Latest US Government advice on surviving nukes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html

Extract:


There are some detailed statistics and suggestions which make the article worth reading.

Very interesting article, Brangdon, thanks.

I'd be less fatalistic about it if I lived elsewhere. Maybe I'll check the expiration date on my potassium iodide tablets.



Administration officials argue that the cold war created an unrealistic sense of fatalism about a terrorist nuclear attack. “It’s more survivable than most people think,” said an official deeply involved in the planning, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “The key is avoiding nuclear fallout.”

. . . says an informed inhabitant of Ground Zero.

Part of my nuclear preparedness plan is to avoid likely target rich environments: NYC, Washington DC . . . Los Angeles . .

I have said the same thing about "dirty bombs" in the past, too. (A dirty bomb does not necessarily require a nuclear detonation.) Then the logic about hunkering down to let the wind dissipate the radioactivity instead of immediately fleeing still applies in both cases.

Hey! Wasn't there a Nat Geo doc on surviving a nuclear attack that showed earlier this year? It went over this same stuff about staying out of the fallout by being in a building and as far inside as possible to avoid latent radiation. It was for like 24-36 hours.

The information is all rather old hat I'm afraid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEXD-_O_MpY

(although I can't see the UK authorities today being so organised considering the recent poor weather)

If you do decide to move quickly (assuming the heat and blast wave hasn't turned you to toast) its best to traverse 90 degrees perpendicular to the prevailing wind direction assuming of course you have a secure bug out location to head towards and can stay there in the fall out shelter for 14 days without resupply.

As a resident of Los Angeles, I'm still more worried about earthquakes, but good to know.

HJ

I live so close to a major military base, the only thing that I see will be the flash.
Kind of a moot point- I am much more concerned with hurricanes and tornados.

Don't confuse surviving a (singular) nuke with surviving nukes (plural) as in nuclear war . . very big difference.

.... and if one goes off, the ENTIRE world will be on edge. Something else to think about.

I remember hearing through rumor that a number of world military forces went to their highest level of readiness after 9/11 because no one knew what the U.S. would do.

I'm not trying to start a political or TEOTWAWKI argument, just pointing out that something like this has far reaching consequences. You may find our "just in time" inventory model being "out of time".

An excellent point. I was discussing this with some friends at work, and these former air force (US and Can) members were talking about the kind of destruction you get in a strategic yeild airbust.

OK, in fairness, a low airburst would be easy- put it in a light aircraft, take it up to 10K feet, and pull the pin. But we'd be most likely looking at a tactical device or a small strategic device, maybe 25kt. Yes, that is the class that ruined large parts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but in a ground burst a very significant portion of the blast and radiation effects are going to get soaked by the terrain. Sure, set off a FatMan in Central Park and you'll probably break windows in Brooklyn and maybe have a few small fires from the thermal pulse, but you are in a much greater danger from the fall out. (Brooklyn- spark plug sized fallout?) That's where the FEMA duct tape and drop cloths will come in handy. Hopefully.

If people shelter in place, (a) they aren't clogging the streets, (b) limiting exposure, and (c) probably staying put long enough for the radiation levels to drop to the point that it fairly survivable.

Of course, I expect them to panic.

We'd see how much people trust the government and its assurances that they should shelter in place.



By the way, how much does a Geiger counter cost?

Dagny,

Terrorist wise, a geiger counter would mean exposing yourself to take readings.

In a WW III scenario, given your location, I do not think you will be needing one.

Sorry, I deal in the truth.

Keep in mind that although the affected area would be relatively limited in scope, the panic stricken response of the populace and government could be quite problematic and would affect everyone. Martial law, grocery stores stripped/looted, long lines for gas, price gouging, etc. Not to mention the affect on worldwide commerce, travel, equity markets, etc. In a word, a giant sh!t sandwich. Lets seriously hope nothing like this ever happens.

WWIII -- you're right, I certainly would not be needing a Geiger. Would be part of the mushroom cloud(s).

Probably won't be needing one in the 10 kiloton single terrorist nuke scenario, either. But if I were home sick that day, and in the basement when it happened....

I don't suppose weather.com has the kind of info. And my cable Internet would probably be a bit slow.... or gone.

You can probably find a Geiger counter on eBay . .

wow, look at that Geiger Counter & Survey Meter CDV-777 Radiation Kit

Every well equipped bomb shelter needs two . . what do you take for EDC?

http://www.oism.org/nwss/# Nuclear War Survival Skills
Ch. 10: Fallout Radiation Meters
App. C: A Homemade Fallout Meter, the KFM (Kearny Fallout Meter)

I don't think the forum software allows merging of threads, so cross-referencing threads:

http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=21317

I think a solid state dosimeter would be more useful, particularly if it had a current and a log mode, assuming it survived the EM pulse. They are smaller, similar in price (I've seen both starting about $350) and I know geiger need to be recalibrate regularly.

A scintillator might work, but I only know of them from theory- I have now idea how big they have to be to be effective. Apparently they glow when hit by ionizing radiation. If it is being all pretty and sparkly, you need to be going someplace else. :P

IMO a dirty bomb is by far the more likely danger. But either way, if such things seem likely enough to be a realistic concern, you might want to keep something like this handy:

http://www.nukalert.com/