It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are you in a safe place during a Nuclear attack? Ask FEMA

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 11:11 AM
link   
ModsI put this here because I wanted to know if there would be a "safe" place during a nuclear attack. What would be my chance of survival?

So please move if need be. Thanks


Hello ATSers. This is an intresting little read that FEMA put together incase of a nuclear attack, back in 1987.

Please look it over, you can see your state and county and the risk you would be in.

Kinda long.
Fallout plan by FEMA

[edit on 5-5-2008 by freedomataprice]




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by freedomataprice
ModsI put this here because I wanted to know if there would be a "safe" place during a nuclear attack. What would be my chance of survival?

So please move if need be. Thanks


Hello ATSers. This is an intresting little read that FEMA put together incase of a nuclear attack, back in 1987.

Please look it over, you can see your state and county and the risk you would be in.

Kinda long.
Fallout plan by FEMA

[edit on 5-5-2008 by freedomataprice]


Well right now it doesn't seem that the link is working, I'm getting nothing. The last time I checked I lived in a relatively safe location in Idaho. That is as long as they don't bomb Yellowstone. Though I suppose it depends on how many nukes are used. There has to be a point where it doesn't matter anymore because of all the radiation in the air spreading across the globe. I wonder what that point would be?



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
ya I am not surprised the link is not working as we can all~ TRUST FEMA~
to give us the correct and proper information with no bias whatsoever


Well.....
.......thats IF IF they even bother to have a working link.....


I bet FEMA thinks the safest place for us all to be is in the camps they set up just for this very reason...
TO KEEP US ALL SAFE



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:12 PM
link   
One problem I see with this is that in the last twenty years the sources of the risk has most likely changed. Who knows where a bomb might go off today.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:51 PM
link   
trying again

Sorry all. I don't understand the link not working for ya. It is working fine for me.

I'll try again.



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
A doc originally not for public release. Anyway I looked through my state and it did not seem to make sense.

I am wondering if it wasn't for a nuclear war but for another threat. Unless major cities are considered wiped out so that fall out does not apply or there was a belief that targets would be missed.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
The maps are a little confusing. As far as I can tell the maps don't show direct hits. But I think by the risk level you can kinda tell where they were thinking the Nuclear bombs would hit.

I am in and will be in a high risk area according to this report.


So summer plans look like they will be to build an underground fallout shelter!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:13 PM
link   
I could be wrong, but it looks like the risk is based on population density. which to me seems like a great big "DUH". I didn't look at it real thouroughly, but I think that weather patterns would come into play as well (thinking Jericho fallout maps). Take the most densly populated areas and transpose weater patterns and voila.

Plus, the plan is, what, almost 30 years old?? Time for a new one, methinks.




top topics



 
0

log in

join