Guide On Surviving/prepping For A Nuclear Attack

I found this detailed guide on how to survive/prep for a nuclear attack, i hope you find this helpful.

http://www.ki4u.com/webpal/d_resources/survival/books/11steps/index.htm

 

Check the link that I added, the text should be easy to read and how are the images childish?

 

My home sits on 100 acres of USAF surplus land...and it has "cold war surplus features and structures" on it. I use several of these "structures" for storage. One of the others has been converted to a living space. It was nice of Uncle Sam to decide that they no longer needed to operate missile silos in the Airzona desert and sold the land with all of their "cold war surplus features and structures" left on them.

 

In general, much of this applies to any emergency situation; have supplies, take shelter, know how to put out a fire, know first aid, attend to proper hygiene, etc. From my perspective, nuclear bomb survival really depends on luck. If you're not in the blast zone, great. Otherwise your chances are very slim. The time between recognizing a nuclear blast and PROPERLY sheltering from it is too minuscule to make any practical difference in survival odds.

If you happen to have a stocked fallout shelter and can make it inside in time to close the door, (let's assume you're on the farthest edge of the blast zone and have more than 15 seconds after seeing the bright light on the horizon) then you're incredibly lucky. For everyone else, assuming you're not dead immediately, it's the amount of radiation you've been exposed to that will make all the difference. Total exposure, whether large or small, has no cure so it may be few days or decades (cancer), but advance preparation likely plays little part in the odds.

One of the most telling statements in the article is; "After seven hours, fallout has lost about 90% of the strength it had one hour after the explosion. After two days it has lost 99%; in two weeks 99.9% of its strength is gone. Nevertheless, if the radiation at the beginning were high enough, the remaining 0.1% could be dangerous."

So even with a fallout shelter, you need a way to measure residual radioactivity or you're only guessing at when it's safe to come out if judging by time alone. I would assume a minimum of a month without using surface Geiger counters, just to be safe... but still ???

The real danger of a nuke is one detonated 100 - 300 miles high. No heat blast, debris wave, or residual radiation to worry about, but an EMP that permanently destroys all electronics. One nuke, possibly 100 million dead from societal collapse. And no amount of time in a fallout shelter will protect you from that.

 

I have two of these stashed away...and fingers crossed.

https://www.amazon.com/RADEX-RD1503...9938&sr=8-3-fkmr1&keywords=radex+1505+counter


Thanks,
Watcherchris

 

One of the most telling statements in the article is; "After seven hours, fallout has lost about 90% of the strength it had one hour after the explosion. After two days it has lost 99%; in two weeks 99.9% of its strength is gone. Nevertheless, if the radiation at the beginning were high enough, the remaining 0.1% could be dangerous."

Most everything I have read states that fallout has a "Half-life" of Seven hours, so even a initial fallout of a 5,00R will fall to miniscule levels after a week or so. Unless fresh detonations occur it becomes reletivly safe after two weeks.
One still needs to take precautions to avoid hotspots and consuming fallout but it becomes liveable.
So stay inside for one week, venture outside in the second week only for essential duties then try to at least sleep (1/3 of your time) in shelter for the next several months after that it will only be hotspots and injestion/inhalation that will be a problem!

 

The half life of Strontium 90 that is produced in nuclear explosion is 28.8 YEARS!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90

The half life of Caesium 137 that is produced in nuclear explosion is 30.17 YEARS!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137

It will settle on the ground and be absorbed into the plant life and that in turn will be transferred into the milk and flesh of the animals that we depend on for food. The milk will be especially toxic as it seems to gather in the glands.

The good news if you can see ANY good in any of this is that most people that are not killed within a few weeks of the spread of these pollutants will live on even after receiving a huge dose. Their life expectancy will be greatly reduced and many will eventually be ravaged by cancer but the species will survive. The rate of stillborn and messed up babies will be big for a long long time and may eventually lead to some modifications in what is the basic human description through mutations.

It is amazing how many people that took what we would normally consider a lethal dose of radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki actually live a long life. The human body is an amazingly tough and adaptable thing.

 

Watcherchris: The problem with those detectors is that they do not have a remote sensor. If you're in a fallout shelter, you can't use them to safely monitor outside radiation. You can open the door after two weeks and take a reading, but depending on what blows in through the door (radioactive dust), you may wish that you hadn't. Also, one comment says that it takes 40 seconds to get an accurate reading, more than long enough to kill you if you misjudge estimated residual strength before venturing outside.

Oldguy: I agree that weeks (how many... hard to say) is likely sufficient, but kiloton yields (kt) vary significantly so the starting point is still critical in determining the danger of the residual radiation. Little Boy and Fat Man (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) were in the 15kt range. N Korea progressed from under 1kt to over 100kt in the course of abut 10 years. Russia designed the Tsar Bomb at 100,000kt, but scaled down a test to half, 50,000kt (50 megatons) as the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated. It's easy to compare scale and know that 0.1% of 1kt is very different than 0.1% of 50,000kt.

TexDanm: Your reference is to isotope half life, not fallout. The detonation site will remain contaminated forever (in human terms), but not to be confused with fallout that has a relatively short-term, but still deadly effect. I've been to White Sands Missile Range and they allow visitors to Trinity, which was the original detonation site of the first test in 1945. Radiation is ten times higher than background radiation, and that's from only a 20kt test. I don't know the sizes of Chernobyl or Fukushima, but expect neither to have human development there in our lifetimes, and these were not technically nuclear detonations, just meltdowns.

(Afterthought - People currently live at both Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There is some scientific explanation that air detonation of the A-bombs induced less radiation into the soil than the Chernobyl meltdown, as well as being far smaller in the amount of nuclear fuel available with the bombs than in a nuclear reactor. Trinity was not an air detonation. The bomb was suspended in a tower, but did not detonate thousands of feet above the ground as occurred in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

Good conversation from all. Thanks!

 

lonewolf,

I believe you mean here "Contamination" not radiation per se...airborne particles of nuclear materials...which settled in North Devon.




TCinNC,

Correct....they do not have remote sensor.

As to the sampling rate..yes...different models have different sensing/sampling rates...the speed at which they can take reading.


The other model I am looking at is some 400 plus dollars...

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000796XSC/ref=sspa_dk_detail_0?psc=1



I have also put back some 8 packets of this stuff...Potassium Iodide.

https://www.amazon.com/IOSAT-Potass..._rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=VDGT24D7PV48CZTR2XCB

You need to be very careful about taking this stuff and particularly in giving it to children.


It is going to be a crap shoot with or without one after such an nuclear detonation.

Decontamination is going to be a huge problem for almost everyone surviving in the affected areas....huge.


Thanks,
Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite

 

Watcherchris,
You bring up a great point regarding iodine tablets that applies to ALL advice from forums, websites, blogs, and books. There's so much completely wrong information about everything that trying to weed out the truth is difficult, but very necessary. I can find dozens of references that tell you to essentially take iodine like candy, and very few that let you know proper dosing and precautions.

The most outrageous example that demonstrates the dangerousness of prepper hubris is the nonsense found everywhere on treating gunshot wounds, which makes me feel like shooting a few of the know-it-alls so they can try out their own advice. I would love to know how many Dr Kildare wanna-bees own surgical kits because they think that they can perform field surgery after reading an article.

I'm new to this site and am looking for well informed opinions across all topics, which includes having posters dispel rampant myths, because knowing what not to do is equally as important as knowing what to do. Thanks!!

 

Iosat is the brand of Potassium Iodide they keep on hand around here when doing nuclear spill drills and so I have stuck with that particular brand.

One needs to be careful about this stuff as taking it can make you just as ill as the radiation exposure....and of course in particular giving it to infant children.


While radiation exposure itself is bad enough ....contamination ..in particular internal contamination is also very bad.

External contamination can be carefully wiped off....decontamination by procedures...so as not to continue spreading the contamination.

I've known of a couple of people here who have been internally contaminated and they continue to be monitored for many many years afterwards and have become part of an exposure/contamination data base.

Nuclear contamination procedures are similar to bio hazard clean up procedures so as not to spread diseases....careful wipe techniques ..glove changes even tape presses etc. etc.


Agree about hubris on many many topics.


Thanks,
Watcherchris.

 

In case some of you do not know....we here in America have had our own Cernobyl ...our own Fukashima accident and way back in the early 1960s.

There was an accident around Idaho Falls, Idaho where a nuclear reactor spilled it's guts and killed three people.

Certain details of what happened are still classified all these years later...but it is bone chilling what happened and the details.

That is all I am going to say on the subject.

Here from Wiki.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1


What helped in this accident is that this reactor was experimental and located far away from population centers out in the desert.

Thanks,
Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite

 

Three Mile Island was small potatoes..compared to SL 1, Chernobyl, and Fukashima.

The news media built it all up to frighten Americans who know little to nothing about how a plant and or reactor works.

They had a melt down correct..but it did not puke its guts out...as happened in these other incidents. They did not lose containment.


I've been to a Nuclear Power Plant class where they detail what happened both a Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. I suppose they need to update the class today to include what happened at Fukashima.

Details of the SL 1 accident are still today classified and for reasons not even put in the classified video I've seen. But certain people in the trade can figure it out.


Thanks,
Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite

 

Comparing an explosion to a melt down is apples and oranges. When a bomb goes off the creation of the various radioactive elements is part of the chain reaction process. This is what fall out IS. Most bombs are air burst and the localized fall out is made up of the destroyed substances that were there. the stuff that travels is actually more likely to be residuals from the bomb.

The stuff that comes off a reactor meltdown is less dangerous. It is mostly contaminated steam and smoke. Without an explosion the heavier more radioactive elements don't get turned to dust and scattered into upper parts of the atmosphere.

The fact is that people are pretty tough and can survive a lot of external radioactivity. The problem with Caesium and Strontium is that when ingested they become a much bigger problem. They end up in your bone marrow and eat you up from the inside.

In the event of a wide spread nuclear war there isn't going to be any avoiding the results. A couple of bombs is one thing but when you throw out several hundred it will cover the entire world with the residue. In the long run the survivors will probably spawn a new somewhat different sort of humanity.

 

I figured that even if you have bomb shelter , a nuclear bomb going off within 3-400 miles means you will die .hopefully i am far enough away up north on the other side of the laurentians mountains range that i might survive the bomb and the fallout.

 

Of all the many possibilities that could cause a TEOTWAWKI event I think that the nuclear one is the hardest to prep for. The thing is that if we have a major nuclear war the bombs will just be the BEGINNING of it. After the first lay of bombs there will be a second and then probably biological and chemical attacks. At some point either we will invade their territory or they will invade ours. More bombs more attacks. Even if we are attacking them our government will probably suspend the constitution under war powers acts and that may not be much better than if they attack us here. You can't expect it to just be BOOOOM and done. That isn't how wars are fought. Even with our smart missiles there is no way to make a clean sweep with one big hit. There can be no winner of this war and in the end there may not even be any long term survivors.

If you are going to try and hide make it DEEP and make plans not to come back out for many years. I don't think months will be enough to do you much good. It may take several years just to clear the atmosphere to the point that the sun can shine again. Nuclear Winters might become an ice age... and any surviving military will just keep fighting...

 

There are a lot of submarines out there carrying ballistic missiles as their primary weapons load out. Some of these boats are designed to be on station for six months...and with resupply ...even longer.

Other than a major break down...food is their primary vulnerability...running out of food.



Agree...in such an nuclear exchange this will not be over quickly. And any survivors regrouping and reforming some kind of working government/commerce will become a target. You might want to think that through to it's conclusion.


Texdanm may be quite correct here..

Thanks,
Watcherchris

 

This is a sort of cliff notes version but pretty good information.

https://www.mdcreekmore.com/effects-of-nuclear-weapons-on-humans-2/

 

I stock pile KI03 tablets and bottles of straight iodine. It is always a good idea to test everyone with iodine to see if you are allergic to iodine well before having an event and need to use it. You may find out that you are low on iodine in your body, as I was. I put on iodine and within an hour or so, it disappeared. I now take sea kelp regularly. The amount of 2% iodine to use in case of a nuclear blast, is 8 ml on your forearm or abdomen immediately, and then every 24 hours, for an adult. For children b/t 3 years old and 150 lbs. it is half that immediately, and then every 24 hours. 1 to 3 year old children, it is half again, same times. Infants, half of this again, same times. This is what i remember researching, BUT please look up this for yourselves. I add iodine bottles in all my bug out bags and I recommend everyone should. You can also disinfect water with iodine and good on cuts, etc.

 

my group may not survive a nuclear war but we would certainly be giving surviving one he-- of a try .

 

Coffee....

In your research ...did you happen to come across what was the shelf life of straight iodine.??

You apply it topically on your abdomen???


Thanks,
Watcherchris

 

Don't think I am going to be able to do that.
Reckon I will be surrounded by shielding and the air is hepa filtered.
The problem will be electricity and or cooling water....ouch!!

Watcherchris

Not an Ishmaelite.

 

Based on my research over the many years when a nuclear war seemed pretty likely I have good news and bad news. The good news is that people as a species will have very little trouble surviving an all out war. People are a lot tougher than most understand.

The Island of Bikini and it surrounding isles were bombed in a way more massively than any single place will ever be bombed in a war. You would think that it would be bare and barren with no life...an yet it isn't. It is alive with living things and the seas around it team with life.

The bombs that blew up Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed a lot of people but then a lot of people survived. Some are still alive today. The land where the bombs fell is in a living city and have been turned into memorials.

Now for the bad part. for many years after a world wide nuclear holocaust the life expectancy of people is going to be a lot shorter. A lot of babies will be still born or worse born alive with all manner of awful disabilities. Cancer will kill millions and because of the lack of modern medical care diseases that are treatable now will be deadly.

In the end it is possible that the exact description of what a human is may have to be changed. Lots of mutations will mean lots of problems BUT not all will be bad. In a much more trying environment any advantage is more likely than now to catch on and spread. Right now weaknesses are protected and they will have just as many kids as someone more viable and successful. There is a mentally challenged prisoner here that was given the death penalty for a series of murders. It was reduced to life because he is too stupid to execute. He has 26 little future murderers with sub-normal IQs running around free. I'm sure that thy will live well on welfare until they land in prison.

In more trying times this won't be possible. Mother nature is hard on the stupid, cruel and lazy.

The fact i that radiation is not a very dependable killer. If you line up a thousand people and hit them all with the same level of radiation some will die quickly, some will die over time, some will live for years, some for decades and some will seem to be unaffected. They really don't understand it but the death rates are variables all get out. After an all out war the survivors will be the most resistant and their kids will be more resistant than we are.

It wasn't many years ago that people as a group didn't live as long as we do now. People died in mass of things that nobody dies of now. It is hard for people to think about their kids having a life expectancy in the mid 30s as was common in the past. All the old killers of the past will return for a while. The thing is that people will survive. They will have children and then the race will rise again. Maybe next time we will do better but in the end we are a new species and have a lot of time left to grow. Growing as a species isn't always just a simple up up and way sort of path. If the dinosaurs had been as smart and adaptable as man they wouldn't be extinct.

 

The third isotope that is a major concern is Iodine 131, which has a half life of 8 days. Iodine will go directly to your thyroid gland. That is why many people will add potassium iodide tablets to their supplies.

I would tend to agree that with an all out nuclear war very few will survive. You would have to be deep inside a mountain, and be able to survive for many years, before the earth will be habitable again. There are only three things that will protect you from radiation: Time, Distance, and Shielding. The modern standard for radiation protection is a protection factor of 1000. This shielding would only allow 1/1000 th of a gamma ray through. The shielding needed to accomplish this would be 4" of Lead; 10" of Steel; 24" of Concrete; 36" of Packed Dirt; 72" of Water; or 110" of Wood.

 

Hmmmm.... I suspect that the house of GrizzlyetteAdams and the house of TexDanm may be better protected against radiation than most conventional houses.

Between the two of us, we possess over 70,000 books...lol.

 

Books are a great source of shielding. Just remember that when you are using them they have to be nested so there is no direct path for radiation to go through. Use a flashlight as a test. If light will pass through radiation will pass through. Make sure all of the straight paths are blocked, and they will work fine. I have never been able to find any protection factor equivalents for paper. Maybe it is just too variable. It is dense, especially if you are using books. I have always intended to hoard old telephone books for just that reason. They would be good for shielding, and maybe something that is less delicate to discuss should you run out of TP.

 

I am not a nuclear scientist and won't play one on here . Some of the posts on here don't match with the info in the U.S. civil defense manual on nuclear war and radiation . Then again it wouldn't be the first time the government lied to the people .

 

I am not sure which posts you may be referring to, and I would never want to give bad or misleading information. I did spend 15 years in the Nuclear Industry, and have a t least a layman's knowledge of radiation.

Here is one link that may help confirm: https://www.epa.gov/radiation/protecting-yourself-radiation

Here is another link with links to the more official reference documents: https://modernsurvivalblog.com/nuclear/nuclear-radiation-shielding-protection/

Please give some specific instances of what you think might be incorrect, and we can check on them. This is most definitely not something we want to get wrong.

 

Morgan101 - I was not referring to you and was vague on the matter not wanting to point at any specific post , it's not my desire no matter who is right or wrong to start any personal conflict .

 

Poltiregist: I do not take it personally, and I agree, I do not want to start any type of personal conflict. I do want to provide accurate information. I think we all do. If I provide something that is inaccurate I would appreciate some one correcting it. I would like to think I am open-minded enough to admit when I am wrong, accept it, and learn.