insufficient soot and smoke available at altitude to render nuclear winter a credible threat[87]Russell Seitz, Associate of the Harvard University Center for International Affairs, argues that the winter model's assumptions give results which the researchers want to achieve and is a case of "worst-case analysis run amok". Seitz criticized the theory for being based on successive worst-case events. [88]Notes from “Disaster Preparedness, An International Perspective:: “If the amount of smoke assumed in the “nuclear winter” report (Science, v222, 1983, pp1283-92) were decreased by a factor of 2.5, the climatic effect would probably be trivial. In considering the actual terrain that surrounds most likely targets, the probable type of explosions (ground bursts against hardened military facilities), the overlapping of targets, and conditions that could reduce the incendiary potential of the thermal pulse, critics of the report believe that the quantity of smoke from non-urban fires has probably been overestimated by at least a factor of ten (Cresson Kearny, Fire Emissions and Some of Their Uncertainties, Presented at the Fourth International Seminar on Nuclear War, Erice, Sicily, August 19-24, 1984). Rathjens and Siegel (Issues in Science and Technology, v1, 1985, pp123-8) believe there would likely be four times less smoke and eight times less soot from cities than estimated in the National Research Council study.” [89]Putting the fires of a nuclear war in another perspective. Every year on earth, wildfires consume 350,000,000 - 450,000,000 hectares of forests, grasslands and structures and results in an average of 339,000 deaths worldwide. [90] This is equal to 1,700,000 square miles burned every year worldwide, nearly half the size of the entire Unites States. Earlier in this document, I laid out a hypothetical scenario where every nuclear bomb in existence, excluding ones listed as retired, are spread out equally at a density of 1 bomb every 100 square miles (10,000 bombs x 100 square miles = 1,000,000 square miles). Under that scenario, the bomb coverage only extends over 1/3 of the land mass of the USA (the USA is 3,800,000 square miles). The world burns more already every year without sending the climate into a nuclear winter. This also is equal to half the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels annually. [91] Wildfires release massive amounts of energy on scale equivalent of nuclear weapons. The Chisholm Fire, a man-caused forest fire in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2001 released the equivalent energy of 1200 Hiroshima atomic detonations. [92] The firestorm after the bombing of Hiroshima released 200 times the energy of the atomic bomb itself.Further evidence of the short term nature of stratospheric aerosols has been confirmed in other studies as well. “ stratospheric aerosol lifetime at high latitude, as they show that the vast majority of the aerosol enhancement has decayed within 7 months of the eruption. Volcanic aerosol from a tropical eruption has a lifetime in the stratosphere of approximately 1 year ; however, high-latitude eruptions have a shorter effect than tropical eruptions, with a typical aerosol lifetime varying from 2 months in the winter to 4 months in the summer” [93]Taking all that into consideration and taking the available megatonnage in today's arsenals and and adjusting the implied atmospheric load of carbon black soot you might end up with 5 teragrams aloft in the lower stratosphere resulting in a 2–3 °C drop for several months to worst case several years. Not quite a nuclear winter, barely a nuclear fall… and even that is debatable since evidence suggests a much shorter time of smoke suspension in the stratosphere and that the premise on uncontrolled fire storms is unfounded based upon actual observations of the bombs dropped in 1945. While Hiroshima did experience a firestorm Nagasaki did not. Nagasaki was a city with much more combustible material than most modern day cities. The great flaw with the original nuclear winter models is that it assumed the same high loading of fuel for all cities and that firestorms would occur at all those locations. A firestorm is not assured and is considered unlikely in modern cities, and thus the theory is flawed from top to bottom.The original TTAPS study was highly politically motivated. The study was built to a preexisting belief and never tested. You can see this in statements from the authors like this. “Although I do not count the ‘nuclear winter’ idea among my greatest scientific achievements (in fact, the hypothesis can not be tested without performing the ‘experiment’, which it wants to prevent), I am convinced that, from a political point of view, it is by far the most important, because it magnifies and highlights the dangers of a nuclear war and convinces me that in the long run mankind can only escape such horrific consequences if nuclear weapons are totally abolished by international agreement. (Crutzen, 1995)”William Poundstone similarly describes nuclear winter as an embarrassing misadventure in Sagan’s complex scientific life. In his biography of Sagan, Poundstone introduces nuclear winter as “one of the most troubling demonstrations of the so-called relativity of scientific truth.” Poundstone links nuclear winter to a “new mingling of science and politics,” though a brief survey of modern science would suggest that such overlap is far from new.[94] [95]Part of the difficulty is that no one has ever measured and significant plume of soot in the stratosphere that approaches a meaningful comparison for the Nuclear Winter hypothesis. The suspension time of particles in the stratosphere is dependant on the size and type of particles. Carbon soot can be so fine that it starts to clump as a result which limits the suspension time in the stratosphere.Soot comes mostly from combustion and is considered the second biggest driver of global warming, according to NIST chemist Christopher Zangmeister. It is made up of small round particles of carbon about 10 or 20 nanometers across. The particles stick together randomly in short chains and clumps of a half dozen or more spheres. These, in turn, clump loosely together to form larger, loose aggregates of 10 or more which over a few hours will compact into a somewhat tighter ball which is atmospheric soot.The interesting question for chemists studying carbon aerosols is how tight? How dense? Among other things, the answer relates to the balance of climate effects from soot: heating from light absorption versus cooling from light reflection.The maximum packing density of objects is a classic problem in mathematics, which has been fully solved for only the simplest cases. The assumed density in models of atmospheric soot is 0.74, which is the maximum packing density of perfect spheres, such as billiard balls, in a given space. But when Zangmeister's team made measurements of the packing density of actual soot particles, the figure they got was 0.36.[96]Other particles found in the stratosphere include volcanic SO2 which only has a suspension time of 45±22 days. [97] To remain aloft, particles must not be too small as then tend to clump and fall out of suspension and particles cannot be too large as they wont stay suspended long on size alone. For a nuclear winter to happen you need to be in the goldilocks zone of particle size or the particles will drop out of suspension quickly.An interesting note about several major recent reports to the contrary of my conclusion and even ones going back 10 years as well. None of these reports question the fuel loading and levels of atmospheric smoke generated. They all seem to use the original basis as put forth by Carl Sagan’s team, even though Sagan himself admitted his model did not work. The footnote here will take you to an example of the poor quality models still being pushed as real science. A Rutgers 2010 report that references the work by Sagan and offers no explanation for the mechanism of smoke and soot transport into the stratosphere. Quality work is not guaranteed just because the sources are listed as a professionals in this field. Healthy skepticism is your friend, use it. [98]So nuclear winter was always a stretch because the science was unfounded and we never had enough high-yield bombs in reality to cause it ever, but for sure in 2016 because we do not have any in the high yield range required within the active strategic nuclear arsenals of Russia or the USA. China has approximately 50 which is not enough to change the outcome and actually is not deemed even a credible threat to the mainland USA.[9

Nuclear Winter an Improbable Result in the Worst of the Worst Case Scenarios.Answer taken from part of another answer of mine … the footnotes will take you there for references ,The average warhead size in the USA arsenal is 330 KT. The Russian average is higher, but not enough to change this outcome. To cause a nuclear winter the debris clouds and smoke have to be elevated above the troposphere into the high stratosphere. Any debris or smoke that is released into the troposphere (below 70,000 feet) quickly rains out in the weather within a few days to a week or so max.Nuclear weapons yields do not affect the environment on a linear scale , that is to say that a 1 megaton bomb, even though it is 10 x more energy than 100 KT bomb, doesn't mean it produces 10 x more destruction. Thermal radiation decays as the inverse square while blast decays as the inverse cube of distance from the detonation point. Much of that extra heat and energy goes straight up and drops off quickly as distance is increased from the point of detonation. With smaller yields the energy is not enough to breach the stratosphere, and for bombs that are not multi-megaton the earth has its own protection mechanism for particles released in the troposphere called the weather, and it is extremely efficient.The only way to get particles to stay aloft longer is to blast them considerably higher than 70,000 feet. The reason this will not happen today is that the US and Russia have eliminated megaton size weapons from the high alert strategic forces (ICBM’s & SLBM’s). The small quantities left of the B-83 variable yield ≈ 20 KT - 1.2 MT gravity bomb are slated for retirement in 2025.To get anything above 70,000 feet you need yields substantially above 1 megaton. The bombs deployed today will throw debris up 50,000 - 60,000 feet into the atmosphere and all of that will rain back down to the earth in hours and days later near the point of detonation.Firestorms and other bad science that led to the wrong conclusions.A lot of new knowledge on pyrocumulonimbus cloud formation and soot into the lower stratosphere is still being interpreted. Until the early 2000’s it was thought the boundary layer between the troposphere and stratosphere presented a greater barrier for smoke, however, smoke columns rising into the lower stratosphere have been observed. This indicates that there is a long term lasting effect, but to what extent is still unanswered.A 2010 study by the American Meteorological Society is the first modern attempt to quantify these effects. In their report, they tracked the effects of 17 stratospheric smoke plumes in 2002. What they found is that the average time the smoke plumes presence in the stratosphere was detectable, was only about 2 months. The report indicates that particles of carbon soot start to clump together at some point after interacting with sunlight and then drop out of the stratosphere quickly. [63] This happens in weeks not in years, a major contradiction to the premise of nuclear winter theories. What is not known is there a tipping point of equilibrium that would keep the soot aloft if there was enough of it. So like many things, there is a certain element of the unknown in this.What is known is that the TTAPS study made famous by Carl Sagan and his team, used exaggerated volumes of soot and smoke in their model. Their assumptions for a nuclear winter were significantly off in their calculations and in 1990 the original team largely retracted their study as being invalid.[64] Key government studies since then have shown that the available combustible materials used in the models in TTAPS were significantly overstated and this has flawed all the studies since that have used the TTAPS study as the basis of their work.The papers by TTAPS and Ehrlich et al., amplified the risk by making numerous assumptions which embodied the worst case for the possible effects of a nuclear war. Martin pointed out that they did so by such devices as assuming targeting scenarios that would generate enough dust and smoke to produce a nuclear winter – reminiscent of the SRES scenarios in climate change later. They also suggested there was a sharp threshold above which severe nuclear winter effects would be triggered; there was little scientific justification for this assumption, but it was convenient for policy purposes, especially as Sagan had suggested that nuclear arsenals should be reduced below such a threshold.TTAPS also used a one-dimensional model which showed dramatic temperature reductions over land but little change over oceans. The authors did discuss the moderating effect of the oceans in the text, but most readers and commentators concentrated on the tables and the abstract, where the extreme land results were highlighted. Ehrlich et al., then focused on the land results from TTAPS over the whole globe in assessing the biological effects of nuclear winter, and suggested all manner of disasters from nuclear war, including, for example, decreases in stratospheric ozone and resulting increases in ultraviolet radiation – once the smoke and dust had cleared, of course – while ignoring the point above (acknowledged by Crutzen and Birks) that changes in the size of warheads had largely removed this threat. They even raised (only in the summary and conclusion, rather than in the body of the text) the possibility of human extinction, without explaining precisely how the whole of humanity might die, and failed to mention factors which might ameliorate problems. Martin concluded that the TTAPS and Ehrlich et al., papers are not ‘value-neutral’ pieces of research, but ‘pushed’ certain conclusions on readers through technical assumptions in model construction, selection of evidence and highlighting of results[65]The nuclear winter theory relies heavily on the worst case scenario of many of the events that would unfold during a nuclear exchange and as such exaggerates the effect dramatically. [66] A contemporary example of prediction not accurately modeling reality is the forecast effects of the Iraqis setting 600 oil rigs ablaze in 1991.Following Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and Iraqi threats of igniting the country's 800 or so oil wells were made, speculation on the cumulative climatic effect of this, presented at the World Climate Conference in Geneva that November in 1990, ranged from a nuclear winter type scenario, to heavy acid rain and even short term immediate global warming.As threatened, the wells were set ablaze by the retreating Iraqis in March of 1991 and the 600 or so successfully set Kuwaiti oil wells were not fully extinguished until November 6, 1991, eight months after the end of the war During this time they consumed an estimated six million barrels of oil daily at their peak intensity.In articles printed in the Wilmington morning star and the Baltimore Sun newspapers of January 1991, prominent authors of nuclear winter papers — Richard P. Turco, John W. Birks, Carl Sagan, Alan Robock and Paul Crutzen —together collectively stated that they expected catastrophic nuclear winter like effects with continental-sized effects of "sub-freezing" temperatures as a result of the Iraqis going through with their threats of igniting 300 to 500 pressurized oil wells that could subsequently burn for several months. [67]Carl Sagan later conceded in his book The Demon-Haunted World that his predictions obviously did not turn out to be correct: "it was pitch black at noon and temperatures dropped 4–6 °C over the Persian Gulf, but not much smoke reached stratospheric altitudes and Asia was spared.”The problems with the models that started the nuclear winter debate, the models used by Sagan and other teams of scientists at that time, is obvious when you look at the detail. The analysis was done at extremely low resolution and with no feedback loops. It was a 2D model, not a 3D model, so the volume and altitude of particles, heat flux, fuel loading were never actually calculated. The numbers were made uniform and plugged in as a single result for the entire world. So the heat flux, fuel loading, soot, smoke and debris was uniform no mater if the city was Fargo North Dakota or Los Angeles. It was inherently wrong and fatally flawed. [68] [69]The atmospheric scientist tasked with studying the atmospheric effect of the Kuwaiti fires by the National Science Foundation, Peter Hobbs, stated that the fires' modest impact suggested that "some numbers (used to support the Nuclear Winter hypothesis)... were probably a little overblown.” [70]In a paper by the United States Department of Homeland Security finalized in 2010, fire experts stated that due to the nature of modern city design and construction, with the US serving as an example, a firestorm is unlikely after a nuclear detonation in a modern city. This is not to say that fires will not occur over a large area after a detonation, but that the fires would not coalesce and form the all-important stratosphere punching firestorm plume that the nuclear winter papers require as a prerequisite assumption in their climate computer models. Additional recent studies on smoke columns indicate that nearly every possible fire scenario results in little to no stratospheric injection of smoke.. [71]The nuclear bombing of Nagasaki for example, did not produce a firestorm. This was similarly noted as early as 1986-88, when the assumed quantity of fuel loading (the amount of fuel per square meter) in cities underpinning the winter models was found to be too high and intentionally creates heat fluxes that lofts smoke into the lower stratosphere, yet assessments "more characteristic of conditions" to be found in real-world modern cities, had found that the fuel loading, and hence the heat flux the results from burning, would rarely loft smoke much higher than 4 km. [72]The scenarios contributing to a firestorm are also dependent on the size of bombs being used. Only bombs in the +1 megaton range and higher would ignite a sufficiently large area for firestorms to coalesce crossing over from sparsely located high fuel-load areas into these lower fuel-loaded areas in a mixed city model, such as Nashville. [73][74]Despite the initial searing heat and the explosive overpressure, this typical American wood frame house did not burn with a flash heat exposure 25 watts per square centimeter. The fuel loading and construction material of modern American cities, has only 20% of the necessary fuel to start a firestorm. Most fires in Hiroshima can be traced to overturned charcoal cookers used extensively at the time in residential cooking.[75]Compounded by closely pack dwellings on narrow streets that were heavily ladened with flammable materials.Continued from aboveA 2015 report from The Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, titled “THE UNCERTAIN CONSEQUENCES OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS USE” summarizes the view on the threat of a nuclear winter as this:For a period of a few years in the 1980s, a lively scientific debate unfolded, with skeptics detailing perceived sins of both omission and commission on the part of the global climate modelers touting the winter scenario, while the latter responded vigorously. It should be noted that the Department of Defense—in the persons of two of the coauthors of this paper (Frankel and Ullrich)—provided evenhanded funding to both the skeptics and proponents of nuclear winter. Eventually, based first on further fuel inventory research sponsored by the Department of Defense and later on decreasing arsenal sizes, a consensus emerged that whatever modeling issues might remain contentious, there would nonetheless be insufficient soot and smoke available at altitude to render nuclear winter a credible threat[76]Russell Seitz, Associate of the Harvard University Center for International Affairs, argues that the winter model's assumptions give results which the researchers want to achieve and is a case of "worst-case analysis run amok". Seitz criticized the theory for being based on successive worst-case events. [77]Notes from “Disaster Preparedness, An International Perspective:: “If the amount of smoke assumed in the “nuclear winter” report (Science, v222, 1983, pp1283-92) were decreased by a factor of 2.5, the climatic effect would probably be trivial. In considering the actual terrain that surrounds most likely targets, the probable type of explosions (ground bursts against hardened military facilities), the overlapping of targets, and conditions that could reduce the incendiary potential of the thermal pulse, critics of the report believe that the quantity of smoke from non-urban fires has probably been overestimated by at least a factor of ten (Cresson Kearny, Fire Emissions and Some of Their Uncertainties, Presented at the Fourth International Seminar on Nuclear War, Erice, Sicily, August 19-24, 1984). Rathjens and Siegel (Issues in Science and Technology, v1, 1985, pp123-8) believe there would likely be four times less smoke and eight times less soot from cities than estimated in the National Research Council study.” [78]Putting the fires of a nuclear war in another perspective. Every year on earth, wildfires consume 350,000,000 - 450,000,000 hectares of forests, grasslands and structures and results in an average of 339,000 deaths worldwide. [79] This is equal to 1,700,000 square miles burned every year worldwide, nearly half the size of the entire Unites States. Earlier in this document, I laid out a hypothetical scenario where every nuclear bomb in existence, excluding ones listed as retired, are spread out equally at a density of 1 bomb every 100 square miles (10,000 bombs x 100 square miles = 1,000,000 square miles). Under that scenario, the bomb coverage only extends over 1/3 of the land mass of the USA (the USA is 3,800,000 square miles). The world burns more already every year without sending the climate into a nuclear winter. This also is equal to half the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels annually. [80] Wildfires release massive amounts of energy on scale equivalent of nuclear weapons. The Chisholm Fire, a man-caused forest fire in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada in 2001 released the equivalent energy of 1200 Hiroshima atomic detonations. [81] The firestorm after the bombing of Hiroshima released 200 times the energy of the atomic bomb itself.Further evidence of the short term nature of stratospheric aerosols has been confirmed in other studies as well. “ stratospheric aerosol lifetime at high latitude, as they show that the vast majority of the aerosol enhancement has decayed within 7 months of the eruption. Volcanic aerosol from a tropical eruption has a lifetime in the stratosphere of approximately 1 year ; however, high-latitude eruptions have a shorter effect than tropical eruptions, with a typical aerosol lifetime varying from 2 months in the winter to 4 months in the summer” [82]Taking all that into consideration and taking the available megatonnage in today's arsenals and and adjusting the implied atmospheric load of carbon black soot you might end up with 5 teragrams aloft in the lower stratosphere resulting in a 2–3 °C drop for several months to worst case several years. Not quite a nuclear winter, barely a nuclear fall… and even that is debatable since evidence suggests a much shorter time of smoke suspension in the stratosphere and that the premise on uncontrolled fire storms is unfounded based upon actual observations of the bombs dropped in 1945. While Hiroshima did experience a firestorm Nagasaki did not. Nagasaki was a city with much more combustible material than most modern day cities. The great flaw with the original nuclear winter models is that it assumed the same high loading of fuel for all cities and that firestorms would occur at all those locations. A firestorm is not assured and is considered unlikely in modern cities, and thus the theory is flawed from top to bottom.The original TTAPS study was highly politically motivated. The study was built to a preexisting belief and never tested. You can see this in statements from the authors like this. “Although I do not count the ‘nuclear winter’ idea among my greatest scientific achievements (in fact, the hypothesis can not be tested without performing the ‘experiment’, which it wants to prevent), I am convinced that, from a political point of view, it is by far the most important, because it magnifies and highlights the dangers of a nuclear war and convinces me that in the long run mankind can only escape such horrific consequences if nuclear weapons are totally abolished by international agreement. (Crutzen, 1995)”William Poundstone similarly describes nuclear winter as an embarrassing misadventure in Sagan’s complex scientific life. In his biography of Sagan, Poundstone introduces nuclear winter as “one of the most troubling demonstrations of the so-called relativity of scientific truth.” Poundstone links nuclear winter to a “new mingling of science and politics,” though a brief survey of modern science would suggest that such overlap is far from new.[83] [84]Part of the difficulty is that no one has ever measured and significant plume of soot in the stratosphere that approaches a meaningful comparison for the Nuclear Winter hypothesis. The suspension time of particles in the stratosphere is dependant on the size and type of particles. Carbon soot can be so fine that it starts to clump as a result which limits the suspension time in the stratosphere.Soot comes mostly from combustion and is considered the second biggest driver of global warming, according to NIST chemist Christopher Zangmeister. It is made up of small round particles of carbon about 10 or 20 nanometers across. The particles stick together randomly in short chains and clumps of a half dozen or more spheres. These, in turn, clump loosely together to form larger, loose aggregates of 10 or more which over a few hours will compact into a somewhat tighter ball which is atmospheric soot.The interesting question for chemists studying carbon aerosols is how tight? How dense? Among other things, the answer relates to the balance of climate effects from soot: heating from light absorption versus cooling from light reflection.The maximum packing density of objects is a classic problem in mathematics, which has been fully solved for only the simplest cases. The assumed density in models of atmospheric soot is 0.74, which is the maximum packing density of perfect spheres, such as billiard balls, in a given space. But when Zangmeister's team made measurements of the packing density of actual soot particles, the figure they got was 0.36.[85]Other particles found in the stratosphere include volcanic SO2 which only has a suspension time of 45±22 days. [86] To remain aloft, particles must not be too small as then tend to clump and fall out of suspension and particles cannot be too large as they wont stay suspended long on size alone. For a nuclear winter to happen you need to be in the goldilocks zone of particle size or the particles will drop out of suspension quickly.An interesting note about several major recent reports to the contrary of my conclusion and even ones going back 10 years as well. None of these reports question the fuel loading and levels of atmospheric smoke generated. They all seem to use the original basis as put forth by Carl Sagan’s team, even though Sagan himself admitted his model did not work. The footnote here will take you to an example of the poor quality models still being pushed as real science. A Rutgers 2010 report that references the work by Sagan and offers no explanation for the mechanism of smoke and soot transport into the stratosphere. Quality work is not guaranteed just because the sources are listed as a professionals in this field. Healthy skepticism is your friend, use it. [87]So nuclear winter was always a stretch because the science was unfounded and we never had enough high-yield bombs in reality to cause it ever, but for sure in 2017 because we do not have any in the high yield range required within the active strategic nuclear arsenals of Russia or the USA. China has approximately 50 which is not enough to change the outcome and actually is not deemed even a credible threat to the mainland USA.[88]

Q. Why did DuPont sell dynamite in Germany during World War II? Greed.A. The du Pont Co., and particularly GM, was a major contributor to Nazi military efforts to wipe communism off the map of Europe. In 1929, GM bought Adam Opel, Germany’s largest car manufacturer. In 1974, a Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly heard evidence from researcher Bradford Snell proving that that in 1935, GM opened an Opel factory to supply the Nazi’s with “Blitz” military trucks. In appreciation, for this help, Adolf Hitler awarded GM’s chief executive for overseas operations, James Mooney, with the Order of the German Eagle (first class). Besides military trucks, Germany’s GM workers also producing armored cars, tanks and bomber engines.Du Pont’s GM and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey collaborated with I.G. Farben, the Nazi chemical cartel, to form Ethyl GmbH. This subsidiary, now called Ethyl Inc., built German factories to give the Nazis leaded gas fuel (synthetic tetraethyl fuel) for their military vehicles (1936-1939). Snell quotes from German records captured during the war:"The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans [Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil] had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable."IG Farben had bought the patent for the cyanide-based pesticide Zyklon B, which had been invented in Germany in the early 1920s and which originally saw use as an insecticide, especially as a fumigant in grain stores. IG Farben licensed the pesticide to various companies, including the American Cyanamid Company for use, for example, in de-lousing incoming Mexican immigrants in the 1930s, and to the German company Degesch (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung), founded by Fritz Haber, and whose products were used in Holocaust gas chambers. IG Farben owned 42.2 % of the shares of Degesch and was represented in its supervisory board. Pesticides similar to Zyklon B remain in production by other companies, and are used e.g. as insecticides.Of the 24 directors of IG Farben indicted in the so-called IG Farben Trial (1947–1948) before a U.S. military tribunal at the subsequent Nuremberg Trials, 13 were sentenced to prison terms between one and eight years, but most were quickly released and several became senior industry executives in the post-war companies that split off from IG Farben and other companies.Facing the Corporate Roots of American FascismThe du Pont CompanyBy Richard Sanders, Editor, Press for Conversion!In the 1930s, the du Pont and Morgan family empires dominated the American corporate elite and their representatives were central figures in organizing and funding the American Liberty League. The du Pont family was so complicit in this fascist organization that James Farley, FDR's postmaster general and one of his closest advisors, said the American Liberty League "ought to be called the American Cellophane League" because "first it's a Du Pont product and second, you can see right through it'" (Donald R. McCoy, Coming of Age). Gerard Colby, in his book DuPont Dynasty, outlines the family's pivotal role in creating and funding the League. (Click here for an excerpt.) The Dickstein-McCormack Committee learned that weapons and equipment for the fascist plotters’ Croix de feu-like superarmy “could be obtained from the Remington Arms Co., on credit through the Du Ponts.” Du Pont had acquired control of the arms company in 1932.The du Pont Co., formed in 1802 by Elèuthere Irénée du Pont de Nemours, dominated U.S. gunpowder sales for more than a century. Elèuthere I. du Pont’s father, Pierre Samuel, a French economist, politician and publisher had helped negotiate the Paris Treaty to end America’s revolution. His right wing views made French radicals very suspicious and they sentenced him to the guillotine. Somehow, he and his son, Elèuthere, were released and escaped to America, where they arrived January 1, 1800, with a vast fortune.To challenge England’s domination of the global gunpowder trade, Napoleon helped E.I. du Pont establish an American gunpowder business in 1802. Pierre returned to France and negotiated the French sale of about a million square miles of land to America (Louisiana Purchase, 1803). Meanwhile, his son made his first gunpowder sales to a close family friend, President Thomas Jefferson.Du Pont produced only gunpowder. They were the main supplier of this product during many wars, including:* War of 1812 (supplying the U.S. against Britain/Canada)* South American wars (supplying both Spain and Bolivar’s republics)* Mexican-American War, 1846 (supplying the U.S.)* Indian Wars, 1827-1896 (supplying Manifest Destiny’s genocidal westward expansion)* Crimean War, 1854 (supplying both England and Russia)* U.S. Civil war, 1861-1865 (supplying the Northern states)* Spanish-American War, 1898 (supplying the U.S.)* WWI, 1914-1918 (supplied all U.S. orders; 40% of the Allies’ needs)In 1897, when they agreed with European competitors to divide up the world, du Pont got exclusive control of gunpowder sales in the Americas. By 1905, du Pont had assets of 60 million and controlled all U.S. government orders. Du Pont bought out 100 of its American competitors and closed most of them down (1903-1907). In 1907, U.S. anti-Trust laws created two competitors for du Pont and in 1912 the government ordered du Pont to divest from some explosives production. Du Pont then diversified into newspaper publishing, chemicals, paints, varnishes, cellophane and rayon. WWI was particularly profitable. Du Pont, the world’s largest producer of dynamite and smokeless gunpowder, made unheard-of net profits of $250 million.Between the wars, du Pont was the world’s top manufacturer of explosives, the world’s leading chemical company and the top producer of cars and synthetic rubber, another strategic war material. By the 1930s, it owned Mexican and Chilean explosive companies and a Canadian chemical company. Although still the top U.S. gunpowder supplier, this product represented only 2% of its total production.Du Pont’s General Motors Co. funded a vigilante/terrorist organization to stop unionization in its Midwestern factories. Called the “Black Legion,” its members wore black robes decorated with a white skull and crossbones. Concealed behind their slitted hoods, this KKK-like network of white-supremacist thugs threw bombs into union halls, set fire to labor activists’ homes, tortured union organizers and killed at least 50 in Detroit alone. Many of their victims were Blacks lured North by tales of good auto-plant jobs. One of their victims, Rev. Earl Little, was murdered in 1931. His son, later called Malcolm X, was then six. An earlier memory, his first, was a night-time raid in 1929 when the Legion burnt down their house. Gerard Colby had this to say about the Black Legion in his book Dupont Dynasty (1984):"But corporate executives did not give up the tactic of vigilante groups, and on June 1, 1936, Cowdrick wrote Harry Anderson, G.M's labor relations director, to ask his opinion of the Sentinels of the Republic. Anderson was apparently unaware of Irénée du Pont's support of this organization, but offered his own home-brew alternative. "With reference to your letter of June 1 regarding the Sentinels of the Republic," he replied a few days later, "I have never heard of the organization. Maybe you could use a little Black Legion down in your country. It might help."The "Black Legion" Anderson referred to was indeed a great help to General Motors in its struggle to prevent auto workers from unionizing. With members wearing black robes and slitted hoods adorned with white skull and crossbones, the Black Legion was the terror of Michigan and Ohio auto flelds, riding like Klansmen through the night in car caravans, bombing union halls, burning down homes of labor militants, and flogging and murdering union organizers. The organization was divided into arson squads, bombing squads, execution squads, and anti-communist squads, and membership discipline on pain of torture or death was strictly enforced. Legion cells filled G.M. factories, terrorizing workers and recruiting Ku Klux Klansmen.Since 1933 the Black Legion's power had permeated police departments."The Legion, claiming 200,000 members in Michigan, was divided into distinct squads, each focused on a different aspect of their work for du Pont: arson, bombing, execution and anti-communism. The Legion’s cells within GM factories intimidated workers, targeted Jews and recruited for the KKK. They worked together to stop Reds and unions that demanded their labour rights.Thanks to a Senate Munitions Investigating Committee (1934-1936) that examined criminal, war profiteering practices of arms companies during WWI, the public learned that du Pont had led munitions companies in sabotaging a League of Nations’ disarmament conference in Geneva. The committee’s chair, Gerald Nye, said that once “the munitions people of the world had made the treaty a satisfactory one to themselves,...Colonel Simons [of Du Pont] is reporting that even the State Department realized, in effect, who controlled the Nation.”The du Ponts fought back against widespread public condemnation that rightly labeled them “merchants of death.” They claimed that communists were behind the Senate hearings, and blamed the Committee for undermining U.S. military power. In response, Chairman Nye, a Republican from North Dakota, pointing out that du Pont had made six times as many millions of dollars during WWI than during the preceding four years “so naturally Mr. du Pont sees red when he sees these profits attacked by international peace.”OpelOpel BlitzThe du Pont Co., and particularly GM, was a major contributor to Nazi military efforts to wipe communism off the map of Europe. In 1929, GM bought Adam Opel, Germany’s largest car manufacturer. In 1974, a Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopoly heard evidence from researcher Bradford Snell proving that that in 1935, GM opened an Opel factory to supply the Nazi’s with “Blitz” military trucks. In appreciation, for this help, Adolf Hitler awarded GM’s chief executive for overseas operations, James Mooney, with the Order of the German Eagle (first class). Besides military trucks, Germany’s GM workers also producing armored cars, tanks and bomber engines.Du Pont’s GM and Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey collaborated with I.G. Farben, the Nazi chemical cartel, to form Ethyl GmbH. This subsidiary, now called Ethyl Inc., built German factories to give the Nazis leaded gas fuel (synthetic tetraethyl fuel) for their military vehicles (1936-1939). Snell quotes from German records captured during the war:"The fact that since the beginning of the war we could produce lead-tetraethyl is entirely due to the circumstances that, shortly before, the Americans [Du Pont, GM and Standard Oil] had presented us with the production plants complete with experimental knowledge. Without lead-tetraethyl the present method of warfare would be unthinkable."Since WWII, du Pont has continued to be an instrument of U.S. government weapons production. Besides supplying plastics, rubber and textiles to military contractors, it invented various new forms of explosives and rocket propellants, manufactured numerous chemical weapons and was instrumental in building the world’s first plutonium production plant for the atomic bomb. It pumped out Agent Orange and Napalm, thus destroying millions of lives, livelihoods and whole ecosystems in Southeast Asia.With 2,000 brand names, 100,000 employees and annual sales of $25 billion in 1998, du Pont is one of the world’s biggest corporations. It’s 1939 slogan, “Better Things for Better Living…Through Chemistry,” belies a destructive legacy that will last thousands of generations. One of the globe’s worst polluters, it pioneered the creation, marketing and coverup of almost every dangerous chemical toxin ever known. It now faces countless lawsuits for the adverse health and environmental effects of its products, the unsafe working conditions in its factories and the foolhardy, disposal practices it flaunts as final solutions for its waste products. Here is a small sampling of du Pont’s gifts to the planet:* Sulphur dioxide and lead paint* CFCs: 25% of the world’s supply and almost 50% of the U.S. market.* Herbicides and pesticides: brain damage, hormone system disruption.* Formaldehyde: cancer and respiratory illnesses.* Dioxins: Leading the way to create these carcinogens, du Pont then suppressed data on their deadly effects.* Highly-processed, unnutritious products marketed as healthy food.* Genetically modified foods and “Terminator”/“Killer seeds” threaten food security for 1.4 billion people who depend on farm-saved seeds.* Patenting plant genes and stealing the Third World’s genetic resources.* Using U.S. prison labour and factories in many oppressive regimes.* Its oil subsidiary, Conoco, provided petrochemical raw materials and caused environmental devastation.* Du Pont is one of the world’s biggest producers of green house gases.* Sold for 33 years, the fungicide Benlate destroyed crops, shrimp farms and caused birth defects.* Since the 1920s, du Pont produced leaded gas which is responsible for 80-90% of the world’s environmental lead contamination. Besides fueling Nazi war machines that rolled and flew across Europe killing tens of millions, this product’s legacy includes retarding children’s mental health and causing hypertension in adults. Du Pont’s helped stop the U.S. ban until 1996, and then increased its overseas sales.References:H.C. Engelbrecht and F.C. Hanigan, Merchants of Death, 1934DuPont (E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.)http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/profiles/dupont/dupont4.htmGerard Colby, Du Pont Dynasty, 1984Charles Higham, Trading with the Enemy, 1983.Researchers Morton Mintz and Jerry S. Cohen, in their book, "Power Inc.,The Elkhorn Manifesto Part II, U.S. CORPORATIONS AND THE NAZIShttp://www.wealth4freedom.com/Elkhorn2.html"Explosives," Dupont websitehttp://heritage.dupont.com/floater/fl_explosives/floater.shtmlEl-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz "Malcolm X"http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/2469/malcolm2.htmlSource:Press for Conversion! magazine, Issue # 53, "Facing the Corporate Roots of American Fascism," March 2004. Published by the Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade."Irénée du Pont" on Revolvy.com (1876-1963)By Charles HighamIrénée, the most imposing and powerful member of the du Pont clan, was obsessed with Hitler’s principles. He keenly followed the future Fuhrer’s career in the 1920s. On Sept. 7, 1926, in a speech to the American Chemical Society, he advocated a race of supermen, to be achieved by injecting special drugs into them in boyhood to make their characters to order. He insisted his men reach physical standards equivalent to that of a Marine and have blood as pure as that in the veins of the Vikings. Despite the fact that he had Jewish blood in his own veins, his anti-Semitism matched that of Hitler.In outright defiance of Roosevelt’s desire to improve working conditions for the average man, GM and the Du Ponts instituted the speedup systems. These forced men to work at terrifying speeds on the assembly lines. Many died of the heat and pressure, increased by fear of losing their jobs. Irénée paid almost $1 million from his own pocket for armed and gas-equipped storm troops modeled on the Gestapo to sweep through the plants and beat up anyone who proved rebellious. He hired the Pinkerton Agency to send its swarms of detectives through the whole [du Pont] chemicals, munitions and auto empire to spy on left-wingers or other malcontents.Source: Trading with the Enemy: An Expose of the Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949, 1983.Nobel's explosive legacyDynamite was much in demand. It was peak time for building roads, canals, railways and mines. The detonator which Alfred designed just added to the business.He set up about 90 factories and laboratories around the world, some of which became parts of big chemical companies such as DuPont, and Germany's infamous IG Farben, the company which made the gas for the Nazis' concentration camp death chambers and was split up after the war to form Hoechst, Bayer and BASF.World War II overviewIG Farben factory in Monowitz (near Auschwitz) 1941 50.036094°N 19.275534°EWoman with OST-Arbeiterbadge at the IG Farben plant in Auschwitz concentration camp.Zyklon B labelsDuring the planning of the occupation of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland, IG Farben cooperated closely with Nazi officials and directed which chemical plants should be secured and delivered to IG Farben.In 1941, an investigation exposed a "marriage" cartel between John D. Rockefeller's United States-based Standard Oil Co. and I.G. Farben.It also brought new evidence concerning complex price and marketing agreements between DuPont, a major investor in and producer of leaded gasoline, United States Industrial Alcohol Company and its subsidiary, Cuba Distilling Co. The investigation was eventually dropped, like dozens of others in many different kinds of industries, due to the need to enlist industry support in the war effort.However, the top directors of many oil companies agreed to resign, and oil industry stocks in molasses companies were sold off as part of a compromise worked out.IG Farben had bought the patent for the cyanide-based pesticide Zyklon B, which had been invented in Germany in the early 1920s and which originally saw use as an insecticide, especially as a fumigant in grain stores. IG Farben licensed the pesticide to various companies, including the American Cyanamid Company for use, for example, in de-lousing incoming Mexican immigrants in the 1930s, and to the German company Degesch (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Schädlingsbekämpfung), founded by Fritz Haber, and whose products were used in Holocaust gas chambers. IG Farben owned 42.2 % of the shares of Degesch and was represented in its supervisory board. Pesticides similar to Zyklon B remain in production by other companies, and are used e.g. as insecticides.Of the 24 directors of IG Farben indicted in the so-called IG Farben Trial (1947–1948) before a U.S. military tribunal at the subsequent Nuremberg Trials, 13 were sentenced to prison terms between one and eight years, but most were quickly released and several became senior industry executives in the post-war companies that split off from IG Farben and other companies.Some of the people who served prison sentences but later became leaders in post war-companies include:Hermann Schmitz, who became a member of the supervisory board for the Deutsche Bank in Berlin and honorary chairman of the supervisory board of Rheinische Stahlwerke AGGeorg von Schnitzler, serving as president of the Deutsch-Ibero-Amerikanische GesellschaftFritz ter Meer, becoming chairman of the supervisory board of Bayer AG and a supervisory board member of several firmsOtto Ambros, holding seats on supervisory boards Chemie Grünenthal (being active during the Contergan scandal), Feldmühle, and Telefunken, and working as an economic consultant in MannheimHeinrich Bütefisch, becoming a member of the supervisory boards for Deutsche Gasolin AG, Feldmühle, and Papier- und Zellstoffwerke AG, and consulting with Ruhrchemie AG Oberhausen and subsequently joining its supervisory board.Max Ilgner, becoming the chairman of the executive board of a chemistry firm in Zug.Heinrich Oster, becoming a member of the supervisory board of Gelsenberg AG.Some of the people who were acquitted and later became leaders in post war-companies include:Fritz Gajewski, becoming chairman of the board of Dynamit Nobel.Christian Schneider (chemist), becoming a member of the supervisory boards of Süddeutsche Kalkstickstoff-Werke AG Trostberg and Rheinauer Holzhydrolyse-GmbH, Mannheim.Hans Kühne, taking a position at Bayer Elberfeld.Carl Lautenschläger, becoming a research associate at Bayer ElberfeldWilhelm Rudolf Mann, resuming his position as head of pharmaceutical sales at Bayer. He also presided over the GfK, Society for Consumer Research, and the Foreign Trade Committee of the BDI, Federation of German Industry.Carl Wurster, resuming his position of chairman of the managing board, and was the major force behind the reestablishment of BASF. After retiring, he continued to be active as a member and chairman of supervisory boards in companies such as Bosch, Degussa (later being acquired by RAG ), and Allianz.Heinrich Gattineau, becoming a member of the board and supervisory council of WASAG Chemie-AG, and Mitteldeutsche Sprengstoff-Werke GmbH.Ruins ofthe synthetic petrol plant (Hydrierwerke Pölitz – Aktiengeselschaft) in Police, PolandFacilities during World War IIIG Farben facilities were bombing targets of the Oil Campaign of World War II, and up to 1941, there were 5 Nazi Germany Buna plants that produced Buna Nby the Lebedev process.Dwory The Buna Chemical Plant at Dwory was under construction by 1943, after a March 2, 1942 contract with "IG Farbenindustrie AG Auschwitz." At its peak in 1944, this factory made use of 83,000 slave laborers. Today, the plant operates as "Dwory S.A." FrankfurtIn addition to the "cavernous" IG Farben building at Frankfurt, a Hoechst AGchemical factory in Frankfurt was bombed by the RAF on 26 September 1944.Ludwigshafen and Oppau The I.G. Farbenindustrie, A. G., Works, Ludwigshafen and Oppau had several chemical plants. Pölitz, North Germany (today Police, Poland)In 1937, IG Farben, Rhenania-Ossag, and Deutsch-Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft founded the Hydrierwerke Pölitz AG synthetic fuel plant. By 1943, the plant produced 15% of Nazi Germany's synthetic fuels, 577,000 tons. Waldenburg An IG Farben plant was at WaldenburgBreak-up and liquidationDue to the company's entanglement with the Nazi regime, it was considered by the Allies to be too morally corrupt to be allowed to continue to exist. The Soviet Union seized most of IG Farben's assets located in the Soviet occupation zone, as part of their reparation payments. In the western occupation zone, however, the idea of destroying the company was very quickly abandoned as the policy of denazification evolved, in part due to the need for productive industry to support reconstruction, and in part because of the company's large entanglement with American companies, notably with the successors of Standard Oil which IG Farben was modelled after and which had itself been broken up into several companies. In the late 1940s, IG Farben was being rebuilt in the western zones and continuing doing business. In 1951, the company was split into its original constituent companies. The four largest quickly bought the smaller ones.Today Agfa, BASF and Bayer remain, Hoechst having in 1999 spun off its chemical business as Celanese AG before merging with Rhône-Poulenc to form Aventis, which later merged with Sanofi-Synthélabo to form Sanofi. Two years earlier, another part of Hoechst was sold in 1997 to the chemical spin-off of Sandoz, the Muttenz (Switzerland) based Clariant. The successor companies remain some of the world's largest chemical and pharmaceutical companies.Though IG Farben was officially put into liquidation in 1952, this did not end the company's legal existence. The purpose of a corporation's continuing existence, being "in liquidation", is to ensure an orderly wind-down of its affairs. As almost all its assets and all its activities had been transferred to the original constituent companies, IG Farben was from 1952 largely a shell company with no real activity.In 2001, IG Farben announced it would formally wind up its affairs in 2003. It had been continually criticised over the years for failing to pay any compensation to the former laborers, the stated reason for its continued existence after 1952 being to administer its claims and pay its debts. The company, in turn, blamed ongoing legal disputes with the former captive labourers as being the reason it could not be legally dissolved and the remaining assets distributed as reparations.On November 10, 2003, its liquidators filed for insolvency, but again, this does not affect the existence of the company as a legal entity. While it did not join a national compensation fund set up in 2001 to pay the victims, it contributed 500,000 DM(£160,000 or €255,646) towards a foundation for former captive labourers under the Nazi regime. The remaining property, worth DM 21 million (£6.7 million or €10.7 million), went to a buyer.year, the company's annual meeting in Frankfurt was the site of demonstrations by hundreds of protesters.Its stock (denominated in Reichsmarks) traded on German markets until early 2012. As of 2012, it still existed as a corporation in liquidation.IG Farben TrialThe defendants in the dock on the first day of the IG Farben trial.The United States of America vs. Carl Krauch, et al., also known as the IG Farben Trial, was the sixth of the twelve trials for war crimes the U.S. authorities held in their occupation zone in Germany (Nuremberg) after the end of World War II, against leading industrialists of Nazi Germany for their conduct during the Nazi regime. The defendants in this case had all been directors of IG Farben. Of the 24 defendants arraigned, 13 were found guilty. The indictment was filed on 3 May 1947; the trial lasted from 27 August 1947 until 30 July 1948.All defendants who were sentenced to prison received early release. Most were quickly restored to their directorships, and some were awarded the Federal Cross of Merit.ProductsThe products produced by IG Farben include synthetic dyes, nitrile rubber, polyurethane, Prontosil, and Resochin, among others. The nerve agent Sarin was first discovered by IG Farben.The company also made the poison gas Zyklon B, which was used to murder prisoners at Auschwitz concentration camp in World War II. One product crucial to the operations of the Wehrmacht was synthetic fuel, made from ligniteusing the coal liquefaction process.IG Farben scientists made fundamental contributions to all areas of chemistry. Otto Bayer discovered the polyaddition for the synthesis of polyurethane in 1937.Several IG Farben scientists were awarded a Nobel Prize. Carl Bosch and Friedrich Bergius were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1931 "in recognition of their contributions to the invention and development of chemical high pressure methods".Gerhard Domagk was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1939 "for the discovery of the antibacterial effects of prontosil".Kurt Alder was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (together with Otto Diels) in 1950 "for his [their] discovery and development of the diene synthesis"."The Nazi Hydra In America [How America's Right Wing Politicians Are Plunging The Country Into A Fascist Police State] (archive.org)"