posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 06:08 PM
reply to post by snoopyuk
I've had a chat with a very good friend of mine who untill a few years ago worked for the atomic energy authority (shes now a private consultant) and
whilst she doesn't make bombs, and never has made bombs, she is an expert in dealing with the after effects of nuclear accidents, as such she has a
professional interest in knowing what the effects of a modern nuclear strike might be.
she gives your chances in the bunker in question as being:
"at that distance from the blast centre, not better than 60/40 in your favour for 2 reasons.
1) the concrete structure of a 1950/60s era bunker is almost certainly in dubious order and may not be resistant to
a) the effects of the primary blast on the surface and
b) not resistant to the additional seismic effects.
2) it has been shown that modern nuclear weapons produce radioactive dust many times finer than previously thought. There are no filters/scrubbers
resistant to ingress by this material, in fact there is a great likelihood that many supposedly sealed recirculating systems are not resistant to this
She points out that air handlers with any chance of working correctly are almost exclusively reserved for utterly critical military applications and
are not applied to the sort of shelter we are dealing with here. to the best of her knowledge there are no commercially available systems which would
provide adequate protection.
Apparently she gets asked questions like this quite a lot by rich people trying to rid themselves of several million pounds by building a bunker to
write off against tax!
(if I wasn't who I am to her, this information would have cost about £600!)