Lol... You can't make this shit up: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...se-Doomsday-shelter-built-Kansas-prairie.html
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?I'm not all that worried considering how much ground area there is on Earth and how small destruction/contamination radius those missiles have.
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.Starvation is the last of my problems. I can survive on land if I have to
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...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...
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 basisGround detonations of nuclear weapons cause considerable amounts of fallout
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.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.
Bicycles are awesomeSure, there might be large areas that were largely spared, but they're probably remote, and without working transportation how would you get there?
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.Besides, do you own a geiger counter? If not, you'd just be guessing if an area was safe to be in or not...
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.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.
Fishes live in other places tooIf you had a fishing boat and access to open ocean you could concievably survive that way though. For a while at least.
It's bigger problem in warmer climate, yes, but it's not anywhere near as dangerous as you make it sound.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...
When I was around 2-3 I used to eat earthworms straight from our garden. Beat thatSilent_Buddha said:Heck, I regularly eat with dirty utensils, food that is unrefrigerated for more than 24 hours, etc. People are too paranoid about some things
Yeah, that's the only thing worth worrying aboutSilent_Buddha said: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.
Nowadays they should "burn up" far more of the fuel making the bombs cleaner, at least on per-megaton basis
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).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, this is so. Also those small bombs are exploded much closer to surface and thus they also contaminate far smaller areas.Nobody builds multi-megaton warheads anymore. For the same mass and space, a bunch of smaller MIRVed warheads pack a bigger punch.
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.
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?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?