[Grall]

Lol... You can't make this shit up: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-prairie.html

[Mize]

so you buy a prime target for nuclear missiles as your "safe" house?
wow.

[Grall]

I think the reasoning behind this would be that since the silos are decommissioned, they'll no longer be considered a valid target.
...Hopefully.......

In any case what I don't get with people building shelters like these, and especially luxury shelters for rich people, is...what do they expect to come back TO?

All their money will be worthless (more like, evaporated in this mostly electronic society), their possessions destroyed and/or irradiated. Society as we know it will be gone.

[Colourless]

You'd hate for the enemies of the US to have out of date maps. Quick, send them upto date ones with the locations of all current missile silos.... wait that sounds like a really bad idea.

[hoho]

Who said those are only meant as hiding place for nuclear attack? There are tons of other bad stuff in nature that can do much more damage and for those living there is pretty good option.


As for coming back to something, I'd personally be quite happy just to survive whatever is thrown at me.

[Grall]

You know, hoho... There are ways in which society can collapse that I simply would not WANT to survive.

[hoho]

You might not but I do

[Grall]

Living with rampant disease and starvation in a cold radioactive nuclear winter wasteland? No thanks.

[hoho]

As long as the "nuclear wasteland" is caused by ICBM I'm not all that worried considering how much ground area there is on Earth and how small destruction/contamination radius those missiles have.

Starvation is the last of my problems. I can survive on land if I have to, I've done it before just for fun. Disease is similarly a non-issue, at worst we fall back a millenia or two in our medical practices. We survived that, we/some of us can survive it again.


Or TL: DR version, don't be a pussy

[Mize]

Admit it hoho, you just want to play Gamma World!

[Grall]

Originally Posted by hoho

I'm not all that worried considering how much ground area there is on Earth and how small destruction/contamination radius those missiles have.

Ground detonations of nuclear weapons cause considerable amounts of fallout. In the case of full-scale nuclear war (as unlikely as that may seem, and I agree it's very unlikely) we're looking at potentially thousands of such strikes. Sure, there might be large areas that were largely spared, but they're probably remote, and without working transportation how would you get there?

Besides, do you own a geiger counter? If not, you'd just be guessing if an area was safe to be in or not...

Starvation is the last of my problems. I can survive on land if I have to

For one season, perhaps. But if there's no following summer (nuclear winter, remember?), live animals will start getting scarce, and there would obviously not be any harvests to fall back on either. If you had a fishing boat and access to open ocean you could concievably survive that way though. For a while at least.

Disease is similarly a non-issue, at worst we fall back a millenia or two in our medical practices. We survived that, we/some of us can survive it again.

Lol, yeah, some of us probably would, yes. But life was precarious 2000 years ago, a simple accidental scratch could kill you. Not to mention issues with food contamination and so on...

[Colourless]

Originally Posted by Grall

Lol, yeah, some of us probably would, yes. But life was precarious 2000 years ago, a simple accidental scratch could kill you. Not to mention issues with food contamination and so on...

Is that really true though. I get stratched all the time by all sorts of things and don't do a thing about it them and I'm not dead. As in the things scratching me aren't sterile, I dont properly clean the wound and I don't take any sort of anti biotics. While I'd accept that more serious injuries would be a problem, I'm not convinced a scratch has a high probability of death.

[Grall]

You've probably had a shot of tetanus vaccine (and if you haven't you'd likely get one as a routine measure if you've cut yourself and need to seek medical attention), also, you're probably getting scratches of everyday objects that are relatively clean. You, come to think of it, are probably relatively clean also, but if you'd lived without the benefits of modern hygiene and sanitation, clean laundry and regular showers and so on, things would probably be different...

[Silent_Buddha]

I haven't had a tetanus shot in over 40 years and work with rusty barbed wire and nails all the time, including getting scratched and cut by them. It only becomes a real problem if the nail/wire penetrates fairly deeply. In a case like that I'd probably want to be rushed to the hospital but other than that? It certainly is a very real danger, but not as dangerous as it is made out to be.

Not terribly worried. Besides that I work around all kinds of feces and urine (cow, horse, pig, dog, cats) on hot summer days. All kinds of biting insects and what have you, and the worst I've gotten has been the occasional flu or cold which is gotten from other humans. It helps to be aware of what is potentially hazardous and what isn't. Pig feces is particularly bad and should avoid any chance of getting it in your eyes for example. And if I was living in a tropical climated around the equator, I'd have be careful of other dangers... But that is part of being prepared to deal with the environment you live in.

Heck, I regularly eat with dirty utensils, food that is unrefrigerated for more than 24 hours, etc. People are too paranoid about some things. Heck, I regularly double dip in food dipping sauces.

Someone that is well prepared could certainly live after most things that could end civilization as we know it. It certainly wouldn't be easy but it is certainly doable depending on where you are in the world.

The greatest danger to someone that is prepared is just going to be other humans and groups of humans (gangs) looting and looking for easy prey.

Regards,
SB

[hoho]

First, disclaimer:
I've researched the nuclear bomb and radiation effects for my own amusement some years ago and most of the stuff I've written here comes from that. It's very likely I remember some of it wrong so if anyone knows any better I'd be glad to get corrections

Originally Posted by Grall

Ground detonations of nuclear weapons cause considerable amounts of fallout

They did in Japan over half a century ago when the bombs spew out majority of the material instead of spending it. Nowadays they should "burn up" far more of the fuel making the bombs cleaner, at least on per-megaton basis

I tried searching for but couldn't find any information on what did Japan do about the contamination in the bombed cities? I believe both got re-populated relatively fast but I've got no idea if they removed the top soil or not.

Originally Posted by Grall

In the case of full-scale nuclear war (as unlikely as that may seem, and I agree it's very unlikely) we're looking at potentially thousands of such strikes.

Big nukes have about 5km destruction radius when blown up in atmosphere (some ridiculously big and pointless hydrogen ones have maybe 10-15km), majority of the nukes should have far smaller range. Contamination from them shouldn't spread that far from the point of explosion.

Let's assume there are 10k bombs going off each destroying 5km radius circle and spewing some amount of radiation to 15km radius. That means each nuke destroys ~78km^2 and contaminates about 700km^2. 10k of those bombs would destroy 78,000km^2 and contaminate ~700,000km^2. In comparison Europe has land mass area of ~10,180,000km^2. In comparison France is a little under 700k km^2 and Ireland a bit under 70k km^2.

So yeah, it takes quite a lot of hassle to make big areas of Earth uninhabitable with nuclear warfare.

Originally Posted by Grall

Sure, there might be large areas that were largely spared, but they're probably remote, and without working transportation how would you get there?

Bicycles are awesome

Originally Posted by Grall

Besides, do you own a geiger counter? If not, you'd just be guessing if an area was safe to be in or not...

How dangerous do you think the radiation would be 1km from a nuke explosion epicenter 2 days after it went off? The most immediately dangerous forms of radiation will be gone in hours if not minutes, some will last for a few days, some for a couple of weeks. There will be some long-term radiation as well but it's not as dangerous as the radiation that's created immediately after the explosion.

Also I'm sure I'd notice the destruction area long before getting that close. Also, there are people and animals living near Tšhernobyl today. Sure, they might not be all that healthy but they do survive. I don't think expecting to live to 80+ in a post-apocalyptic world is all that reasonable anyway so I'm not that scared of radiation

Originally Posted by Grall

For one season, perhaps. But if there's no following summer (nuclear winter, remember?), live animals will start getting scarce, and there would obviously not be any harvests to fall back on either.

We don't have enough nukes to cause a decent nuclear winter. Or if we do then I'd love to see the calculations for it. Obliterating Ireland and contaminating France is far too little.

Originally Posted by Grall

If you had a fishing boat and access to open ocean you could concievably survive that way though. For a while at least.

Fishes live in other places too

Originally Posted by Grall

Lol, yeah, some of us probably would, yes. But life was precarious 2000 years ago, a simple accidental scratch could kill you. Not to mention issues with food contamination and so on...

It's bigger problem in warmer climate, yes, but it's not anywhere near as dangerous as you make it sound.

Yes, when not properly cleaned a wound can get infected. I may have been inoculated against tetanus when I was preschooler but today at 27 I'm not sure how much of it's effect is still working. I do a LOT of mountain biking and I'm more surprised to not see my legs and hands bloody and scratched when I get home (against branches, stones or just by sliding on the ground when I lost control of bike). I generally don't even use any bandaids, just wash it with tapwater (often hours after the injury) and let it be.

I'd say getting infected from a wound today is about as probable as after apocalypse. Only difference is that if things go bad then today it's easier to get help.

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

Heck, I regularly eat with dirty utensils, food that is unrefrigerated for more than 24 hours, etc. People are too paranoid about some things

When I was around 2-3 I used to eat earthworms straight from our garden. Beat that
But yea, people sure are paranoid and try to live in sterile environment. Those are the first to go as their organism is not used to fighting with bad stuff while dirty people like us survive

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

The greatest danger to someone that is prepared is just going to be other humans and groups of humans (gangs) looting and looking for easy prey.

Yeah, that's the only thing worth worrying about

[Gubbi]

Originally Posted by hoho

Nowadays they should "burn up" far more of the fuel making the bombs cleaner, at least on per-megaton basis

While plutonium isn't the nicest stuff to spread around, it is the fission products that poses the largest fallout thread. Radioactive iodine, cesium and strontium poses the largest threats to biological life. Fallout is thus proportional to the amount of energy produced by fission.

Now, one can build relatively clean bombs, where a large fraction of the explosive energy is from fusion. The world biggest boms, the Czar bomb, is one such design. It used an inert (lead) tamper and yielded a little over 50 Mt. With a uranium tamper, yield would have been 100Mt, with half the yield resulting from fast fission of the tamper.

Nobody builds multi-megaton warheads anymore. For the same mass and space, a bunch of smaller MIRVed warheads pack a bigger punch. With MIRVed warheads the focus is on size and weight, which means maximizing explosive energy to mass ratio. By using a HEU (20% U235) tamper instead of an inert one, you can double yield.

Cheers

[hoho]

Originally Posted by Gubbi

While plutonium isn't the nicest stuff to spread around, it is the fission products that poses the largest fallout thread. Radioactive iodine, cesium and strontium poses the largest threats to biological life. Fallout is thus proportional to the amount of energy produced by fission.

Yes, I know that but how much of that stuff stais radioactive for a longer period? Iodine and cesium have half-life of around 8 days. Strontium has ~28 years half life and thus lasts longer but I believe it's also created in far smaller quantities and it's radiactive effects aren't as severe (but it is still dangerous on itself).

Originally Posted by Gubbi

Nobody builds multi-megaton warheads anymore. For the same mass and space, a bunch of smaller MIRVed warheads pack a bigger punch.

Yes, this is so. Also those small bombs are exploded much closer to surface and thus they also contaminate far smaller areas.

[Gubbi]

Originally Posted by hoho

Yes, I know that but how much of that stuff stais radioactive for a longer period? Iodine and cesium have half-life of around 8 days. Strontium has ~28 years half life and thus lasts longer but I believe it's also created in far smaller quantities and it's radiactive effects aren't as severe (but it is still dangerous on itself).
Yes, this is so. Also those small bombs are exploded much closer to surface and thus they also contaminate far smaller areas.

Iodine is 8 days, Cs-137 and Sr-90 are both around 30 years, which means it will be around for centuries.

Cesium is chemically equivalent to potassium, strontium chemically equivalent to calcium. The biological halflife for potassium in the body is 1 to 3 months, the biological halflife for calcium is 30 years.

Immidiate destruction aside, deaths from collapse of food production and infrastructure in a widespread nuclear conflict is going to dwarf any radiological hazard. Still, there is no such thing as a "clean" nuke.

Cheers

[hoho]

Originally Posted by Gubbi

Immidiate destruction aside, deaths from collapse of food production and infrastructure in a widespread nuclear conflict is going to dwarf any radiological hazard.

In Chernobyl there was around 100 metric tons of nuclear fuel that literally got blown sky-high. That's far more than any nuclear bomb ever would do and I'm quite sure the stuff there was far more hazardous than bomb created contamination. Has the local wild-life ceased to exist near the contaminated area there?

Infrastructure and pretty much the entire way of living will definitely collapse but that doesn't mean we'd die out in a matter of days/weeks. There will surely be a ton of deaths but humanity WILL survive. It won't be as convenient as it is today but it is still possible to live.

And another thing I'd like to know is if my napkin math on the land mass area destroyed/contaminated by all-out nuclear warfare is even remotely correct or what would be needed to cause a half-decent nuclear winter.

[Gubbi]

Originally Posted by hoho

In Chernobyl there was around 100 metric tons of nuclear fuel that literally got blown sky-high. That's far more than any nuclear bomb ever would do and I'm quite sure the stuff there was far more hazardous than bomb created contamination. Has the local wild-life ceased to exist near the contaminated area there?

A bomb fissions a lot of material in an instant, it takes a reactor years to burn through fuel. A large amount of fission products with half lifes on the order of a week will have decayed in the reactor waste, but will be present in a bomb blast fallout. For the same amount of CS-137 produced, the radioactivity immidiately after a bomb blast is three orders of magnitude larger than for radioactive waste.

Regarding fauna: Google and Wikipedia is your friend

Cheers