Let's BOOFM! (Build our own fallout map) - Page 3 - 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 03:21 AM
Buying a compass roof_top_eagle Disaster Preparedness General Discussion 42 12-14-2016 07:24 PM
AR build decision making. COharbinger Military Weapons Forum 27 11-08-2016 08:12 PM
AK Rifle Build grimus8 California 3 10-28-2016 12:33 PM
Help with fallout shelter ideas UnknownLlama DIY - Do It Yourself 48 10-22-2016 01:48 PM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-31-2016, 02:11 AM
Colt's Avatar
Colt Colt is offline
Simple Goat Herder
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 10,360
Thanks: 15,760
Thanked 27,862 Times in 7,479 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
Runways could be targeted with surface bursts to put them out of action permanently. But, does it make sense to crater every single runway at every single airport? Or, do you just flatten the facilities and try to catch bombers, tankers, C3 aircraft on the ground or nearby in the air.
Aren't these aircraft stored in hardened hangers that would resist an airburst?
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-31-2016, 08:07 AM
Tiny SWO's Avatar
Tiny SWO Tiny SWO is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 195
Thanks: 160
Thanked 226 Times in 126 Posts
Default

Cool project and good discussion!

I think that a larger target emphasis would be placed on our industrial capacity vice just political and military targets. Failing to target industrial capacity during the attack on Pearl Harbor was a huge factor in Japan's eventual defeat.

I think the enemy would spend some energy targeting major oil storage and refinery areas (the largest ones are in TX and LA), some major shipyards (NASSCO, Vigor, Bath, Avondale, BAE, etc.). Taking these out would bring the Navy and Air Force to their knees in a matter of weeks. While you're at it, I'd attack Navy bases in Norfolk (also the 5th largest commercial port in the US), San Diego, Pearl Harbor, and Jacksonville.

Additionally, Considering that 90% of the world's trade is transported by sea, I'd knock out some of our largest shipping ports (Long Beach, Savannah, NY, Seattle, & so on). Our industrial base relies on materials and components that are generally produced globally, so taking those out would bring our industrial capacity down to a crawl. I wouldn't worry too much about runways or air bases other than Colorado Springs, Minot, Barksdale and Omaha. Between the USAF and ANG, there's no way to get all of them and without refinery capability, we'd run out of fuel for the entire military in short order anyway.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-31-2016, 09:36 AM
cleatis's Avatar
cleatis cleatis is offline
The end is,,,,,
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: southeast of nowhere
Posts: 9,821
Thanks: 10,032
Thanked 13,171 Times in 5,517 Posts
Default

Not sure if it is still on the list but in Arnold Missouri there is, or was, a company that manufactured certain military maps. I heard a couple years ago that it was a secondary target.
Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-31-2016, 10:21 AM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 480
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colt View Post
Aren't these aircraft stored in hardened hangers that would resist an airburst?
Nope, they're stored either on the tarmac, or in large above-ground hangers like you'd see at a commercial airport. If they're on ground alert they'll be parked in a staging area so they can do minimum interval takeoff. Just fly google maps over any of the bomber bases and you'll see what I mean. The earthen shelters you see are ordinance stores.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny SWO View Post
Cool project and good discussion!

I think that a larger target emphasis would be placed on our industrial capacity vice just political and military targets. Failing to target industrial capacity during the attack on Pearl Harbor was a huge factor in Japan's eventual defeat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cleatis View Post
Not sure if it is still on the list but in Arnold Missouri there is, or was, a company that manufactured certain military maps. I heard a couple years ago that it was a secondary target.
All of that may be true, but unless the targets are hardened against the blast effects of a nuclear weapon or have a hardened bunker... they aren't a candidate for a surface burst... which is really all we are concerned about for this project. Once again, all we're concerned about here are facilities which are candidates for surface bursts. No surface burst = no fallout (unless a rainout occurs).
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 10-31-2016, 12:36 PM
Tiny SWO's Avatar
Tiny SWO Tiny SWO is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 195
Thanks: 160
Thanked 226 Times in 126 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
All of that may be true, but unless the targets are hardened against the blast effects of a nuclear weapon or have a hardened bunker... they aren't a candidate for a surface burst... which is really all we are concerned about for this project. Once again, all we're concerned about here are facilities which are candidates for surface bursts. No surface burst = no fallout (unless a rainout occurs).
A good point that's mostly correct and one that I neglected to think of. You're very correct in stating that all the targets I was thinking of would be most effectively hit with an airburst. Pretty much the vast majority of all targets hit would be targeted with an airburst vice a surface burst. However, with an airburst, there would still be fallout. It would be much smaller and the severity of it would depend on the height of the airburst, materials in the target area and power of the warhead, but there would still be fallout to contend with.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-31-2016, 03:47 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 480
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny SWO View Post
A good point that's mostly correct and one that I neglected to think of. You're very correct in stating that all the targets I was thinking of would be most effectively hit with an airburst. Pretty much the vast majority of all targets hit would be targeted with an airburst vice a surface burst. However, with an airburst, there would still be fallout. It would be much smaller and the severity of it would depend on the height of the airburst, materials in the target area and power of the warhead, but there would still be fallout to contend with.
Just so we're all clear here, I'm not denying the existence of ground contamination created via neutron flux which occurs in the zone of total devastation. People in the zone of total devastation will either be dead or deep underground. Trying to plot something for them to figure out when they can crawl out and sprint through the neutron-activated rubble is beyond the scope of this thread. You wouldn't need a "map" for that anyway... you'd need instrumentation. This is for down-winders who aren't in close proximity to the detonations. I'm also not denying that a minuscule amount of fallout will come down. But it's not significant which is what I mean when I say "no fallout". So let's not nit-pick the definition to the point of being ridiculous. What I consider "significant" is fallout which will cause a dose significant enough to result in acute radiation syndrome if protective actions aren't taken.

So what do I consider an air burst? The optimal burst height to spread 20 psi over the greatest distance is the rule of thumb I'm using here. And it is well beyond the fireball radius of anything from 150kt to 800kt. The 20 psi optimal blast radii for a 150kt warhead is about 3000 feet, for an 800kt, it's 5500 feet. You can actually go up to 75 psi and still technically have an air-burst, but that starts to get close enough to where skyscrapers could be involved. Plus, resistance to 75 psi is in my book a hard target necessitating a ground burst.

Also, if you're concerned about dust and dirt being drawn up off the surface, don't be. In test detonations which occurred low enough to draw in loose dirt, dust, etc... but were the fireball did not touch the ground, the fallout deposition which occurred was shown to only produce a tiny fraction of the dose a ground burst produced. That was just in a LLNL or ORNL publication I was reading yesterday on fallout transport modelling. In other words... it's also not significant.

If I'm wrong and you have a link to a scholarly article saying so, please share it so I can review it. Otherwise I'm going to go with the info I have from Glasstone and Dolan's The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (which is referenced by virtually every other scholarly work on this subject).

Last edited by CONELRAD; 11-01-2016 at 07:58 AM..
Quick reply to this message
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 12:14 PM
Gulcher Gulcher is offline
Homesteader
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 2,315
Thanks: 1,308
Thanked 4,631 Times in 1,503 Posts
Default

appreciate your discipline in keeping on subject and backing things up with facts. Thanks it makes it easier to sort through.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Gulcher For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 12:24 PM
Tiny SWO's Avatar
Tiny SWO Tiny SWO is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 195
Thanks: 160
Thanked 226 Times in 126 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
If I'm wrong and you have a link to a scholarly article saying so, please share it so I can review it. Otherwise I'm going to go with the info I have from Glasstone and Dolan's The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (which is referenced by virtually every other scholarly work on this subject).
No, I don't have anything better. I'm familiar with various CBDR manuals which don't cover fallout modeling much. Thanks for the insight.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-01-2016, 05:27 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 480
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,610 Posts
Default

I think I'm going to switch to Google Earth & HotSpot. It gives better control over the exposure parameters. Only a small handful of targets so far. At some point I can probably share the .KML file so you can open it in google earth.




Also looks like the NRDC did "Fukushima Here" scare piece on nuclear plant meltdowns a few years back. Complete with an interactive map for all of the plants in the US. The site has since been taken down. I'm trying to see if I can find the information anywhere.

Also keep in mind this is currently grossly oversimplified as far as dosing goes... meaning if you have multiple hits, it can bump the range of those doses up considerably. In the case of a massive strike on the missile fields, you can have overlapping fallout tracks which can extend the lethal areas out hundreds of miles. In trying to do a lower dose, longer range fallout track I found out that Google Earth apparently doesn't like how many points HotSpot uses to form the polygon for the fallout track so it truncates it. Going to have to see if there's a way around that before I can do the missile fields.

Last edited by CONELRAD; 11-01-2016 at 06:01 PM..
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 09:20 PM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 480
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,610 Posts
Default

Playing around with NOAA's HYSPLIT modeling system to see if it'll work for our needs. It looks pretty promising... though very very very very complex.

Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 12:18 AM
Rockwell Torrey's Avatar
Rockwell Torrey Rockwell Torrey is offline
Ingloriously Deplorable
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 2,362
Thanks: 3,091
Thanked 6,480 Times in 1,919 Posts
Default

REMS....RADS....milisieverts...you're making my head hurt!!
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 05:08 AM
kmussack's Avatar
kmussack kmussack is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 290
Thanks: 37
Thanked 834 Times in 248 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell Torrey View Post
REMS....RADS....milisieverts...you're making my head hurt!!
I know what you mean. There are more units for ionizing radiation than one can keep up with. Each tailored to a specific application.

When I try to explain things such a dose rate, dose, the inverse square law, shielding, decay rates, etc. I generally just say "units". I try to avoid a specific unit so as not to distract from the point at hand.

(I'm an old time Rad, Rem, Roentgen guy but have had to learn Sievert and Gray.)

Only a tiny number of people have even a rudimentary understanding of this subject matter; WImountainman seems to have a good handle on this stuff and has produced some interesting graphics.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 07:33 AM
MickeyCJS MickeyCJS is offline
The Mom
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: CT
Posts: 1,163
Thanks: 2,462
Thanked 2,760 Times in 823 Posts
Default

I was just about to ask, right when I saw Rockwell's post. Is there a simple/rough conversion from Sieverts or Grays to rads? Most of the dosimeters/geiger counters I've looked at seem to measure in mSv and so far I've only been able to wrap my mind around rads. What's a lethal dose in mSv? (x)/(period of time)

I hope that's not an annoying question. If I get the chance to google later I will, just have to work on my case study for school first...ugh.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 08:07 AM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 480
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockwell Torrey View Post
REMS....RADS....milisieverts...you're making my head hurt!!
I know what you mean too, that last pic actually wasn't done by me (otherwise it would've been in rem). I just pulled it off the web because the results of my test releases weren't cooperating.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kmussack View Post
I know what you mean. There are more units for ionizing radiation than one can keep up with. Each tailored to a specific application.

When I try to explain things such a dose rate, dose, the inverse square law, shielding, decay rates, etc. I generally just say "units". I try to avoid a specific unit so as not to distract from the point at hand.

(I'm an old time Rad, Rem, Roentgen guy but have had to learn Sievert and Gray.)

Only a tiny number of people have even a rudimentary understanding of this subject matter; WImountainman seems to have a good handle on this stuff and has produced some interesting graphics.
I try to just use R/hr most of the time figuring people will just think of it as "radiations per hour" or something like that. For our purposes we're usually talking about whole-body gamma radiation so 1 roentgen = 1 RAD = 1 rem. I know 1 roentgen is actually .877 rad, but whatever... it's close enough. I'm an old-time rad/rem/roentgen guy too... refuse to change. If I need to work in SI units I just use a calculator or jump on radprocalculator.com to convert back and forth.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2016, 08:53 AM
Rockwell Torrey's Avatar
Rockwell Torrey Rockwell Torrey is offline
Ingloriously Deplorable
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Dark Side of the Moon
Posts: 2,362
Thanks: 3,091
Thanked 6,480 Times in 1,919 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
I know what you mean too, that last pic actually wasn't done by me (otherwise it would've been in rem). I just pulled it off the web because the results of my test releases weren't cooperating.



I try to just use R/hr most of the time figuring people will just think of it as "radiations per hour" or something like that. For our purposes we're usually talking about whole-body gamma radiation so 1 roentgen = 1 RAD = 1 rem. I know 1 roentgen is actually .877 rad, but whatever... it's close enough. I'm an old-time rad/rem/roentgen guy too... refuse to change. If I need to work in SI units I just use a calculator or jump on radprocalculator.com to convert back and forth.
I found this

For equivalent dose, the unit corresponding to rads is the rem (roentgen equivalent man). If the absorbed dose is in grays then the unit for dose equivalent is sievert (Sv). Thus, 1 Sv = 100 rem. Roughly 1 rem is the average dose received in three years of exposure to natural radiation.

http://www.calculator.org/property.a...e%20equivalent
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Rockwell Torrey For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2016, 08:59 AM
KCChimneyman KCChimneyman is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Concho Valley of Texas
Posts: 4,268
Thanks: 836
Thanked 4,421 Times in 2,155 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MickeyCJS View Post
I would loooove to know the answer to this question.
1983 Movie "The Day After" Even with a warning most are screwed.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 10:52 AM
CONELRAD's Avatar
CONELRAD CONELRAD is offline
Emergency Planner
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Upper Midwest
Posts: 2,479
Thanks: 480
Thanked 4,022 Times in 1,610 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KCChimneyman View Post
1983 Movie "The Day After" Even with a warning most are screwed.
Not true. Many will die, most will survive. As far as weapon effects go, to call that movie "inaccurate" would be generous. Second, as I've already explained early on in this post, warhead counts and yields are a fraction of what they were when that movie was made. That's why I feel projects like this are important. If the bomb drops, there are going to be a whole lot of people who will be surprised they survived the initial blast effects. And if they don't take immediate action to protect themselves from fallout, they'll be in for a preventable, but horrible death.

Last edited by CONELRAD; 11-02-2016 at 12:59 PM..
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to CONELRAD For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2016, 01:23 PM
Not PC's Avatar
Not PC Not PC is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Montana
Age: 42
Posts: 215
Thanks: 541
Thanked 383 Times in 153 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WImountainMan View Post
Well the SM-3's are being deployed in Europe as a part of the Aegis Ashore program to protect Europe from Iranian missiles. You also have to remember the SM-3s and are midcourse defenders... not terminal defense. Hit-to-kill with MIRVs is pretty tricky... the Safeguard ABM system which used Spartan and Sprint missiles used nuclear warheads (large in the case of the Spartan, small for the Sprint) to damage/disable the incoming warhead via X-ray flux. The Russian ABMs use small nukes as well. They have a new S-500 surface to air missile which can supposedly intercept RVs. I don't know much about the S-500, it's warhead, or how it works.
From what little I know, this is absolutely correct.

Additionally, not all Aegis ships are BMD capable. The cost & training required to upgrade a non-BMD ship to BMD is significant and time-consuming.

While individual missiles may not cost that much in the grand scheme of things, the overall program (both afloat and ashore) is a massive cost.
Quick reply to this message
Old 11-02-2016, 01:55 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: 15,081
Thanked 62,494 Times in 8,962 Posts
Awards Showcase
Outstanding Thread 
Total Awards: 1
Default

Some conversions:

Radiation Level (Dose Equivalent Rate)
1 Sv/h = 100 rem/h = 100,000 mrem/h
1 mSv/h = 0.1 rem/h = 100 mrem/h
1uSv/h = 0.0001 rem/h = 0.1 mrem/h

1 rem/h = 0.01 Sv/h = 10 mSv/h = 10,000 uSv/h
1mrem/h = 0.00001 Sv/h = 0.01 mSv/h = 10 uSv/h

A spreadsheet to convert some units is attached.
Enter the unit you know in one of the blue fields and the conversions will appear in the green fields.

Just my opinion.
Attached Files
File Type: xls Radiation unit converter.xls (28.5 KB, 43 views)
__________________
Jerry D Young
Quick reply to this message
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jerry D Young For This Useful Post:
Old 11-02-2016, 02:38 PM
Not PC's Avatar
Not PC Not PC is online now
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Montana
Age: 42
Posts: 215
Thanks: 541
Thanked 383 Times in 153 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jerry D Young View Post
Some conversions:

Radiation Level (Dose Equivalent Rate)
1 Sv/h = 100 rem/h = 100,000 mrem/h
1 mSv/h = 0.1 rem/h = 100 mrem/h
1uSv/h = 0.0001 rem/h = 0.1 mrem/h

1 rem/h = 0.01 Sv/h = 10 mSv/h = 10,000 uSv/h
1mrem/h = 0.00001 Sv/h = 0.01 mSv/h = 10 uSv/h

A spreadsheet to convert some units is attached.
Enter the unit you know in one of the blue fields and the conversions will appear in the green fields.

Just my opinion.
I was an enlisted nuke Machinist's Mate many years ago and used to know this stuff really well. I haven't used any of this knowledge since the 90's, so I don't remember much of it. It's sure bringing back some memories though!
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Not PC For This Useful Post:
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 04:10 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