What are the best websites containing information on post-nuclear event survival techniques. I suppose this would fall into the category of "sustaining life in the years following an attack". Personally, I'm more interested in independent rural living. Subjects I'm interested in are small scale agriculture, dwellings, security, tools, etc. All that is necessary for living without modern American conveniences.

Go to our survival links and check out Rocky Mountain Survival to start. There is a wealth of information online and Rodale Press has published many books of interest ( most sadly O/O/P) to "homesteaders." You will find many "communities," back to the land homesteaders, survivalists, the primitive movement etc. There is a lot of overlap. What there is not, is consensus ( or courtesy) on political, philosophical, religous outlook. We avoid that black hole here ( no room in our Altoid tins.)

To be honest, without any kind of fallout shelter, you'd be stuffed. Also, nuclear winter will freeze the earth for 50-100 years, and the wastelands would be radiated for the same amount of time.<br><br>If you want a post-nuclear 'survival kit', go outside where ever your government is and campaign for 'no more nukes!'<br><br>casual1y

I am disappointed in your ill-informed, rude response to the question posed regarding post-nuclear survival. In fact, there is little modern meaningful scientific support for your statements. Many of the industrial countries of Europe have comprehensive civil defense sheltering programs for their citizens, including the many of the Skandinavian countries and Switzerland, Russia, China, and Korea.<br>Nuclear winter is an outmoded and un-scientific concept that has been de-bunked. The only areas that are likely to become "wastelands" are the areas of the midwest that correspond to the missle fields that are high priority ground burst targets.<br>Your suggestion that he campaign for "no more nukes" makes no sense. Our formidable nuclear power and doctrine of "mutually assured destruction" has kept us from a nuclear exchange for the past 50 years.<br>His question certainly is as valid as any discussion about how many items can fit in a Altoid can to make a PSK for daily carry that frequently adorn these pages and merits a polite response. <br><br>

Reaching for the fire-extinguisher while backing quickly towards the door....<br><br>An incompletely researched scientific opinion mixed with panic and strong political opinion is flame-bait. <br><br>The point that it may be more effective to lobby the "powers that be" in whatever manner that you think will reduce the chances of nuclear conflict rather than to prepare to survive in a world that has experienced such is a valid point and holds a reasonable place in our discussion. <br><br>OTH: This forum routinely discusses how to be equipped to survive many extremely unlikely and disturbing possibilities. It is possible to be properly equipped to survive long duration extremes in climate and evacuation from radioactive areas. If you find yourself in either of these situations you will probably want more than your PSK so why don't we discuss what that might be - eh?

<dials 911> "Hello? I'd like to report a fire. No, it hasn't started yet, but..."<br><br>I've just a few moments before I dash out the door again, but here's my take - and no offense is intended to anyone, so please read with that in mind:<br><br>1. I must agree about the "nuclear winter" comment - that's really, really bad science - in fact, it's so bad, I hate using the word "science" in the same sentence with "nuclear winter". A big enough exchange MIGHT alter some weather temporarily - weeks, months, a few years. Or might not. "Nuclear winter"? Hah! If anyone wishes to argue this, come armed with facts, please, not hype, and not "so-and-so with a personal agenda says it, so it's a fact" Puuleeeze! Be Jack Friday - "Just the facts, ma'am."<br><br>2. A massive all-out nuclear weapons attack on the USA is very unlikely - sorry to disappoint the TEOTWAWKI fans of that scenario. Familiar with the triad? It has worked for longer than anything else in history. The nuclear genie cannot be put back into the bottle. Wishing nukes away will NOT make it happen, no matter how many politicians in how many countries sign how many documents - get real. Going below a certain level (no one knows for a fact where that is) is not safe. Cripple the strike capability, remove one or more of the legs of deterance, and that will sooner or later guarantee a massive strike made on the USA. <br><br>Of course, most of what I write here in paragraph 2 is not a "fact" - it is at least partially debatable - but I suggest starting from a well-grounded basis in history, current events, some understanding of at least most of the major cultures in the world, geo-political realities - the whole "7 elements of national power" - current events beyond the pap dished out in "popular media", hard science, etc. before smacking the keys. Arguing from ignorance is such a waste of time... and this is a darned complicated topic.<br><br>3. Some of us (I suspect BeachDoc is one) have known for many many years of the very real possibility of a nuclear explosive device being used as a "terrorist" device. Specifically, but not exclusively, the possibility of it happening to the USA. Some of us have become aware of that since 9-11-01, but this is not "news" - it's merely being deemed "newsworthy" for the moment by the fickle and self-serving "media gods" (advance apologies to respectable media-types reading this). This is where the topic of "post-nuclear" should get interesting for this forum, I think.<br><br>What are the odds? I don't know. High enough to at least think about; not high enough to lose sleep over. MOST likely targets MIGHT be major ports and cities with arriving flights from overseas locations. My guess is that if you live in Bennet, Iowa, don't dwell on it. LA? NYC? Houston? Chicago? Places downwind of them? Give it a little thought, at least. What would you do? Could you do anything? If so, make reasonable plans and preparations, then get on with life.<br><br>I live in a place that COULD be a target, but probably is not. I gave it enough thought years ago (and to be honest, updated after 9-11-01) to come to reason and deal with it. I would be very interested in hearing others thoughts on the matter as it applies/may apply to them. I think it is germane to the "Urban Survival" line of discussion.<br><br>Just my 2 cents worth.<br><br>Tom

Tom<br>I agree with your comments for the most part. I think the greatest risk that we face today is the detonation of one or several devices in port cities that are shipped in an ISO shipping container.<br>Before a nay sayer discounts the capability of the third-worlders, consider that one of our "friends" like China or Russia, not to mention N. Korea, Libya, etc would LOVE the economic collapse and political instability in the world that would occur following the loss of LA, NYC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Seattle harbors simultaneously. Talk about levelling the playing field!<br>Should such a thing occur, who would you blame? How could you investigate? How could you retaliate? Imagine the political, social, and economic consequences in this country and the world.<br>This is not idle speculation on my part, rather a serious scenario considered by the Feds.<br>

Some of you may already carry one thing that's useful during nuclear event - iodine! After the meltdown of Chernobyl, children in Eastern Europe had to take some kind of medication containing iod - I heard that a plain iodine would also do. The point was to fill this gland that's located near Adam's apple (sorry for the descritpion instead of the name, couldn't find the word in my dictionary) with normal iod before it takes the radioactive isotope. There was a large increase in (this gland) cancer amongst children who hadn't taken the medicine - and no increase amongst others. I'm not sure, but I think that taking iod wasn't important for adults. I'm also not sure if all nuclear devices produce radioactive iod. Anyway, it won't hurt to drink iodine after explosion or meltdown.<br><br>Hope you'll never need this advice

too be fair casul1y is only 15 or 16. And not everyone outside the US shares your belief in the effectivess of nuclear weapons in the way that you describe, but that's politics and there's plenty other places to talk about that.<br><br>Justin

<br>Here's a link with a bunch of manuals related to the subject.<br><br>http://www.medicalcorps.org/library.htm<br>

If you live near a nuclear powerplant, I would recommend you lay in a supply of iodine tablets, available from The American Civil Defense Association in Florida, or SSKI, available from any pharmacy which is a super-saturated solution of potassium iodide.<br>As mentioned, the iodine is taken up by the thyroid gland, saturating the thyroid and preventing the uptake of radioactive isotopes of iodine that are released in nuclear accidents and warhead detonations.<br>The stuff is cheap, the protection priceless.

Casul1y,<br><br>So - what are your interests with regard to being "Equipped to Survive"? Travel, city life, rural life, wilderness experiences...? There are some pretty sharp folks here from many locations around the world who would enjoy conversing with you about survival questions.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>Tom

I think this discussion is headed in the right direction. We have too long ignored a potential risk for catastrophic loss because talking about it was not politically correct or a little unpleasant. Death is not pleasant to consider either but that does not stop us from estate planning or religiously preparing for an afterlife. This forum has been characteristically civil and reasonable. There is no reason we should act otherwise in discussing this topic. This forum is devoted to being prepared, trained, & equipped to survive risks of disaster. So let's do it here too.<br><br>I have read the rules of the forum. I don't see any conflict. If it's a problem, I'm sure we'll hear from Doug or Chris.<br><br>Zoltan, Blkjeep, & Beachdoc, thank you very much for the recommendations. And Tom, thanks for the start. Finally, as to our new young member Casual1y, I'm reserving judgment since he did identify the problem & catalyze the discussion, even if he did also say other things that were offensive & flat wrong.<br><br>John<br><br>P.S. By the way, I have prophylactically donned my thermonuclear flame-proof suit before entering this fray.<br><br>

Good advice from Beachdoc. We're five miles from a major seaport, and close enough to a nuclear facility to make us concerned in these times. I purchased Potassium Iodide tablets from Anbex online (I'm not on the payroll). Got enough for the family for less than forty dollars. I always say - a false sense of security is better than none at all.

Jeffery,<br>I'd be most appreciative if you could tell us a bit about Potassium Iodine vs. Potassium Iodate; their effectiveness, safety, dosages, etc. Anbex says a 14 day dosage of Potassium Iodine is sufficient for a month, but Medical Corps 2002 says to take one or two pills per day of its Potassium Iodate for a month. This info is all potentially biased through profit motive, and I'd like to hear an objective opinion. Does it matter if it's iodine or iodate?<br>Thanks.

The best information that I have found is from the American Civil Defense Association website (www.tacda.org). Here is an exerpt:<br><br>It appears that the "correct" form of iodine is potassium iodide. The iodine tablets in your PSK are NOT suitable, as there is not the correct amount of iodine, nor is it the correct form.<br><br>Hope this helps. Their reference to "RadBlock" is their proprietary product. It is not expensive. There has been enthusiasm in North Carolina to stockpile and/or distribute KI to people living within a certain radius of the state's nuclear power plants. Seems like sound preventive medicine to me. I have mine!<br><br><br>Certain forms of iodine help your thyroid gland work properly. Most people get the iodine they need from foods like iodized salt or fish. The thyroid can “store” or hold only a certain amount of iodine. In a radiation emergency, radioactive iodine may be released in the air. This material may be breathed or swallowed or ingested with food and drinks. It may enter the thyroid gland and damage it. The damage would probably not show itself for years. Children are most likely to have thyroid damage. If you take Potassium Iodide, it will fill up your thyroid gland and block the uptake of dangerous radioactive iodine. This greatly reduces the chance that harmful radioactive iodine will enter the thyroid gland. <br>RAD BLOCK™ Tablets are packaged in bottles of 200 tablets. Each yellow/white, round, scored tablet contains 65 MG potassium iodide (that yields 50 MG of ingestible iodine). The slightly yellow surface is caused by a “clear” coating to prevent any bitter taste. <br>In the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, many children most likely developed thyroid cancer or thyroid abnormalities because they did not receive the protection afforded by radiation blocking pills, such as RAD BLOCK ™, prior to exposure to even small amounts of nuclear fallout. The World Health Organization said this of the Chernobyl disaster: <br><br>"The result, less than fifteen years after the accident, is more than 1000 cases of thyroid cancer, most probably solely attributable to this single release of radioactivity to the environment … In the most affected area in Belarus, the yearly incidence (of thyroid cancer in children) has risen … more than 100-fold compared to the situation before the accident. … This increase in incidence has been documented up to 500 km from the accident site". <br>If the countries that surround the Chernobyl nuclear power plant had not given out millions of doses of KI pills (like RAD BLOCK ™), thousands of more cases of cancer may have developed. [Note: As of the year 2000, while recommended by the U.S. government and many research groups, the U.S. still does not widely stockpile KI pills as in done in many other countries.] Please see our article on Nuclear Power Plant Hazard Issues for reasons why this is a major problem in the U.S. today. <br><br>The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recommends taking Potassium Iodide only when public health officials tell you to do so during a radiation emergency (such as a major nuclear power plant disaster or with an explosion either involving nuclear materials or an actual nuclear fission or fusion bomb detonation). In a radiation emergency, radioactive iodine could be released into the air and cause potential health risks for up to hundreds or even thousands of miles (in the case of large nuclear weapons explosions). <br><br>Potassium Iodide (KI), a form of Iodine that is quite different than that used to purify water, used to formulate Rad Block tablets, can help protect you by preventing the uptake of radioactive iodine into your thyroid. note: the thyroid, as opposed to the rest of the human body, is extremely vulnerable to even low levels of radioactive iodine. <br><br><br>Directions for Use / Daily Dose:<br><br>Use as directed by a physician and as directed by public health authorities. <br>Adults - 2 tablets taken once per day <br>Children 3 to 12 years of age - 1 tablet taken once per day<br>If a child cannot swallow this pill, the pill should be crushed and administered in milk, juice, jam, soda, etc. – to eliminate the bitter taste – taken once per day. <br>Children 1 month to 3 years of age - One-half (½) tablet crushed and stirred into solution with juice, milk, jam, or formula . taken once per day <br>Neonates (birth to 1 month of age) - Only a single administration of one-quarter (¼) tablet crushed and stirred into formula, breast-milk, milk, or water should be given to neonates who are in their first week of life outside of the womb, even for premature babies, unless otherwise specified by a physician. If approved by a physician, subsequent doses of one-quarter (¼) tablet crushed and stirred into formula, breast-milk, milk, or water may be given to neonates after their first week of life if there is a continuing hazard. <br><br>Pregnant and nursing women may take this product (although be sure to refer to the WARNING section that follows) but should consult a physician prior to continuing daily dosages after the second day. Adults and older children should take this tablet preferably with milk or food to limit any potential adverse gastrointestinal response. If only a limited number of RAD BLOCK ™ or similar pills are available, these should be given to infants, children and young adults first as its effectiveness (and also the risk of thyroid cancer) drops off with adults over 40 years of age. Adults 40 and over should not take KI beyond 1 day unless directed to do so by a physician (or unless the adult is continuing to be exposed to high levels of radioactive iodine that threaten thyroid function). <br><br>Potassium Iodide (KI) should be taken as soon as possible after public health officials tell you and if at all possible, prior to or shortly after radiation exposure. Dangerous radioactive iodine can be blocked by nearly 100% if taken prior to radiation exposure and can still block 50% even hours after exposure. You should take one dose daily (per the preceding paragraph’s guidelines). More will not help you because the thyroid can “hold” only limited amounts of iodine. Larger doses will increase the risk of side effects. You will probably be told by health authorities not to take the drug for more than 10 days after the end of exposure to nuclear radiation (but note the Daily Dosage section above and the Warning section below for pregnant and nursing women and for neonates and for those 40 years of age and older). In the case of a nuclear power incident, this may be less than two weeks total dosage time. In the case of a major nuclear war (even if overseas) or with nuclear materials terrorism incident, authorities may recommend taking KI for 100 or more days for children and young adults.

An FDA site with more info: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5052fnl.pdf

Tom<br><br>Well stated, and proof that you don't have to be rude or demeaning to make an important point. Thanks.<br><br>Robb

<turns red> Er, thanks, Robb - but re-reading it, I could have been a bit more "polite". I think something caught a couple of my buttons in the wringer - no excuse; I should know better.<br><br>The threat of nuclear terrorism is and has been quite real. There's more than enough factual information readily available in "open sources" for anyone to figure that much out. Therefore I suggest that discussing survival of that sort of incident is about as appropriate as major earthquakes, hurricanes, industrial disasters, and other catastrophes that may occur - generically "urban survival".<br><br>If one is very near a "potential target", knowledge, planning, a bit of precaution, and luck may be really important. "Bugging out" or "bugging in" decisions must be made extremely rapidly and there are inevitable consequences attendant to making the "wrong" decision. (Bugging in would almost for certain be a temporary action and the risk management of when to execute "bug out" and how is extremely important - but not difficult; there is some science to that decision.)<br><br>The farther away (downwind) one is, the more time (still short) there is for making the first crucial decision - stay or flee.<br><br>One (of several) critical difference between nuclear terrorism and nuclear war is that terrorist events are not going to engulf an entire nation or continent, so the survivors can expect massive and continuing aid. This does not mean that simply sitting in a cellar for 4 weeks slowly absorbing rem after rem while waiting for "rescue" is a good idea! A little science learned beforehand and used in such an event could be a life-or-death investment.<br><br>But it's a potential catastrophe that has known dimensions, so save for a bit of bad luck (wrong place at the wrong time), surviving it is in some ways less difficult to plan for than other events. In other ways... inaction of one sort or another would surely lend death swift invisible wings.<br><br>Those of us who do not live in the USA should not be complacent. The USA may be a big target, but it's hardly the only one - more than a dozen countries leap to mind immediately for varying reasons, and no, they are not all in Europe by a long shot. Quite global. I am fairly capable of understanding non-USA points of view and make reasonable attempts to do so. <br><br>Regardless, somewhere, sometime, someone is going to detonate a nuke or nukes on someone else for some reason, real or perceived. I've been quite convinced of that for many years. The odds of many of us being caught in that are probably low. The odds of some of us being caught in that are probably great enough to at least merit discussion and consideration, in my opinion. Not great enough at the moment to lose any sleep over <smile>.<br><br>Regards to all,<br><br>Tom<br><br><br><br>

A follow up to this thread. Today's MSNBC posted an article from whichI lifted the following passage:<br><br>" Today the Bush team is clearly focused, and the CIA and FBI are cooperating more smoothly. They had better: ominous if unconfirmed threats keep pouring over the transom—among them, NEWSWEEK has learned, a recent CIA warning of a “series of explosions using ‘low charge’ nuclear weapons.” "<br><br>Very interesting and ominous.

I think we will see a renewed interest in urban survial. Potential and real threats affect everyone, regardless of political persuasion or philosophy. None of these criteria mattered to the 2,800 odd souls in the WTC on SEPT 11. So, lets maintain our community atmosphere and talk solutions.

Just a note; nothing new:<br><br>Boston Globe article

I re-read the entire thread, Could someone help me discover whether there is a difference between P. Iodide and P. Iodate? Beachdoc I read your post, but I think I missed the distinction.<br><br>FEMA references only Iodide. I would be very grateful for your insight.

I have found only references to Potassium Iodide and SSKI. It has been far too long since general chemistry for me to offer a meaningful opinion about the difference. <br>However, since I have in my possession two bottles of potassium IODIDE, I know that it is available. SSKI (supersaturated sollution of potassium iodided) and potassium iodide pills are the only form thats I personally have seen recommended for loading following a nuclear event. <br>Hope this helps.

There's a good website that seems to have straight info - it's www.ki4u.com. Shane, the owner, is a stand-up guy. His website discusses the differences in depth between pot. iodide and pot. iodate.<br><br>I have bought several bottles of Rad-Block from KI4U after doing a lot of research and reading about Shane's business in a Washington Post article around Dec. 28, 2001. <br><br>Good luck!<br><br>Mamabear<br>

Mamabear,<br><br>Thanks for the link. That site has more info on it than any other one site I have run across. While a lot of it is focused on nuclear war effects, there is plenty of discussion on all aspects of nuclear effects. It's pretty dreary reading if one gets sucked into it - hope everyone carries a good sense of perspective with them when they read it!<br><br>JB - Some pm questions you had for me have answers directly or via links on this site - check it out - don't get bummed out - perspective, perspective...<br><br>Thanks, Mamabear!<br><br>Tom

Perspective is right! I always become nervous about all the information on a site when there are basic errors contained within the site. The article on this site about doomsday can't seem to get straight the difference between carbon monoxide and dioxide. If that mistake was made then what other ones are on the site? Just a heads up IMHO. God bless the internet but NEVER believe everything that you read (especially when it has no overisght or editing like the internet).

I cruised the site. It contains a great deal of information. Obviously some is good and some not. Seems like there is a lot of anecdotal information presented as fact. The comments regarding the risk of nuclear war and the civil defense preparations of other countries are on par with what I have seen elsewhere.<br>Back to the question about KI vs KIO3. Doesn't appear to be a significant difference. Take your pick and send your money. The cost is little and you'll REALLY want to kick yourself if you ever need it and don't have it, because like a good knife, youll REALLY need it.<br>Don't count on the govmint to have it for you.<br>Have a great holiday weekend.

Hi, Reddun -<br><br>If you found some mistakes on it, and are motivated enough, feel free to e-mail Shane and point them out. He's not a wild-eyed fanatic by any means and would welcome the correction, I feel sure. If someone *didn't* want to hear the truth (thanks, Mulder :-) ) , I'd discount him as a TEOTWAWKI weirdo.

Not sure which "article" you read, but actually both CO and CO2 are concerns in shelters. The CO concern primarily stems from fires external to the shelter - it is a safe assumption that there would be many fires raging out of control, especially if a nuke was detonated in an urban area.<br><br>The CO2 (and water vapor) concerns are from shelter occupants respiration, and these are real concerns regardless of external conditions.<br><br>So, even if the article you read has them mixed up, both are things that must be planned for and dealt with. Hope that helps.<br><br>Tom

Thank you for the excellent thoughtful replies.

Hello all - Just a quick heads up that today Sunday 5/26/02 there is an article in the the Sunday Magazine of the NY Times on nuclear terrorist attack and 'How scared should we be?'. Good info and starting point on thinking about this important issue. Made me glad to live in rural SW Wisconsin. Take care everyone and have a safe holiday.<br><br>CJREDDUN

CJ,<br><br>Thanks; interesting read, albeit from a Manhattan viewpoint. We are all downwind from something, though... While I strongly believe that it's worth knowing what to do, I also don't lose any sleep over the prospect.<br><br>Tom<br><br>PS: Here's the link to the article. One must have a (free) account with the NY Times to read the article. I no longer get their daily blurbs in my mail box because my email address changed, but my old ID/PW still work... I suggest using a throw-away emaill address to create an account there.

Tom,<br><br>Thanks for the link!<br><br>Cj

Egads, the topics that come up when you haven't been reading the list for awhile. <br><br>With all due respect to Beachdoc, I wouldn't run out buying KI tablets just for the heck of it. The "experts" in these matters, such as the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) has recommended against such practices. The reason is that you must compare risks.<br><br>The risk of a nuclear weapon detonation is percieved to be low. The risk of a catastrophic meltdown of a power plant is almost non-existant. The risk of a succesful terrorist attack on a plant that would release significant amounts of iodine is also incredibly small. Most experts agree that the most likely terrorist weapon of this sort will be a "dirty bomb" of radioactive materials dispersed by conventional explosives. Radioiodine would not be a likely choice for these weapons, but rather Cesium or cobalt. KI tablets won't do anything to protect from these isotopes.<br><br>Additionally, while risk of thyroid cancer incidents may be high, survival of thyroid cancer is over 99% with medical treatment. If you have thyroid cancer, a physician will give you radioiodine to destroy your thyroid gland. You will have to take drugs to replace the hormones the thyroid produces, but you will be fine. So risk of death is low.<br><br>Balance these risks with the fact that although harmless to most people, there are also many people who may have severe allergies to iodine, with reactions that can even be fatal. Again, the risk is small, but iodine allergies are fairly common, as I am sure Beachdoc can attest. Please understand what the risks are before loading up with iodine.<br><br>I can certainly understand everyones desire to be prepared for a radiological incident (especially in this group), but there is alot of misinformation out there, and the risks are not as great as the media makes them out to be. Please do not always believe what you read on a website somewhere, especially if they are trying to sell you something.<br><br>If you have questions about radiation effects, feel free to ask. Just make sure the person you ask knows what they are talking about.<br><br>Have a good one!<br><br>Greg Sackett<br>Certified Health Physicist<br>Radiation Safety Officer<br>University of Maryland Baltimore

Greg,<br><br>I'll agree with you that what KI protects against is among the least of a survivor's worries, radiologically speaking -- but KI is so cheap and if I had kids I don't think it would hurt to have a good supply on hand for them. With kids, the risk/benefit analysis tips the scales in their favor.<br><br>Bounce

Greg,<br><br>Well said and thank you!

The advice to "stockpile" KI is not mine. Several states are stockpiling KI for distribution or are advising those living "downrange" from nuclear plants to obtain their own. <br>I believe that the ability of the medical establishment to treat thousands of cases of thyroid cancer would be stretched to the max following an accident. <br>At a time when six months ago, people were stockpiling Cipro at hundreds of dollars a dose, spending $20 for KI is cheap "protection"<br>Opinions are just opinions and most people have them.