Let's BOOFM! (Build our own fallout map) - Page 8 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Earthbag/post and beam underground structure build starting soon Mikiium DIY - Do It Yourself 30 12-22-2017 04:21 AM
Buying a compass roof_top_eagle Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 42 12-14-2016 08:24 PM
AR build decision making. COharbinger Military Weapons Forum 27 11-08-2016 09:12 PM
AK Rifle Build grimus8 California 3 10-28-2016 01:33 PM
Help with fallout shelter ideas UnknownLlama DIY - Do It Yourself 48 10-22-2016 02:48 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2019, 09:27 PM
jlurban6731 jlurban6731 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

In northeastern Pennsylvania, the only place I know of is the mines in Centralia and there has been a fire burning in there for decades.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-17-2019, 09:39 PM
solar1's Avatar
solar1 solar1 is offline
VIP Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 400
Thanks: 228
Thanked 342 Times in 207 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlurban6731 View Post
It's almost like if you don't have thousands to spend on a shelter, you're basically going to die if nuclear war occurs.
no need to spend thousands
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to solar1 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 10:07 PM
sarco2000's Avatar
sarco2000 sarco2000 is offline
If I had a voice I'd sing
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Beyond the Grid, in Montana
Age: 53
Posts: 7,134
Thanks: 14,569
Thanked 22,511 Times in 5,593 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlurban6731 View Post
It's almost like if you don't have thousands to spend on a shelter, you're basically going to die if nuclear war occurs.
No, the best way to avoid death is to avoid living in a place where fallout is likely to drop (or where a nuke is going to drop).

But even if fallout could land on your house, anyone can dig a fallout shelter if they have a piece of ground. If you can figure out a way to hold up the roof, and keep 3 feet of earth between you and the fallout, it's a fallout shelter.

.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to sarco2000 For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 10:46 PM
GrizzlyetteAdams's Avatar
GrizzlyetteAdams GrizzlyetteAdams is offline
Crap Creek Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 686
Thanks: 1,722
Thanked 2,112 Times in 556 Posts
Default

I have not gone beyond page one of this thread yet, but just in case this was not mentioned here is a nice interactive map to navigate.

This particular link shows current wind, but you can fool around with other settings as well. Play with the time slider at the bottom of the map and see how drastically the wind changes direction at different times of day and night.

https://www.ventusky.com/?p=35.1;-94...18/0300&w=soft

Don't forget to hit "play" at the lower right side of the map.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to GrizzlyetteAdams For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 10:58 PM
Colt's Avatar
Colt Colt is offline
Simple Goat Herder
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,406
Thanks: 15,816
Thanked 27,985 Times in 7,509 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlurban6731 View Post
It's almost like if you don't have thousands to spend on a shelter, you're basically going to die if nuclear war occurs.
Completely unsheltered, 90% of the US population would survive. It's not hard. Fallout is the exception, not the rule, and it still doesn't result in a very large area where an underground bunker is needed to survive it. Even then, it's not hard to dodge it by just moving out of the down-wind area. Nuclear weapons don't cover that large of an area. A lot more than a conventional bomb, but still not a lot on a large scale. Injuries, logistical problems, sure. But the bombs aren't that deadly for the vast majority people. Just don't be right at or next to a target. If you're not in a target country, you'll hardly notice it other than issues with international trade.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Colt For This Useful Post:
Old 06-17-2019, 11:16 PM
Jerry D Young's Avatar
Jerry D Young Jerry D Young is offline
www.jerrydyoung.com

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Age: 66
Posts: 12,059
Thanks: 15,103
Thanked 62,602 Times in 8,963 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlurban6731 View Post
It's almost like if you don't have thousands to spend on a shelter, you're basically going to die if nuclear war occurs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlurban6731 View Post
In northeastern Pennsylvania, the only place I know of is the mines in Centralia and there has been a fire burning in there for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarco2000 View Post
No, the best way to avoid death is to avoid living in a place where fallout is likely to drop (or where a nuke is going to drop).

But even if fallout could land on your house, anyone can dig a fallout shelter if they have a piece of ground. If you can figure out a way to hold up the roof, and keep 3 feet of earth between you and the fallout, it's a fallout shelter.

.
It really does not take thousands of dollars. A person can easily spend that much, especially doing things the modern, first-class, top-of-the-line, gotta have the best of everything way. It simply is not necessary. Some aspects of fallout shelters do need to be of very good quality, and installed correctly. The rest of the primary parts of a shelter are essentially dirt in one form or another. Dirt is usually cheap. There is probably designer dirt for sale for shelters, but I have not run across any. Probably because I was not looking for it. Plain old dirt is fine for me.

Concrete is great, and can be used to make some really good shelters very quickly, and at moderate cost. However, other items using dirt and/or sand, such as sandbags, wooden boxes, plastic tubs, sheets (yes, plain old cotton sheets), just about any and all sheet goods (besides sheets), and many scrounged items, can be use to give the same effect as the concrete.

It might take a bit longer. Not always, though. And it might not be quite as bright and shiny new looking. It can be pretty classy looking though, if you like rustic or believe that form follows functions and is its own beauty.

One thing that might put it in perspective is that I can build a shelter that does not have any two walls touching each other, and that shelter can easily surpass the old PF-40 standard. I can easily do one for PF-100 and even PF-1,000. The only difficult part is the overhead protection, and if I have access to new or used timber, new or used structural steel, lots of brick or concrete block (with or without mortar), I can also have the equal amount of overhead protection.

It would not be good for use as a blast shelter, but those single, independent walls only need to overlap slightly to prevent radiation, which does not turn corners very well, nor reflect very much, from getting very far inside a set of those walls. And none need to be all that thick. You do need more if they are not thick or have much mass, but it is still doable.

If I had access to plenty of water and a way to pump it to around 30psi or so, I would not even need all that much mass for the overhead protection.

These are all small details about dealing with radiation that illustrate why it does not have to cost a small fortune, much less a large one, to have adequate fallout protection.

Now, blast protection and protection from other humans does require a bit of extra work. Just not the radiation.

I believe that no matter where a person lives, at ground zero of a target area or a thousand miles west of a target area (assuming westerly winds), a shelter could be needed. The weapon targeted at the high value area may miss or malfunction. And that area that is a thousand miles from likely targets may wind up being near ground zero of a weapon that went off course. We are talking Russian and Chinese technologies. Do you really trust them to be 100% accurate 100% of the time?

And what if a weather system is occurring that has the winds blowing 180į opposite of the prevailing winds, which is carrying fallout from the target a thousand miles away right toward you at 150mph on the jet stream.

Every place would be better off with an adequate shelter. If it can be a million dollar deluxe shelter, then fine. If it is a $350 DIY shelter with a real protection factor of 1,000 then I will sure take it.

Just my opinion.
__________________
Jerry D Young
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jerry D Young For This Useful Post:
Old 06-18-2019, 12:05 AM
Sue Doh Myn's Avatar
Sue Doh Myn Sue Doh Myn is offline
Tin Can Sailor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,139
Thanks: 9,652
Thanked 5,106 Times in 1,850 Posts
Default

I live between multiple nuclear reactors and a nuclear weapons storage facility, so I know what my odds are (location is due to work).
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sue Doh Myn For This Useful Post:
Old 06-18-2019, 12:09 AM
Sue Doh Myn's Avatar
Sue Doh Myn Sue Doh Myn is offline
Tin Can Sailor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,139
Thanks: 9,652
Thanked 5,106 Times in 1,850 Posts
Default

When I did Nuclear Command and Control in the military, we had a pretty bad-ass computer system that was used for planning nuclear attacks, and it provided estimates of deaths/casualties, contamination spread, etc, all based on weapons used and historical weather averages.

We also had a book of likely targets in the US - it was very comprehensive and huge.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sue Doh Myn For This Useful Post:
Old 06-18-2019, 01:01 AM
zumhug's Avatar
zumhug zumhug is offline
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: United States
Posts: 2,554
Thanks: 6,405
Thanked 4,473 Times in 1,642 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CONELRAD View Post
WARNING!

Projecting fallout deposition, concentration, and estimating resulting doses <snip>

At a later time we'll consider facilities like nuclear power plants, weapon processing labs, etc. which could be hit with air bursts and potentially produce some level of fallout. If these facilities were hit with a surface burst, the striking weapon's fallout would largely overshadow any secondary fallout produced by the facility itself. For more information on how this is not as straight-forward as it seems, please see the last page of this thread: https://www.survivalistboards.com/sh...d.php?t=428873

Let's start out using NukeMap.



http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/?t...6ab3728822d94c

Target List: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

For this map I assumed that no weapon larger than 800kt, which is the largest yield supposedly used by the Russians. I assumed a primarily counter-force strike of around 500 warheads (primarily on our 440 ICBM silos, C3 facilities, sub pens, and bomber bases). Since I was interested in fallout plots, I didn't bother with many air-bursts. One of the Pantex hits has the wrong wind direction. All of the bursts were using a fission fraction of 100%, which is very dirty.

Useful information and references:

1991 Nuclear Weapons Targeting Process
Primer on Nuclear Exchange Models
Glasstone & Dolan The Effects of Nuclear Weapons 1977 ed
Medical Response to a Major Radiologic Emergency
STATION BLACKOUT AT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS RADIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS FOR NUCLEAR WAR
Projected US Casualties and Destruction of US Medical Services From Attacks by Russian Nuclear Forces
Nuclear Power Plants as Weapons for the Enemy: An Unrecognized Military Peril By Bennett Ramberg
Nuclear Attack Planning Base 1990
Modeling the fallout from stabilized nuclear clouds using the HYSPLIT atmospheric dispersion model
I can't thank you enough for this thread. I was looking for it and couldn't find it. Tagging to look over these things again.
Well done.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to zumhug For This Useful Post:
Old 06-18-2019, 08:57 AM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,486
Thanks: 481
Thanked 4,032 Times in 1,615 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue Doh Myn View Post
When I did Nuclear Command and Control in the military, we had a pretty bad-ass computer system that was used for planning nuclear attacks, and it provided estimates of deaths/casualties, contamination spread, etc, all based on weapons used and historical weather averages.

We also had a book of likely targets in the US - it was very comprehensive and huge.

How long ago were you in NC3? One of the tools the DoD uses now is HPAC, and it is very cool. It does exactly what you said. The Achilles heel to any system is thereís no way to know exactly what the winds will be doing at zero hour. While the tracks are generally to the east, there can be a very sharp north/south component and low level winds can be a component as well. Thatís been one of the struggles with doing this. Knowing the above, what is the most effective way estimate and illustrate risk areas?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 06-19-2019, 12:05 AM
Jerry D Young's Avatar
Jerry D Young Jerry D Young is offline
www.jerrydyoung.com

 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Age: 66
Posts: 12,059
Thanks: 15,103
Thanked 62,602 Times in 8,963 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

If I might be permitted my thoughts on the 'best' way in light of that uncertainty of not knowing the actual weapon power and the strength and direction of the winds at the time of impact and shortly thereafter:

One runs dozens, if not hundreds of combinations, being methodical and keeping accurate documentation for each tracking run.

With that information kept on file, and the perquisite meteorologist with reliable equipment plus replacement equipment (and possibly a replacement meteorologist, too), the observer on duty provides an estimate of the power of the device and altitude of detonation, the meteorologist checks the current wind patterns and pulls the appropriate trial run and then begins to fine tune it as additional data comes in and is analyzed.

Even without the trained observer and meteorologist, if the test runs are well documented, a reasonably trained person can check on the current wind direction and speed using a home weather station, and select the closest run that was done to the current estimates and can use the run to give a pretty good idea of what will occur short-term. Long-term without continuous information coming in will be a crap shoot in terms of what will actually happen.

I do think though, that if the test runs are done, it will become obvious that a shelter could be needed pretty much everywhere within a 500 to 1,000 mile radius of each target And that those circles will overlap almost to the point that all but a few areas of the west would not need a shelter. If every weapon works correctly and hits its intended target, and does not miss and land somewhere else and still work.

My plan is to have a shelter anywhere I am, a calibrated fallout radiation instrument and back up, plus a NOAA Weather Radio so I know what the weather is at pretty much all times, and a very good home weather station so I can have reasonable wind speed and direction reports at least at the surface.

Even if I cannot track the fallout, I will be able to track the arrival, accumulation, last time of increasing radiation, and the decay of fallout that has settled at the location. During this process, using a radiation decay rate calculator I can figure out, with a running modification of the time, how long until the shelter can be left for short times, medium times, longer times and then full time.

Just my opinion.
__________________
Jerry D Young
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Jerry D Young For This Useful Post:
Old 06-24-2019, 10:15 PM
jlurban6731 jlurban6731 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 16
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

There are a few different ways we could help protect ourselves from nuclear attacks by smaller countries like North Korea, China, etc. First, we could attempt to knock the missile off of its launching pad. Second, I understand that there is a way to bombard a nuclear missile with thousands of microwaves prior to launch and it will affect its electrical system. Then there is the THAAD missile defense system. This basically aims an interceptor missile at the nuclear missile to knock it out of the air. I have also heard there is a way where we can attempt to shoot the nuclear missile down from space. There is also a way that we might be able to have our planes knock the missiles down in the air but am not sure how that will go.
Quick reply to this message
Old 06-28-2019, 04:42 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,486
Thanks: 481
Thanked 4,032 Times in 1,615 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jlurban6731 View Post
There are a few different ways we could help protect ourselves from nuclear attacks by smaller countries like North Korea, China, etc. First, we could attempt to knock the missile off of its launching pad. Second, I understand that there is a way to bombard a nuclear missile with thousands of microwaves prior to launch and it will affect its electrical system. Then there is the THAAD missile defense system. This basically aims an interceptor missile at the nuclear missile to knock it out of the air. I have also heard there is a way where we can attempt to shoot the nuclear missile down from space. There is also a way that we might be able to have our planes knock the missiles down in the air but am not sure how that will go.


This isnít a discussion on missile defense, itís about mapping fallout. Please stick to the topic.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 06-28-2019, 10:37 PM
Sue Doh Myn's Avatar
Sue Doh Myn Sue Doh Myn is offline
Tin Can Sailor
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 3,139
Thanks: 9,652
Thanked 5,106 Times in 1,850 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CONELRAD View Post
How long ago were you in NC3? One of the tools the DoD uses now is HPAC, and it is very cool. It does exactly what you said. The Achilles heel to any system is thereís no way to know exactly what the winds will be doing at zero hour. While the tracks are generally to the east, there can be a very sharp north/south component and low level winds can be a component as well. Thatís been one of the struggles with doing this. Knowing the above, what is the most effective way estimate and illustrate risk areas?
Back in 2003. It was called Nuclear Planning and Execution System (NPES).
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Sue Doh Myn For This Useful Post:
Old 07-28-2019, 12:44 AM
Chili's Avatar
Chili Chili is offline
Trapper
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 928
Thanks: 622
Thanked 1,004 Times in 493 Posts
Default

Try to get a copy of ATP-45. it has the info on how to plot the downwind hazards of radiation from a NUDET.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-17-2019, 03:08 PM
mi27ke85 mi27ke85 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks: 6
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Is this map showing Rads per hour or total rads? Anyone know?
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-17-2019, 03:44 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,486
Thanks: 481
Thanked 4,032 Times in 1,615 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mi27ke85 View Post
Is this map showing Rads per hour or total rads? Anyone know?


Which map? There are several in this thread.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 10-17-2019, 03:58 PM
mi27ke85 mi27ke85 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks: 6
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Sorry, the initial one from 1986. I saw the 14 day dose pattern. I was thinking that means you would be exposed to a maximum of 20,000 Rads over 14 days in the worst areas.

But, I wanted to make sure that it did not mean the worst areas would be getting 20,000 Rads an hour over 14 days. Most of these maps seem cumulative. Thank you for replying.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-17-2019, 05:38 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,486
Thanks: 481
Thanked 4,032 Times in 1,615 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mi27ke85 View Post
Sorry, the initial one from 1986. I saw the 14 day dose pattern. I was thinking that means you would be exposed to a maximum of 20,000 Rads over 14 days in the worst areas.

But, I wanted to make sure that it did not mean the worst areas would be getting 20,000 Rads an hour over 14 days. Most of these maps seem cumulative. Thank you for replying.
Yes, it's a cumulative dose, but remember, back in '86 they were using something like 2000 warheads between 2 and 20 megatons. That's something like 40000 megatons of yield which isn't realistic these days with fewer, smaller, more accurate warheads. That's also an unshielded dose and also doesn't take into account the protraction of the dose. Your "lethal" 500 to 1000 rad numbers are assumed to be accumulated within a few minutes. When you spread that out over a month, it drives down the mortality rate... unfortunately we don't know exactly how much because apart from treating certain types of cancer patients, we don't have a lot of firm info or equations as to how protracting the dose out over 2 weeks to a month will affect the survival rate. That's why I tell people to not be so sure you'll be dead from radiation sickness. Because if you get 500 rad spread over 2 weeks to a month... you probably won't die.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 10-17-2019, 08:28 PM
mi27ke85 mi27ke85 is offline
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 9
Thanks: 6
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Default

Thank you. Just trying to maximize that probably But yes, I agree with you. If I can take a few concrete blocks and give myself SOME protection, I think people would be well served to not be so pessimistic about the chances of survival.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
fallout, fallout map, nuclear, nuclear contamination, nuclear exchange, nuclear war, nuke, radiation, radiation map



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net