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>