Welcome, Unregistered.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Reply
Old 13-Apr-2012, 22:52   #1
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,676
Default Vault-Tec exists!

Lol... You can't make this shit up: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-prairie.html
__________________
"Du bist Metall!"
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 00:04   #2
Mize
That's my stapler
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: "Midwest," USA
Posts: 4,134
Default

so you buy a prime target for nuclear missiles as your "safe" house?
wow.
__________________
"Yes windows 3.1 was better than the macOS of the day. All the Windows OS's have been better."
- eastmen
Mize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 10:18   #3
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,676
Default

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.
__________________
"Du bist Metall!"
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 10:51   #4
Colourless
Monochrome wench
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in outback South Australia
Posts: 1,274
Send a message via ICQ to Colourless Send a message via MSN to Colourless
Default

You'd hate for the enemies of the US to have out of date maps.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.
Colourless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 10:55   #5
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

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.
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 11:04   #6
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,676
Default

You know, hoho... There are ways in which society can collapse that I simply would not WANT to survive.
__________________
"Du bist Metall!"
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 12:23   #7
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

You might not but I do
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 13:00   #8
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,676
Default

Living with rampant disease and starvation in a cold radioactive nuclear winter wasteland? No thanks.
__________________
"Du bist Metall!"
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 13:53   #9
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

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
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 14:25   #10
Mize
That's my stapler
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: "Midwest," USA
Posts: 4,134
Default

Admit it hoho, you just want to play Gamma World!
__________________
"Yes windows 3.1 was better than the macOS of the day. All the Windows OS's have been better."
- eastmen
Mize is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-Apr-2012, 16:29   #11
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,676
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoho View Post
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...

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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...
__________________
"Du bist Metall!"
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-Apr-2012, 04:51   #12
Colourless
Monochrome wench
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Somewhere in outback South Australia
Posts: 1,274
Send a message via ICQ to Colourless Send a message via MSN to Colourless
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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.
Colourless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-Apr-2012, 09:52   #13
Grall
Invisible Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: La-la land
Posts: 6,676
Default

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...
__________________
"Du bist Metall!"
-L.V.
Grall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-Apr-2012, 22:49   #14
Silent_Buddha
Regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,376
Default

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
Silent_Buddha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-Apr-2012, 09:49   #15
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grall View Post
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.

Quote:
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
Quote:
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
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-Apr-2012, 10:55   #16
Gubbi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,847
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoho View Post
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
__________________
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam
Gubbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-Apr-2012, 11:41   #17
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubbi View Post
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).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubbi View Post
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.
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-Apr-2012, 12:06   #18
Gubbi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,847
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoho View Post
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
__________________
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam
Gubbi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-Apr-2012, 12:19   #19
hoho
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Estonia
Posts: 1,218
Send a message via MSN to hoho Send a message via Skype™ to hoho
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gubbi View Post
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.
hoho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-Apr-2012, 13:25   #20
Gubbi
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,847
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoho View Post
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
__________________
I'm pink, therefore I'm spam
Gubbi is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 22:59.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.