# See how a NUCDET might affect your town



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Check how a nuclear detonaiton might (or might not) affect your location.
This software has a great fueature wiht weapons sizes.
I recommend not using the extreme small sizes but not the rare big ones either.

Look for your address and then pick a likely target in your state.

I know there are still people out there that think a Nuclear detotaniton 20 miles away from them, will "blow us up":

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

That works good for a single simple blast, but what happens when someone launches their equivalent of what our Trident Subs carry?


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

labotomi said:


> That works good for a single simple blast, but what happens when someone launches their equivalent of what our Trident Subs carry?


You usually make such good posts and now this???


----------



## Gians (Nov 8, 2012)

Thanks for the link BlueZ
Basically it's KYAGB :wave:


----------



## oif_ghost_tod (Sep 25, 2012)

While this is a useful tool for visualizing the affected area around the blast site, it doesn't include things like prevailing wind effects, or the spread of radiation by other means, such as commerce (trucks/cars/jets) or even first responders.

It also doesn't cover the possibility of an air burst, which changes the shape and size of the blast zone and the amount of fallout introduced into the atmosphere.

I personally wouldn't use this as anything more than an educational tool. Get your potassium iodide now, while its cheap, and pick up a personal dosimeter as well, so you won't have to guess if the radiation has reached you.

Oh, and if you are sitting there doubting the possibility of nuclear attack, this map should help you realize just how close you may be to nuclear power facilities, many of which are getting older.









If you are living in one of the red circles, you should have a dosimeter and personal protection gear, as well as working knowledge of how to properly decontaminate your people. After the tsunami in Japan, its foolish to believe that our plants would fare any better in a disaster.


----------



## pawpaw (Dec 21, 2011)

The first and the previous post go well together. I have three nuclear plants some 200 miles to my west, in Louisiana. If a nuke strike hit there, I'd still be up S*** creek if those plants were damaged beyond control.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

oif_ghost_tod said:


> 1)While this is a useful tool for visualizing the affected area around the blast site, it doesn't include things like prevailing wind effects,
> 
> 2) or the spread of radiation by other means, such as commerce (trucks/cars/jets) or even first responders.
> 
> ...


1) True 

2) Huh?:nuts:

3) What makes you think these are groundbursts? in Nuclear modeling you uuslly assume a low altitude airburst unless specied otherwise. For a low yeild low altitude Burst building in urba anreas would do so much shielding thet theroetical circles would be evcen an approximation anymore.

4) Like the site says a simulation tool. Short of having multiple surveyt teams on hand after an attack we will not know gorund truth what what will happen in the future

5) What pray tell, do nuclear facilities possibly have to do with nuclear attack hazard? :brickwall:


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

pawpaw said:


> The first and the previous post go well together. I have three nuclear plants some 200 miles to my west, in Louisiana. If a nuke strike hit there, I'd still be up S*** creek if those plants were damaged beyond control.


Ok I'll explain:

1) a nuclear device needs fissile material arranged in a specific way, hitting a nuclea power plant directly would NOT make it stronger

2) Nuclear power contianment systems are very robust, it needs a near direct hit to crack open such a thing.. and why would you do that intesad of using on a city for much great death and damage?

3) How would any nucler explsions 200 miles west affect you?

Thats too far even for fallout thats storng enoughto damage you.
Is it above regulatory peacetime limits sure ... but they dont really mean all that much once real things start happenbd all around.

If your powerplants got hit ,nuclear or otherwise, your primary and only serious threat would be the loss of power in your area.
And thats serious.


----------



## kejmack (May 17, 2011)

Yes, there are benefits to living out in the middle of nowhere.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

BlueZ is correct, nuclear war is not the end of life. Radiation is not something to panic over. Gamma and neutron radiation only occurs at the time of explosion. Neutron radiation is very dangerous, gamma will only kill if your exposure is high enough. Fallout is the only part of this that the average person needs to protect against and the fallout will only be alpha and beta radiation, Alpha radiation can be stopped with just a protective clothing. Beta radiation will penetrate 1/4 inch of a book.

All you need is a good face mask and disposable coveralls with hood and lots of duct tape. Beyond this learning how to decontaminate yourself and others in be in order.

I worked at a nuclear power plant a while back and had extension training in how to protect myself. Now, just to let you know in 6 months I acquired 1 rem of exposure to gamma radiation and that was in 1980 and I'm still alive. One of the guys I worked with had close to 40 rem of exposure and the last I heard he was still alive.

BTW US nuclear plants are considerably safer and better built then the Japanese reactors


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

BlueZ said:


> You usually make such good posts and now this???


My point all the major nuclear capable countries have gone away from the single point warheads with a huge yield. The preferred types are multiple smaller warheads in a cluster pattern.

Specifically the Trident submarines carry 24 missiles each having 10 45kt warheads that are designed to blanket the targeted area.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Tweto said:


> BlueZ is correct, nuclear war is not the end of life. Radiation is not something to panic over. Gamma and neutron radiation only occurs at the time of explosion.
> 
> BTW US nuclear plants are considerably safer and better built then the Japanese reactors


Gamma radiation is also emitted by other elements in the decay chain. Fallout contamination can emit gamma radiation as well as beta and alpha.

Alpha is only a concern if ingested. It's stopped by the dead layer of your skin.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

labotomi said:


> Gamma radiation is also emitted by other elements in the decay chain. Fallout contamination can emit gamma radiation as well as beta and alpha.
> 
> Alpha is only a concern if ingested. It's stopped by the dead layer of your skin.


If you are worried about gamma radiation then you are to close ground zero and possible decaying pieces of the bomb. If you are that close then you most likely will not survive. I did not see the point in bringing that up.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Tweto said:


> If you are worried about gamma radiation then you are to close ground zero and possible decaying pieces of the bomb. If you are that close then you most likely will not survive. I did not see the point in bringing that up.


No. You don't have to be close to ground zero to receive gamma radiation from fallout.

As I stated, gamma radiation is also emitted by decaying elements in fallout which can spread over a long distance. It's not limited to the immediate area of the blast.


----------



## oif_ghost_tod (Sep 25, 2012)

I only included the info about our nations nuclear reactors because no one can prove to me that they are 100% safe. There's nasty stuff in them, and they are most certainly prone to SOME kind of attack or natural disaster.
I think it foolhardy to prepare for a nuclear attack of any kind without looking at domestic nuclear plants as a possible threat.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

oif_ghost_tod said:


> I only included the info about our nations nuclear reactors because no one can prove to me that they are 100% safe.


Your pillow isn't 100% safe. Why ask for unrealistic assurances?


----------



## oif_ghost_tod (Sep 25, 2012)

labotomi said:


> Your pillow isn't 100% safe


Yeah, but I don't think al-qaeda is interested in compromising my pillow in order to build a dirty bomb.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

labotomi said:


> No. You don't have to be close to ground zero to receive gamma radiation from fallout.
> 
> As I stated, gamma radiation is also emitted by decaying elements in fallout which can spread over a long distance. It's not limited to the immediate area of the blast.


it is the high activty bomb products that do that and they WILL decay to less than 10 half lives within 3 days.

within a day foi traveling downrange noit only are they plenty decayed but they are so diluted as ot be harmless.

The myth of large contamination from one bomb is because you will ahve <detectable> amounts over alarge area..

But whats detectable and above OSHA/EPA for the public ( which is a small fraction of what a raditaiton worker ius allowed) is NOT a real health threat.

Especially in a post-SHTF world we will have different worries than whether 1 in a 1000 people may die at 88 instead of 88.5 due to an earlier cancer.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

labotomi said:


> My point all the major nuclear capable countries have gone away from the single point warheads with a huge yield. The preferred types are multiple smaller warheads in a cluster pattern.
> 
> Specifically the Trident submarines carry 24 missiles each having 10 45kt warheads that are designed to blanket the targeted area.


Still not really relevent to this modeling software, maybe I am missing something?


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

oif_ghost_tod said:


> Yeah, but I don't think al-qaeda is interested in compromising my pillow in order to build a dirty bomb.


Even though nuclear fiel rods near the end of a cycle are among the very few things usable ot make an RDD it is the last place a terroist would tuyr to get them form.

SOmone who relies and stealth and guile is not going to plan for nor be able to execute an attack on a fortress manned by 30 plus fully aremd and traned men who also know their plant better tnhan anyone AND how have engineering controls on place to channel attackers into kill zones.


----------



## oif_ghost_tod (Sep 25, 2012)

BlueZ said:


> Even though nuclear fiel rods near the end of a cycle are among the very few things usable ot make an RDD it is the last place a terroist would tuyr to get them form.
> 
> SOmone who relies and stealth and guile is not going to plan for nor be able to execute an attack on a fortress manned by 30 plus fully aremd and traned men who also know their plant better tnhan anyone AND how have engineering controls on place to channel attackers into kill zones.


30 fully armed guys...

Do they have the means of stopping an airliner attack like 9-11? What about something other than terrorism, perhaps a direct earthquake impact, hurricane, or massive tornado? Meteor impact?

All I'm saying is they aren't foolproof. Nothing is. Everything built can be compromised given the right circumstances.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

I was replieng to the post about terrorist grabbing stuff for an RDD.

But you are correct that nothing is foolproof but i dont understand the fear of the as there are many dangeours things that are not foolproof.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

oif_ghost_tod said:


> Yeah, but I don't think al-qaeda is interested in compromising my pillow in order to build a dirty bomb.


I think my comment went over your head.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

BlueZ said:


> Still not really relevent to this modeling software, maybe I am missing something?


No, that's exactly the point. The modeling software would only be useful for a single point nuclear blast.

That type of weapon would only be used by terrorists (highly unlikely) or a nation with crude capabilities (North Korea) and only be a concern for Hawaii, Alaska, and maybe somehow a slight remote chance for the Pacific Coast


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

BlueZ said:


> it is the high activty bomb products that do that and they WILL decay to less than 10 half lives within 3 days.


Many have half lives longer than the 3.6 hours your example gives.



BlueZ said:


> within a day foi traveling downrange noit only are they plenty decayed but they are so diluted as ot be harmless.


How far can fallout travel in one day? How far do storms travel? I'll agree that it's diluted and not a danger for producing acute doses, but the chronic dose will be high enough to produce more effects than the loss of 1/2 year of life as you cite below.

This also doesn't necessarily mean it's a post apocalyptic world. Understandably Chernobyl was different as it wasn't a nuclear blast, but the problems caused to areas a considerable distance away are significant and ongoing.



BlueZ said:


> The myth of large contamination from one bomb is because you will ahve <detectable> amounts over alarge area..


I'll agree that unfounded fear will lead to over exaggerated claims of a nuclear wasteland, but there will be a sizable area that is unusable and dangerous area to inhabit.



BlueZ said:


> But whats detectable and above OSHA/EPA for the public ( which is a small fraction of what a raditaiton worker ius allowed) is NOT a real health threat.


5 Rem/year is the limit for one authorized to work at a nuclear facility. What is the yearly limit for those not authorized to work at a nuclear facility? I'm not aware of a set dose limit



BlueZ said:


> Especially in a post-SHTF world we will have different worries than whether 1 in a 1000 people may die at 88 instead of 88.5 due to an earlier cancer.


Too many assume this post shtf world will be apocalyptic. I think many wish or hope for this to happen.


----------



## Tweto (Nov 26, 2011)

labotomi said:


> Gamma radiation is also emitted by other elements in the decay chain. Fallout contamination can emit gamma radiation as well as beta and alpha.
> 
> Alpha is only a concern if ingested. It's stopped by the dead layer of your skin.


If it makes you feel better, then I give you permission to panic. After a few days you will calm down when you realize that you are fine even if you have been gamma eradicated. 600 rem is the 50/50 eradicated level for death. To get that much you have to be right in the center of the explosion.

I'm probably the only person on this forum to have real life experience with Gamma, Alpha, and Beta radiation and how to detect it and avoid it. It not that hard to do.

Sheeple believe what they hear from movies, books, and you tube. When I watch these movies I just think of them as entertainment, that's all. They are not even close to reality.

No mater what I say you you still see it your way. That's fine, we will leave it at that.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Tweto said:


> I'm probably the only person on this forum to have real life experience with Gamma, Alpha, and Beta radiation and how to detect it and avoid it.


My 9 years working on, in and operating a nuclear reactor disagrees with your statement



Tweto said:


> After a few days you will calm down when you realize that you are fine even if you have been gamma *eradicated*.


I think the term is "irradiated". If I were eradicated, I don't think calming down would be an option nor would I consider myself to be "fine"


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

labotomi said:


> 1)Many have half lives longer than the 3.6 hours your example gives.
> 
> 2) What is the yearly limit for those not authorized to work at a nuclear facility? I'm not aware of a set dose limit
> 
> .


1) Three days = 72 hours = 10 half lives or more of all isotopes of 7.2 hr half life or above 

2) CFR 10 states: .2 rem for members of the general public, .5 rem for public visitors to a facility who are not radiation workers


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

BlueZ said:


> 1) Three days = 72 hours = 10 half lives or more of all isotopes of 7.2 hr half life or above


Oops. 72 hours... I think I used 36 



BlueZ said:


> 2) CFR 10 states: .2 rem for members of the general public, .5 rem for public visitors to a facility who are not radiation workers


Many can get more than that from natural background sources. I can see giving dosimiters to visitors, but how is the general public exposure determined?

.5 rem is still a lot even for visitors. Not that it's a hazardous level, just where are these people going to get those doses?


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

You are right, "natural" (and averaged w/ man made) background alone is .36 rem/yr


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

labotomi said:


> 1) but how is the general public exposure determined?
> 
> 2).5 rem is still a lot even for visitors. Not that it's a hazardous level, just where are these people going to get those doses?


1) in case of an accidentral exposure by a member of the general public (which I dont think has ever happend to .5 rem) youc an count the DNA di-mer and get a pretty close approximation of dose.

Of course DNA dimer counting only works when there is a dose that has a physiological effect which won't happen at .5
If memory serves (am too lazy to look it up) think you need at least 20 or 30 rem and more to be able to see it on examination in the blood.

So w/o a dosimeter maybe modeling/emipirically?
it sure sounds like an interesting challenge

2) yes .5 rem, while harmless is definetly a lot to pick up in a visit, but then again its the <upper> limit I am sure few , if any, have even come close.


----------

