Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

Comment author: turchin 05 January 2016 11:48:11AM 0 points [-]

I read about this correlation before. I can't now open your first link (give me access), but I remember that when I read it I thought that the correlation may be artificial because of arbitrary cutoff at 8.3. That is if we have complex random data we could search for different cutoffs until we find the one which will provide us a "correlation". But it is a random event.

Anyway, your point is true - we could use nukes to prevent some risks, including asteroid deflection, controlled volcano eruptions and EQ energy release. But it was out of the scope of this map, may be goof for another one.

Comment author: flx 05 January 2016 04:56:46PM 0 points [-]

Uh, sorry, I thought the image was public, it should be now.

Comment author: flx 05 January 2016 10:09:10AM 0 points [-]

"Triggering natural risks", you say. Well, it is possible. But there is actually an interesting correlation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5thEFwXjxvTWkt0djJ3akpQNHM/view?usp=sharing Top plot - summary energy of all (disclosed) underground nuclear blasts (converted to magnitude) Bottom plot - earthquakes with magnitude >= 8.3.

Source: http://ufn.ru/ru/articles/2010/3/f/ (unfortunately, in russian only, don't know if anybody published similar research in english).

So, maybe it is possible to use nuclear blasts to prevent natural risks, not trigger them.