# Nuclear attack?



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

What is your plan in case of nuclear attack? If multiple nuclear devices were detonated in the US, fallout and winds would possibly make much of the country unfit for producing food and livestock would be all but wiped out. It would take years for the soil to be plantable again. How would you plan for this? I live in the evac zone for a nuclear power facility so this is my worst case scenario and honestly I don't know how to plan for this as my plan, along with many others, is to live off the land hunting fishing and farming.


----------



## ZoomZoom (Dec 18, 2009)

8thDayStranger said:


> I live in the evac zone for a nuclear power facility so this is my worst case scenario and honestly I don't know how to plan for this as my plan, along with many others, is to live off the land hunting fishing and farming.


A nuclear war is a lot different then an evac for a nuke power plant.

For the latter (nuke plant), move hastily upwind from the event. Anyplace upwind should be fine and being a localized event, it shouldn't be an issue.

For an all-out nuke war... Well, that's a bit harder to prep for. I'd get the items you would need for protection and monitoring. Not everything is going to be nasty in terms of radiation. Nukes have been blown up over 2000 times all over the world and we're still here.

Watch the video to see where all they've been used.


----------



## hiwall (Jun 15, 2012)

My current plan if there is a nuclear attack is to probably die. That may change as I get into prepping more.


----------



## CrackbottomLouis (May 20, 2012)

I got some good tips from the Jehrico (?) Series.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

ZoomZoom said:


> A nuclear war is a lot different then an evac for a nuke power plant.
> 
> For the latter (nuke plant), move hastily upwind from the event. Anyplace upwind should be fine and being a localized event, it shouldn't be an issue.
> 
> ...


----------



## majmill (Jun 6, 2012)

Ah, nuclear attacks! Yea, I remember hiding under my desk in grade school, practicing shelter for when the Russians nuked us. There was a saying at that time, "the best protection from nuclear attack was not to be there when the bomb goes off". Personally I do not think a large scale nuke attack is as likely as several terrorist type attacks.

However, I would like to reccommend two old fiction books that have a lot of good info on nuclear survival:
PULLING THROUGH by DEAN ING and
MALEVIL by ROBERT MERLE
Both are good stories filled with useful info.


----------



## Indiana_Jones (Nov 15, 2011)

I'm of the opinion that we cannot expect to be prepared for every situation. Especially a multi-nuclear burst. I think we should do as much as possible to survive the survivable things and allow God to take care of the rest. Remember there are many things worse than death. Something that took me a while to learn in my life is that worry accomplishes nothing.


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Fallout from a nuclear explosion is dangerous for 3 days.
That's it.

Just stay indoor in the middle of the hosue if you know or suspect you are a in fallout zone.
Stay away form the room adjoining the outside.
but you can enter them for short time to get stuff out of them if needed.

Thats the solution to fallout.

"making soil unusable" is by todays EPA/OSHA standards which are ridicolously low and follow the "no minimal damage dose" model, which is flawed.


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

CrackbottomLouis said:


> I got some good tips from the Jehrico (?) Series.


They are thinking of bring Jehrico back ... I just saw something about it...

I will probably run toward the blast... just so I don't linger .... 30 miles from Indian Point old rickety nuke plant......:gaah:


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

So after reading more the dangers aren't as great as I first thought, especially from a nuclear bomb. I still worry about full meltdowns at the over 100 nuclear reactors in the us. However most of these seem to be in the east so top of my list is haul tail west. 

There is no data to determine the effects of full blown meltdowns that are not contained. All nuclear disasters have been eventually stopped by man. In a total blackout situation who knows the damage that could be done when all facilities experience full core meltdowns in multiple reactors. That's still a scary thought. Any person, plant or animal in the fallout area not in a shelter would have some serious issues regardless of the scale of the meltdown.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

It really depends on the nature of the nuclear attack. There could be Iran or North Korea firing two or three nukes at some of our major cities. Or there could be a full nuclear exchange between the US and Russia or China.

Most Americans would survive a small attack but if we have 100 nukes land in America we're all probably toast.

I don't have any plans in the event of a nuclear war. I expect the US to be hit eventually by Iran using short range missiles fired from container ships but I would expect only the east coast to be affected.


----------



## Utahnprepper (Jan 29, 2013)

Jericho is coming back???? Sweeeet.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

8thDayStranger said:


> There is no data to determine the effects of full blown meltdowns that are not contained. All nuclear disasters have been eventually stopped by man.


Not true. Many are stopped by the inherent characteristics of U235 as well as the moderator (Water). If not for those two things, we would have had many more incidents, but reactors are basically self regulating as far as temperature is concerned. The incidents to which you refer are extraordinary exceptions. Chernobyl was a design that was ass backwards to what we use in the US. Fukishima was subjected to far above what it was designed to withstand with the earthquake and still would have been relatively minor if it hadn't been hit with a 30 meter tsunami shortly afterward. SL1 was a bad design and proper maintenance techniques were not followed due to inexperience and it being an "experimental" reactor (even then, the effects were minor). 3 Mile Island was due to complacent operators combined with faulty indications and their not understanding (or believing) their indications and even then the release was minor even though the press made it out to be the end of the world.



8thDayStranger said:


> In a total blackout situation who knows the damage that could be done when all facilities experience full core meltdowns in multiple reactors. That's still a scary thought. Any person, plant or animal in the fallout area not in a shelter would have some serious issues regardless of the scale of the meltdown.


A meltdown is simply an opening in the uranium fuel cells. It does not mean that the primary containment (reactor vessel) has been damaged. It also does not mean the secondary containment (the concrete/steel structure around the reactor) has been damaged.

Meltdowns would be a rarity if not totally impossible because any loss of power results in a immediate full shutdown which stops the accelerated fission process that sustains criticality in operating reactors. In the event something goes wrong with the SCRAM mechanism, Boron is injected into the primary system which accomplishes the same thing.

Since the primary U235 fissions are basically stopped the only concern you have is the heat generated by the natural decay of the fission daughter element. That heat generation falls rapidly after shutdown and is only a concern immediately after shutdown "if running at full power". At most the generated heat is significant for a few days.

All reactor plants have to have redundant systems of backup power to use for cooling in the event something like this occurs. There can always be some failures, but they will be few so the vast majority of nuclear facilities will not present any danger. If one has trouble with the release of radioactive materials to the environment, try and stay away. The first and most common release is steam to reduce pressure that has built up in order to prevent an explosion (like a pressure cooker). The only concern with this steam is Iodine 131. This is what the Potassium Iodate pills are designed to help. Don't take them for any other reason such as a nuclear bomb. They will do more harm than good in those situations. They are only for protecting the thyroid gland from accumulation of radioactive iodine isotopes _while you evacuate the area_.

If you live within 10 miles of an operating nuclear plant, the local government will give you and your family iodine pills for free just for a scenario like that. If you live outside that 10 mile radius, you shouldn't have a need of the pills unless you plan on ignoring the warnings and any common sense and staying in the area.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

Utahnprepper said:


> Jericho is coming back???? Sweeeet.


+1
Now if they'd bring back Firefly, I wouldn't care about the apocalypse.


----------



## RevWC (Mar 28, 2011)

I am from the jump under the desk school era. What we were taught was to put your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye! :lolsmash: sorry couldn't resist!


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

Remember, everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died and the sites are uninhabitable wastelands to this day.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

swjohnsey said:


> Remember, everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died and the sites are uninhabitable wastelands to this day.


Do the people living there know this?


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

My point exactly.


----------



## seanallen (Nov 13, 2012)

Ive discussed this nuke survival stuff w a lot of ppl to date on different forums and in person. Most ppl seem to have a general idea of what to do. What ive heard is one of the most probable targets is the Yellowstone caldera. First time someone mentioned it to me i was , like" huh? ". After they explained i was dismissive. The more i thought about it and looked into it the more i realised its entirely possible, probable even. If some evildoers were to want total decimation of America, then that would be the place to start. Ten groundbursts around the perimeter of that valley would do it. I wonder if there is some way to get our armed forces to keep some hardcore security in that area. Any suggestions folks? How do we guard such a huge area against infiltration and destruction?


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

swjohnsey said:


> Remember, everyone in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died and the sites are uninhabitable wastelands to this day.


I understand you and your friend feel the need to be facetious and that's fine. It takes all types to make the world go around.

I earlier stated I was wrong about the environmental effects of nuclear bombs. However since you want to bring up these two bombings, to act as if they were nothing is wrong in itself. With a death toll of 170,000 in the intitial blast combined with 50,000-70,000 deaths within a few weeks from radiation exposure, I find it hard to act as if there is nothing to fearfull of in a nuclear attack. Especially if it was a widespread, multiple bomb attack. The theories on nuclear winter, however flawed in respect to severity (ice ages and such), hold some truths. Also the displacement of people and collapse of surrounding infrastructure due to chaos sets up dangers that exponentially multiply the chaos. So to say "wait a couple days and take these pills and it'll all be ok" is grossly understated.

As far as nuclear plants and meltdowns,I agree that there are fail safe measures put in place. There were also fail safe measures on the BP oil rig and we see how that worked out. Any measure especially mechanical put in place by man is never free from error or malfunction. If you think nothing at all will go wrong with these safety devices you are fooling yourself. In an event such as an emp or total power loss, backup supplies will work. For how long though? How long can these pumps continue to provide cooling water? What happens when the backups fail? What happens when they just run their lifespan?


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

“Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.”
― Edmund Burke


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

seanallen said:


> Ive discussed this nuke survival stuff w a lot of ppl to date on different forums and in person. Most ppl seem to have a general idea of what to do. What ive heard is one of the most probable targets is the Yellowstone caldera. First time someone mentioned it to me i was , like" huh? ". After they explained i was dismissive. The more i thought about it and looked into it the more i realised its entirely possible, probable even. If some evildoers were to want total decimation of America, then that would be the place to start. Ten groundbursts around the perimeter of that valley would do it. I wonder if there is some way to get our armed forces to keep some hardcore security in that area. Any suggestions folks? How do we guard such a huge area against infiltration and destruction?


Why this particular area? I'm curious


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

8thDayStranger said:


> I find it hard to act as if there is nothing to fearfull of in a nuclear attack. Especially if it was a widespread, multiple bomb attack.


I'm not sure what you're reading, but nobody is saying there's nothing to fear.



8thDayStranger said:


> So to say "wait a couple days and take these pills and it'll all be ok" is grossly understated.


Apparently you didn't read my post or failed to understand it. I specifically stated that the pills were of no use for anything except as a short term protective measure in the event of a release of radioactive iodine from a _nuclear reactor_. I also stated that they were to be used to protect you during_ evacuation from the area_. I made no "wait a couple of days and it'll all be ok" statement.



8thDayStranger said:


> As far as nuclear plants and meltdowns,I agree that there are fail safe measures put in place. There were also fail safe measures on the BP oil rig and we see how that worked out. Any measure especially mechanical put in place by man is never free from error or malfunction. If you think nothing at all will go wrong with these safety devices you are fooling yourself.


You really need to comprehend what someone writes before before beginning a debate. Again I specifically addressed the potential of failures. In addition, how many protective actions have been successful over the years? Think about that to put things into perspective. Yes, there will probably be a slight few that have problems and release radioactivity into the environment. To what extent and how the release occurs plus the conditions around that particular facility will determine the extent of harm that occurs.



8thDayStranger said:


> In an event such as an emp or total power loss, backup supplies will work. For how long though? How long can these pumps continue to provide cooling water?


They're designed to operate longer than enough time to put the plant in a safe condition which is as I stated before, a few days if the plant has been operating at full power for a while. If the power output has been less than 100 percent then the time to reduce decay heat production is lessened.



8thDayStranger said:


> What happens when the backups fail?


Since their are multiple backups, the backup to the backup would kick in. In the event every backup failed, there would be problems, but since that situation would be rare, you shouldn't believe vast areas of the US would be affected as you stated in your original post which I'll quote.



8thDayStranger said:


> _What is your plan in case of nuclear attack? If multiple nuclear devices were detonated in the US, fallout and winds would possibly make much of the country unfit for producing food and livestock would be all but wiped out. It would take years for the soil to be plantable again. How would you plan for this? I live in the evac zone for a nuclear power facility so this is my worst case scenario and honestly I don't know how to plan for this as my plan, along with many others, is to live off the land hunting fishing and farming._





8thDayStranger said:


> What happens when they just run their lifespan?


I answered this when you asked it previously. Their lifespan is longer than needed.

If you aren't going to listen to anyone, why ask questions? You've already made up your mind that you already know what will happen and there's nothing you can do for the situation you describe (even if it's fantasy).


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

Some people think it is crazy to be worried about the food supply system in North America and can list many reasons why that is the case, yet people are on here storing food. I personally am not very concerned about nuclear threats and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to be but if they look at the evidence and come to different conclusions then I respect that.
It seems to me that many people believe overhyped claims that we would all be dead with some major nuclear event, while many on the other side think nothing will happen, truth lies somewhere in the middle.

The things that you do for general preparedness will certainly come in handy in a potential nuclear event, having food on hand will allow time to establish safe food supplies again for instance. 
If you can have some sort of earth sheltered structure like a root cellar or even a hardened basement there are MANY benefits for most shtf scenarios.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

labotomi said:


> I'm not sure what you're reading, but nobody is saying there's nothing to fear.
> 
> Apparently you didn't read my post or failed to understand it. I specifically stated that the pills were of no use for anything except as a short term protective measure in the event of a release of radioactive iodine from a nuclear reactor. I also stated that they were to be used to protect you during evacuation from the area. I made no "wait a couple of days and it'll all be ok" statement.
> 
> ...


Lol. Why you getting so defensive over me asking questions? Isn't that how you learn things? Isn't that what this forum is for? I already said twice that I was wrong about environmental effects and their severity. I repeat, I said that twice. As far as the wait a few days comment, it was posted earlier in the thread wait a few days then rebuild. I apologize if you thought everything I said was aimed solely at your response.

Now I am going to ask another question. It is an open question to all readers, not just one. What would happen if you were caught in a situation where you could not evacuate?

Labotomi, seriously dude. I don't know if you are pissed about comments in the martial law thread or what but calm down and relax man. If you have knowledge on the questions I'm asking, how about let's have a civil discussion about it? If I seemed argumentative then I apologize. I do take in what I read and sometimes that opens more questions. Obviously this whole conversation has shifted from my original post to the effects of nuclear disasters and failures. Just go with the flow and maybe we can all learn something.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

8thDayStranger said:


> Labotomi, seriously dude. I don't know if you are pissed about comments in the martial law thread or what but calm down and relax man.


I'm far from upset and certainly not defensive. I'm putting out the knowledge I have without any spin or hyperbole. The martial law thread is irrelevant and I'd have to look at it again to know if we had a discussion there. Most of the time I'm not concerned with who made the comment. Don't take it personal, but I don't remember your input to any threads other than this one even if I've responded to them.



8thDayStranger said:


> If you have knowledge on the questions I'm asking, how about let's have a civil discussion about it?


I'm not proficient in placating. I put my knowledge and opinions out for people to interpret as they please. If you consider this to be non-civil, I'll try and avoid replying to your posts.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

Then perhaps I read it all wrong. It's hard to get a read on somebody with words typed on a screen. Maybe we have gotten off on the wrong foot here. Since you seem to have at least some knowledge on the subject, what would be your suggestion to someone in the danger zone of a nuclear release who has no way or no time to evacuate and also what do you feel would be the effects of this on them if they had taken the aforementioned pills?


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

On a side note, I emailed the Nuclear Information and Resource Service today. I asked their opinion on what could happen in a hypothetical situation where a power outage occurred and all key fail safe systems malfunctioned and basically all human interference was removed so the reactor was left alone to do whatever it was going to do. I'm curious as to whether or not they will respond.


----------



## ZoomZoom (Dec 18, 2009)

8th day.

Regarding the nuke plant, take a look in the front of your phone book. _In our book, it's right before the Government pages.

_There's a multiple page section on what to do, where to go, how to evacuate, handling of farm animals, how to take shelter, Potassium Iodide etc.

If you're like me and end up with more phone books then you know what to do with, before disposing of old books, take out those pages (as well as other emergency info related to your area), put them in a ziplock baggie and keep in your BOB or other appropriate location.


----------



## majmill (Jun 6, 2012)

http://news.msn.com/science-technology/who-says-fukushima-left-small-cancer-risk

I just thought this article would be reassuring to those of you who are really worried about nuclear attacks,terrorism and accidents.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

I now understand the effects aren't as severe as I thought. I've been through the evac drills a hundred times in school. Now I'm curious as to what would be the damage of worst case scenario. I also feel its best to take anything dealing with radiation serious. I've never gone into panic mode over it but I'm also not in the "it's nothing" crowd either.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

8thDayStranger said:


> Then perhaps I read it all wrong. It's hard to get a read on somebody with words typed on a screen. Maybe we have gotten off on the wrong foot here. Since you seem to have at least some knowledge on the subject, what would be your suggestion to someone in the danger zone of a nuclear release who has no way or no time to evacuate and also what do you feel would be the effects of this on them if they had taken the aforementioned pills?


I live 2 miles away from a nuke plant also (as the crow flies) so I understand your worries.

A release from a nuclear power plant in the early stages would be limited to iodine 131. This is produced and contained in the primary water system. If they had to reduce pressure because of rising heat it would be done by venting steam to the atmosphere.

Two things to consider. Once released, the steam dissipates and is diluted into the air which reduces the concentration of iodine. 2nd is that iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days (after 8 days the amount of iodine that's still radioactive is 1/2 of what you started with, another 8 days and you have 1/4th your original amount).

Iodine 131 decays by emitting an beta particle. These particles are medium level damaging to human tissue BUT have low penetrating distance. They are easily stopped by a mm of aluminum foil or a few mm of most other materials including about 2mm of body tissue . The thyroid gland naturally stores iodine and if he iodine is radioactive it will store that also. Since the beta particle can't travel far, it can only damage what's very close which would be the thyroid gland itself.

Thyroid cancer takes a very long time to develop and is a fairly rare type of cancer to begin with. Even with a full exposure and no protection the chance of getting cancer from this is still very slim. Some advise older people not to take the iodine pills because they will most likely pass from old age before any chance of cancer developing.

The potassium iodate pills fill up your thyroid with non radioactive iodine 127 (all other isotopes are radioactive). Since the thyroid is already full of I 127, it's not going to absorb the radioactive iodine. This prevents a buildup of the radioactive form and lets it be passed through the body in a normal fashion.

If you take the pills and evacuate, even with some exposure there would be only a slightly increased chance of thyroid cancer later in life. This is more important regarding younger people since they have longer to develop cancer. If you don't take the pills but evacuate the area, the chance of getting thyroid cancer would be greater, but still unlikely. If you don't evacuate, you would continue to ingest iodine because even though half of it decays away in 8 days, you still have the other half left, then 1/4 then 1/8 etc. the exposure would be less, but then so would the amount decaying from your thyroid. Unless you could eliminate the inhalation or ingestion, you would be replenishing what decays from your thyroid with what's still active in the environment.

If there's more significant damage to the reactor plant such as a breach in primary and secondary containment along with a partial of full fuel cell meltdown, the radioactive isotopes of concern change greatly and the iodine pills will not help in any way whatsoever. You would have thorium, polonium, radium, thallium and many other possibilities. Each having different methods of decay and decay rates.



8thDayStranger said:


> On a side note, I emailed the Nuclear Information and Resource Service today. I asked their opinion on what could happen in a hypothetical situation where a power outage occurred and all key fail safe systems malfunctioned and basically all human interference was removed so the reactor was left alone to do whatever it was going to do. I'm curious as to whether or not they will respond.


If you get a response, I doubt it will be more than a form letter stating that the dangers of an incident are minimal.

This was a question posed to us quite a few times (but it's been a couple of decades ago) Many things affect the answer. Most of them were related to design features but that wouldn't change in the case of the facility near you. One thing that could change would be the power history of the facility. It takes into account the power level history and would affect the amount of decay heat generation after shutdown. The higher the power history the hotter the internal fuel cell temperatures would be and so it would take longer to cool them to levels that didn't require constant cooling.

To skip the details... The removal of power would cause a SCRAM or a rapid insertion of all control rods to the limit. You can't reasonably expect this not to work because each separate rod operates on it's own and it's hard for a failure of gravity and spring force to occur.

This would shut the reactor down as far as uranium fissioning. The control rods capture almost all the free neutrons required to cause additional fissions. Since the half life of uranium 235 is in the hundred million year range, it's not a concern. The products that are formed when the uranium fissioned while the plant was in operation are another matter. many of their half lives are shorter meaning they will decay in less time (sometimes minutes, seconds or milliseconds), that means they will still produce heat. Until the shorter lived ones have decayed away you have to keep the cooling flowing or things heat up.

Without any actions, the temperature would increase due to the daughter product decay, the increase in temperature would cause a pressure rise which depending upon the power history could rise greater than the design of the primary containment (reactor vessel). This is when you get an explosion due to the water flashing to steam. With the pressure lowering rapidly, more water flashes to steam immediately removing most if not all of the water from the reactor vessel uncovering the fuel rods. If the fuel rods are sufficiently hot due to the power history (it always comes back to that), the zirconium cladding of the fuel pellets can melt and/or catch on fire. This causes a release of many more radioactive isotopes to the atmosphere. It wouldn't be pretty and I'd try to be far away.

China Syndrome... no. That's not possible with the design of US reactors as they produce less power as they heat up. Sustained uranium fission would stop as soon as the water coolant flashed to steam. If water were added again, it could start the reaction again, but only until it got hot enough to evaporate the steam again. That's the difference in the US design and one such as Chernobyl.


----------



## seanallen (Nov 13, 2012)

8thDayStranger said:


> Why this particular area? I'm curious


The Yellowstone caldera is the site of Americas past supervolcano eruptions. Its aupposed to erupt every 650000 uears or so. Guess what? Its about 50000 years past due. The past 10 years have seen increased tremor activity, steam eruptions, groundswell (major indicator), etc. 
With this increased activity comes increased danger for a major eruption. If someone were to set off a ring of nukes around this caldera, its been hypothesized that would weaken the crustal plate covering rhe massive underground caldet


----------



## seanallen (Nov 13, 2012)

Caldera and drop these billions of tons of material into the magma chamber below. This would trigger a catastrophic eruption, thus xhanging the face of America as we know it. I suggest you get on youtube and look up yellowstone eruptions.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

seanallen said:


> Caldera and drop these billions of tons of material into the magma chamber below. This would trigger a catastrophic eruption, thus xhanging the face of America as we know it. I suggest you get on youtube and look up yellowstone eruptions.


Makes sense. Interesting.


----------



## seanallen (Nov 13, 2012)

8thDayStranger said:


> Makes sense. Interesting.


Well interesting is one way to describe it. Terrifying is another. If some evildoers were to actually accomplis this, within a month we would be experiencing something like a nuclear winter for two years minimum. I sincerely hope and pray our Homeland Security folks have that area under close watch. Thats the kind of thing this ol planet dont need.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

seanallen said:


> Well interesting is one way to describe it. Terrifying is another. If some evildoers were to actually accomplis this, within a month we would be experiencing something like a nuclear winter for two years minimum. I sincerely hope and pray our Homeland Security folks have that area under close watch. Thats the kind of thing this ol planet dont need.


Did a little quick reading on this. Wow! The effects of the actual detonations plus a freakin volcano popping would definitely be one of those sh!t just got real moments.


----------



## seanallen (Nov 13, 2012)

Yeah. How the hell do you prep for something like that? 10 years of food and water.... Gas masks and filters for your whole family... Lots and lots and lots of ammo to run off looters....


----------



## Orly51 (Jan 17, 2013)

Bugging in for a nuke blast. The major city in my area is 35 miles away. Experts say it'll take between 30-45 minutes for fallout to spread 30 miles. The initial shock wave and structural damage will be minimal depending on the megatons used. 

I'd have a decisive decision to make. Bug out and risk getting caught in traffic and suffer effects of fallout or use the time I've got (30-45 min) to cover windows and doors with heavy duty high grade plastic and duct tape to wait out the fallout (3-5 days). If the blast is closer to home it might be lights out anyway. My 2¢


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

If a warhead went off 35 miles away you might not know it had happened unless you saw it on the news. Most modern warheads are in the kiloton range usually around 40 kiloton and don't produce much fallout because they are detonated at the optimum altitude to create maximum blast damage. Initial radiation falls off rapidly. If you can stay shielded for 48 hours your chances of dying from radition are decreased by something like 99%. 

My shielded spot is a big culvert that goes under the highway. You mostly need dirt and concrete to shield you.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

It seems that in a culvert, winds could push radiation in on you anyway. If that's the plan surely a Mylar blanket would help shield you from that right?


----------



## swjohnsey (Jan 21, 2013)

8thDayStranger said:


> It seems that in a culvert, winds could push radiation in on you anyway. If that's the plan surely a Mylar blanket would help shield you from that right?


Radiation ain't like dust, it is like light. Where the fireball doesn't touch the ground there will not be much fallout.

The British army issues there soldier KIP, Kit Individual Protection. It is a tough tarp, some stakes and rope. You dig a narrow hole big enough to lay in, place the stakes on either side, thread the rope around the stakes in a zig-zag pattern and tie it off, place the tarp over the hole and pile the dirt over it, crawl in an pray.

If you can stay in a protected area for 48 hours you will probably survive.


----------



## lhalfcent (Mar 11, 2010)

maybe read what happened in the aftermath of Hiroshima and see how people came out of it. that is just a hard thing to plan for...


----------



## cowboyhermit (Nov 10, 2012)

swjohnsey said:


> Radiation ain't like dust, it is like light. Where the fireball doesn't touch the ground there will not be much fallout.
> 
> The British army issues there soldier KIP, Kit Individual Protection. It is a tough tarp, some stakes and rope. You dig a narrow hole big enough to lay in, place the stakes on either side, thread the rope around the stakes in a zig-zag pattern and tie it off, place the tarp over the hole and pile the dirt over it, crawl in an pray.
> 
> If you can stay in a protected area for 48 hours you will probably survive.


True, people get confused between fallout and radiation. Situations like a dirty bomb would indeed have fallout. That being said, I would not recommend a culvert for a lot of reasons. Most people will have or be able to make something better, a root cellar would serve much better imo.
As to what the british army issues, it might work but not the situation I would want to be in 
Meanwhile there bosses will be in something like thishttp://www.nettleden.com/articles/top-10-uk-secret-bunkers/


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

lhalfcent said:


> maybe read what happened in the aftermath of Hiroshima and see how people came out of it. that is just a hard thing to plan for...


3 days is ten half lives for the high activity isotopes.
it will be safe outside.

The Hiroshim survirors got most of thier dosage in the first 36 hours.

Again shelter-in-place is the best way to deal with fallout, especially if you have a basement but even if you ar ein an apot blg withdrawing to the room furthest form the outside walls can reuce your dose by a factor of 30-5 depending on how much distance you can achieve.

The intensity of radiation lessens with the square root of its distance


----------



## FrankW (Mar 10, 2012)

Orly51 said:


> Bugging in for a nuke blast. The major city in my area is 35 miles away. Experts say it'll take between 30-45 minutes for fallout to spread 30 miles. The initial shock wave and structural damage will be minimal depending on the megatons used.
> 
> I'd have a decisive decision to make. Bug out and risk getting caught in traffic and suffer effects of fallout or use the time I've got (30-45 min) to cover windows and doors with heavy duty high grade plastic and duct tape to wait out the fallout (3-5 days). If the blast is closer to home it might be lights out anyway. My 2¢


You are taking the right approach.

For a small device say 15kt like Hiroshima your house will be mostly intact and Fallout will be an issue ONLY if you are downwind and the n only for a limited amount of time.

Since you live so far form a major city even if fast winds carry it to you the distance the fallout will travel will widen the coverage fan and dilute it gretaly in the process.

While everything of course is device dependent Megaton size war heads with the nuclear powerrs have fallen out of fashion as accuracy has increased, which also helps.


----------



## mojo4 (Feb 19, 2012)

Nuke damage is one thing I am not prepared for. There are no nuke plants here (I don't think there are any in the surrounding states either) and we don't have any high priority targets. Except NORAD. Under Cheyenne mountain. About 60 miles from me. Well I guess if we get nailed with a nuke I either live or die. Not much else I can do because the only thing to hit us would be a direct attack and those pack some kind of punch.


----------



## -prepper- (Feb 3, 2013)

Well since they would plan to strike the big cities I think I would be okay , Atlanta is 78 miles away and the next biggest city is Chattanooga , and it's about 45 , so I only have to worry about fallout if Chattanooga gets nuked . But I think I will be fine . I'd get in the basement surrounded my earth and cement . A good stockpile wait maybe a week then come up and asses the damage .


----------



## lazydaisy67 (Nov 24, 2011)

Well, I certainly am not prepared for a nuclear attack. Even if you did survive the initial bombs would you WANT to try to eek it out in a post-nuclear world? Ug...I don't know if I could do it. Course, I don't know if I could live well through any "disaster", but am certainly more able to conceive of life after pretty much anything but nuclear war....

Never thought of the Yellowstone scenario. If that baby ever blows it's game over for the planet. My opinion, of course.


----------



## lilmissy0740 (Mar 7, 2011)

after all this fun.... how long does it take that it is safe to plant plants in the ground and be are safe to eat?


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

lilmissy0740 said:


> after all this fun.... how long does it take that it is safe to plant plants in the ground and be are safe to eat?


Found this. Others may be able to point out any inaccuracies.

HOW LONG WOULD FALLOUT AFFECT CULTIVATED AND NON-CULTIVATED LANDS?
It would depend on the abundance and type of radioactive materials in a given area. In the event of nuclear attack, radioactive iodine would be the most critical single factor in the contamination of milk during the first few weeks. After the first 60 days, the principal hazard would arise from strontium 89 and strontium 90. Strontium 89, however, will have virtually disappeared 17 months after its formation.

Like other radioactive isotopes of fallout, strontium 90 falls on the surface of plants and can be consumed with foods and forage. Some of it is deposited directly on the soil or washed into it, remaining indefinitely, for all practical purposes, in the top several inches of uncultivated land. Because it is chemically similar to calcium, radioactive strontium would be absorbed by all plants. Plants growing in soils deficient in calcium would absorb more radioactive strontium than those growing in soils abundant in calcium, other conditions being equal.

WOULD FALLOUT AFFECT MY SYSTEM OF FARMING?
It could. Seriously contaminated land may need to lie fallow for as long as a season. After this, fallout may require a change to non-food crops or to food crops that do not absorb large amounts of radioactive materials from the soil. Alfalfa, clover, soybeans, and leafy vegetables have a greater tendency to absorb long-lived radioactive strontium than cereal grains, grasses, corn, potatoes, and fruits. Guidance on suggested crops to plant will come from USDA county defense boards.

Here is the full article

http://www.survivalring.org/shelters/fallout-on-the-farm/


----------



## lilmissy0740 (Mar 7, 2011)

8thDayStranger said:


> Found this. Others may be able to point out any inaccuracies.
> 
> Thank you. Great article. The only problem I have with it and most articles anymore, they always tell you to wait until the government tells you it's ok. Please don't take it the wrong way, it's not that particular article, it's everywhere.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

Yeah. The other info was good though. I trust the govt to come "save" me about as much as I trust my dogs to ignore a steak lol.


----------



## OldCootHillbilly (Jul 9, 2010)

Been quite a spell since I talked with the extenstion feller bout anysuch thins, but ifin I recall he said sumtin ta the tune a 4' a top soil would have ta be removed. Now what I don't remember be what that radius was from ground zero. Don't much matter no how, most places ain't got 4' a good topsoil left anywho.

Mankind we'll survive even that, well, unless it be a total all out everbody tossed everthin they got war. It be onea the few thins I ain't to worried bout. We do have some preps fer it, but not bein my top priority.

Ifin it do be one a yalls big concern, becarefull where ya get yer info. The interweb can be very usefull but it can also be full a crude to! I've got some info from right after the 2nd world comflict that was good stuff on building a shelter an what ta stock it with. Just get yalls information from good sources cause that would be a true life er death situation what poor info could cost ya. We got a few folk on here what I besure got the good stuff yall would need ta know.


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

I hope this is the right place to post...


----------



## kappydell (Nov 27, 2011)

8thDayStranger said:


> I understand the differences. I understand that nukes haves been detonated before. My concern is nationwide power grid failure or enemy attack. Look at the issues Japan faced with damage and loss of power a couple of years ago. Imagine that scenario at every nuclear facility worldwide. Would human civilization survive?


Of course it would. Dont get in a lather thinking that civilization would disappear if there was no electricity. Society has lived far longer without electricity, than with it. Things would slow down, naturally. But life would go on after adapting. Prep now for no power - not so much by stocking up on things, but by learning how to live and work without it. Take up some hobbies that can be parlayed into a way to make money when there is no power grid. That's part of the mental side of prepping, after all. Things can get broken, stolen, lost, but knowledge and practice can't.


----------



## labotomi (Feb 14, 2010)

NK has difficulty launching a ballistic missile from a land based platform. Launching one from a submarine would be exponentially more difficult, especially since NK submarine "fleet" consists of only diesel electric boats which are extremely poor choices of missile delivery systems. They have limited range and are noisy when surfaced to recharge the battery system making detection all but certain to the undersea monitoring systems along with any of our submarines in the area. They are more quite than nuclear submarines when running on the batteries, but they are extremely limited with respect to time submerged while on battery power and that time goes down quickly if the submarine is in transit instead of slowly patrolling an area.

As far as it being a missile launch off of our coast; There's numerous civilian ships and casual boaters in that area all the time yet not a single picture of a missile ever emerge, not even a picture where the flame trail could be seen. Nor did anyone actually claiming to see a missile or even hear a missile (they're quite noisy). The only thing that was recorded and seen was something resembling the exhaust plume.

I've been involved in 3 submarine based missile launches (all for testing). I was onboard for 2 of them so I didn't get a feel for what happens outside. The third time I was on the monitoring ship a mile or so away from the launch of a tomahawk missile. Even at that distance it was loud and impossible not to notice. The missile isn't only heard and seen from the launch site, but covers a large distance quickly and anyone near that path would hear and see the missile.

In addition, if there had been an actual missile launch from an unknown source, the area would have been quickly swamped with our own military anti submarine warfare platforms which could have been there within minutes to blanket the area with sonar buoys. Despite this, there was no increase in activity by the military. I won't say that a launch off our coast couldn't happen, but too many things don't add up for me to believe that what was published was an actual missile trail.

Youtube vid of a tomahawk launch as an example. The sound of the video doesn't give it justice as it's literally loud enough for you to feel it in your chest.






If it was a ballistic missile, the noise would many times louder.


----------



## 8thDayStranger (Jan 30, 2013)

Awesome vids. I'd love to see that in real life.


----------



## k0xxx (Oct 27, 2011)

Our raised beds are 4'x12' in size, and we have purchased enough cheap tarps (in addition to the rolls of plastic sheeting that we have) to cover them all, to keep fallout from settling in them. Even if they had plants in them, we could still cover them and just lose those few crops. It may not be a perfect solution, but it's about the best that I could come up with. Our raised beds would not produce enough to supply all of our needs, but they would supplement our stores with enough fresh vegetables to extend them. Between our stores and the raised beds, we should be good for a few years, and then hopefully we'd be able to begin using the garden again.

Now, should an errant nuke land on us here, well it was all fun while it lasted...


----------



## faithmarie (Oct 18, 2008)

I didn't know where else to post... :flower:


----------

