On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 11:45:52PM -0000, xxxxxx@quibell.org.uk wrote:
> ...snip...

> Outside the timeframe of that battle I'd be more inclined to agree
> with you. i.e. that the effects of a nuclear strike that happened 2
> years ago would take more time to clean up that a 30 second burst of
> a nuclear damper.

I would disagree here. Radiation effects naturally lessen over
time. My conjecture is that the nuclear damper has less work to do to
clean up an area which was irradiated in battle two years ago then it
would to clean an area that was irradiated 30 seconds ago. Having said
that, I do concede that cleaning up an area irradiated in a battle two
years ago could be a *different* job than cleaning up an area damaged
a few seconds ago. IIRC, nuclear dampers work by changing the relative
strength of the fundemental forces of the universe but that might not
be right. If it is then one could assume that a nuclear damper could
create a volume into which a slug of enriched uranium could be
tranmuted into a relatively harmless mix of uranium and thorium. Of
course I'm assuming that when Uranium undergoes atomic decay, thorium
is one of the major byproducts. So, in the simplest of terms, a nuclear
damper alters the fundamental forces of the universe such that the
process of radioactive decay goes faster.

Everyone's Traveller Universe is different though.

--
Chris

     __o          "All I was trying to do was get home from work."
   _`\<,_           -Rosa Parks
___(*)/_(*)_____________________________________________________________
Christopher Sean Hilton                    [chris/at/vindaloo/dot/com]