Situation X: Radioactive Fallout Cloud. Population: YOU., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 11 times


reply posted on 28-5-2007 @ 01:20 AM by dr_strangecraft
The book that inspired this thread was:

The Survival Guide: What to do in a biological, chemical, or nuclear emergency. by angelo acquista, M.D., medical director of the New York City mayor's office of emergency management.

I don't want to post his whole book online, but I'll give you the gist of what I've gotten from the "nuke" chapters.

Basically, I would divide the nuclear threat into three types: dirty bomb, small "suitcase" nuke, and military weaponry.

Dirty Bomb.
The author states that although this gets the biggest hype, it is probably the least threat to your health. Basically, it involves terrorists stealing radiological waste from a hospital or power plant, and sticking explosives in the middle of it, with the goal of blowing radioactive debris all over your town. He states that the Iraqi government actually tested this in 87 in the desert, but decided it wasn't feasable. Even the best portable (read: terrorist) bomb only covered about 25 blocks in diameter with ANY measurable effects, even at the time of detonation. The medical waste and fuel rods are so heavy (americium and so forth), that most of it would fall back to earth within a few blocks of the blast. Even people who breathed the initial dust would probably remain healthy for several decades before succumbing. The main goal would be to creat hysteria, and cost billions in cleanup. The government would almost certainly set up a "decontamination shelter" and give you better attention than you could do yourself. From a terrorist standpoint, most of the terrorists would be sick from radiation exposure--not that they'd care, but it would reveal the whole terror network, as a line of sick fanatics would stretch all the way back to the source material.

The other two questions are basically weapons acquired from the military.

He says the main 3 considerations for your health are time, distance, and shielding.

Here are his bullets, beginning on pg 190:

-Cover your mouth and nose with (wet) fabric

-Leave on foot.
He says you have a bigger chance of being trapped in the radiation by being bogged down in mass transit. he also states that your chances of further contamination increase from using mass transit like subways, busses, and road surfaces where vehicles from the irradiated area will be tracking particles into your presence.

-Shower with soap as soon as possible, and put on uncontaminated clothes that were not exposed to much fallout.

-Get to an area where you are not covered in residue, and neither is the area around you; at that point, seek shelter at once. Stay there and minimize your exposure for as long as possible.

-Take potassium Iodide if available

-Try to meet up with search and rescue as soon as possible

-if you must leave, cover all exposed skin with cloth, including scarves, hats, and, if possible, swim-type goggles and gloves. walk into the wind but away from the direction of the blast, even if that direction is not your immediate goal.

Acquista is pretty upbeat about what is a grim scenario, pointing out how many US soldiers survived direct radiation from atomic tests, how many lab-workers have been exposed, and how many russian citizens actually survived the gross overdoses in the wake of Chernobyl, often many times what was considered an instantly fatal dose.

As far as worrying that "one slip-up will kill you," he even addresses that and states that if you are aware of keeping your skin and lungs and stomach free of radiation, the odds are not as grim as you'd imagine. The key is not to avoid any radiation, but to watch out for a lethal build-up, by needlessly exposing yourself.


.


reply posted on 28-5-2007 @ 09:59 AM by dr_strangecraft
Part of my reason for starting this thread is that I have personally learnt a bit that's changed my outlook and made it more positive. That may sound absurd, but I'll tell you why.

The bomb that was used on Hiroshima was tiny by modern military standards --- a "mere 15 kilotons."

I grew up during the cold war that followed. The US and SU spent huge chunks of their respective national outputs to create bigger and bigger bombs, that would eventually be measured in megatons.

The goal of that atomic arms race was to deter the enemy, by making a bomb so nefarious that the enemy couldn't hope to build adequate shelters against it. They designed weapons that were estimated at up to 25 megatons. Such a weapon would kill millions, and render the enemy landscape for hundreds of miles around uninhabitable. These strategic weapons were designed to produce fallout on the order of 500 to 1000 rads after the blast, and a dustcloud that would stretch 10 miles across or more.

Even such uber-weapons couldn't penetrate a civil defense shelter a few miles away, so their goal was to irradiate the environment so forcefully, that survivors would have to stay in their shelters for weeks or months afterward. The thought of trying to rebuild in a postatomic hell was supposed to be so bleak as to scare even the enemy leaders away from nuclear war.

It worked.

********

But today, we are no longer talking about those kinds of super-threats. The largest atomic bomb in either arsenal is now on the order of 1.2 megatons. And all of the strategic warheads require hundreds of scientists and technicians to maintain, fuel, and aim them. Terrorists are unlikely to acquire or deploy that kind of weapon.

Terrorists could hope to acquire much smaller, tactical nukes, in the range of 10 kilotons up to 1 megaton. These much smaller weapons could concievably be detonated by a small terrorist cell. But the blast would be much smaller that a strategic weapon - such a "briefcase bomb" would create a cloud less that a kilometer across,
wikipedia article, and consequently much less radiation. And it is THESE weapons, which would dissipate quickly, where you cold leave your shelter after less than a week, without endangering your health. Additionally, they'd almost certainly be "ground burst" weapons, which would further decrease the range and intensit of their fallout.

The point is, survivalists need to realize that the threat from a terrorist nuke, or even from a terror-state, is not the same as what we grew up with in the cold war----these are orders of magnitude smaller, and thus more survivable.

.


reply posted on 28-5-2007 @ 02:05 PM by dr_strangecraft
Originally posted by Escrotumus
I was under the impression that a ground burst creates far more fallout than an air burst because of the particulate matter that it throws into the air and then this fallout comes back to earth and settles on everything.


It does create a lot more particulate matter. On the other hand, the particles are heavier, and don't travel as far. Sort of a fifty fifty trade-off.




For anyone caught in a major city when something like this happens your chances of survival have almost nothing to do with planning, but have everything to do with luck and how quickly (if at all) you can make it to your shelter.



I disagree. I doubt that terrorists can get their hands on, or build a bomb with more than a 50 kiloton explosion.

Suppose, for the sake of argument, this is what you are presented with. Again, that's a fireball less than a kilometer across. If you are 5 miles from the blast, and there's 15 mph wind, and you are directly downwind of the blast, you've still got 20 minutes to prepare. I can imagine a dose of 500 rads when the cloud reaches you. The 7/10 rule means it will drop to 50 rads after 10 hours, and 5 rads at 49 hours.

In my thread about a non-electronic fallout meter
(link) I provide a link to Kearny's original brochure, here's a quote from that pamphlet:


A healthy person who previously has received a total accumulated dose of no more than 100 R distributed over a 2-week period should realize that:

100 R, even if all received in a day or less, is unlikely to require medical care - provided during the next 2 weeks a total additional dose of no more than a few R is received.

350 R received in a few days or less results in a 50-50 chance of being fatal after a large nuclear attack when few survivors could get medical care, sanitary surroundings, a well-balanced diet, or adequate rest.

600 R received in a few days or less is almost certain to cause death within a few days.




Now, if you can get your *cough* inside a shelter with 18 inches of dirt around you, This Handy pamplet from the UK shows that you reduce the radiation to 16 rad for the first hour, which is means less that 100 rad in the first seven hours. After that, your exposure in the shelter effectively drops below 2 rads per hour.

But suppose you are on the highway, doing 70. You'll get pretty serious dose if you can see the blast. But suppose you happen to be in a small valley when it goes off. If traffic just keeps going, and you can drive out from under the fallout in 10 minutes. Then you'd be somewhere around the 350 rad level. Youd still have a 50/50 chance of survival.

So yes, by my calculations, you could survive a terrorist's tactical nuke, if you take measures to increase time, distance, and shielding.

In the US, a lot of public buildings are still technically classed as a fallout shelter, even if they have taken their signs down.

But if you just stand there, you are correct--you are most certainly doomed.

.

[edit on 28-5-2007 by dr_strangecraft]


reply posted on 28-5-2007 @ 08:32 PM by dr_strangecraft
Originally posted by crgintx
Doc, if there ever was all-out nuclear attack on the US, Texas is toast with it's numerous military bases as prime targets not to mention 1/3 of the US's oil refining capability within its borders.


I don't live down-wind from either type of facility. But I know what what you mean. Military bases would certainly draw fire, but if I were nuking oil capacity, I'd aim for the Houston area, where it bottlenecks. Heck if it gets down to it, the "enemy" might be driven to nuke every crossroads and convenience store in the Union. At some point, everyone becomes vulnerable.

On the other hand, if you have less than 50 nukes, I don't think you'd pick my zipcode to spend one.




Let's not forget the Pantex plant in Amarillo.



Indeed, anyone who grew up in Texas during the cold war can tell you stories of Men in Black and unmarked trucks looking asking for directions in the middle of nowhere, asking how to get to "Amarillo." We were still having Civil Defense drills when I was in school, in Texas, in the 1980's. Back in those days, since Pantex is a hardened, bunkered target, the russians would have used a 5 or 10 megaton bomb. Enough that nothing would shield you, even hundreds of miles away. . . .




I'm not afraid of all out nuclear attack though. It's the nut case with 3 or 4 smaller tactical nukes. Every major dam in the Western US is a prime target as well as the major ports like LA or New Orleans.



Well, I have specific theories of what a terrorist would do with a nuke on the US mainland, but I don't think I'll post it here. Let's just say that such people would try to maximize the terror quotient, not necessarily industrial damage per se.



Symbolically, any of the major urban centers especially Wash.DC and LA (Hollywood) are also prime targets. Fall out is greatly affected by weather patterns, so in order to maximize the fall out zone, it will likely be done during a period of maximum wind activity like during the Santa Ana winds in CA or in front of a fast moving front in the Plains States.


The problem with high winds is that it might cause the plume to be very narrow and elongated. It might also "smear" the cloud to where the intensity of the irradiation got trapped in the upper atmosphere; much worse for the earth as a whole, but less deadly for people in the bombs "shadow" at the date of the blast. Or it might be a "streak" a few miles wide and 200 miles long. VERY hard to predict, out among the cacti and sand dunes.

Also, I don't think you could get a nuke very far inland in the US by truck. So I'd expect a coast city to be a prime target. The time (risk of being caught) it would take to deliver a bomb to "the fly-over states" makes them that much less vulnerable.

.
Pages: <<  1    2    3  >>    ^^TOP^^



Amazing French Indigo Girl in Africa (Tippi)
  Posted 2 days ago with 60 member flags
My Dad is on the NatGEO "Doomsday Preppers". And I\'m proud of him!
  Posted 11 days ago with 54 member flags
Hello again preppers and survivalist. Life changing reality.
  Posted 12 days ago with 31 member flags
Hobby or Second Income Homemade Soaps, Sundry, and Remedy Recipes
  Posted 18 days ago with 20 member flags
NATGEO Doomsday Prepper has guns taken away. Judged incompetent.
  Posted 3 days ago with 14 member flags
Do Not Drink From The Tap!
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags