If thats what I'm facing, I hope the very first kaboom happens because the bomb hits me on top my bald head.

 

That's like the Asteroid, or the Poles Flipping , or... pick your Major DOOM

That's just stuff I DO NOT worry about or prepare for, because
#1 it's not likely to happen, and #2 you can't really prep for that.

 

MOD NOTE: I'm moving this to the Food and Water subforum because this really isn't specific to CBRN/Hazmat. "Nuclear Winter" is really a generalized term that covers global cooling caused by large volumes of particulates injected into the upper atmosphere, the cause doesn't need to be nuclear war, and as I will explain below, it's almost impossible for the conditions mentioned above to occur via any credible nuclear exchange scenario.

Not sure if this is in the right spot... anyway...my question is, if there was a 10 year long nuclear Winter, do you have enough preps to get you through it?

Not that id really want to, simply because of the sheer scale and work it would take to live in that scenario, but have any of us really thought about it?

I know I don't have enough for a decade, but I guess it's a goal to strive towards.

I only prep for credible scenarios and the above isn't one of them. "Nuclear Winter" is sort of a misnomer because it gives the impression of full-on winter conditions (snow, etc) and that isn't going to occur with a nuclear war. Most of the modern "studies" I've read predict a degree or two of global average cooling. Even with those more reasonable projections, there are still significant concerns and debate over the mechanics used for particulate generation, lofting mechanics, weathering, etc. But a nuclear war triggering a 10-year, full-on winter with 40-80 degree temperature drops? That's not happening. A meteor impact or super-volcanic eruption might do it, but nuclear war, nope.

 

MOD NOTE: I'm moving this to the Food and Water subforum because this really isn't specific to CBRN/Hazmat. "Nuclear Winter" is really a generalized term that covers global cooling caused by large volumes of particulates injected into the upper atmosphere, the cause doesn't need to be nuclear war, and as I will explain below, it's almost impossible for the conditions mentioned above to occur via any credible nuclear exchange scenario.



I only prep for credible scenarios and the above isn't one of them. "Nuclear Winter" is sort of a misnomer because it gives the impression of full-on winter conditions (snow, etc) and that isn't going to occur with a nuclear war. Most of the modern "studies" I've read predict a degree or two of global average cooling. Even with those more reasonable projections, there are still significant concerns and debate over the mechanics used for particulate generation, lofting mechanics, weathering, etc. But a nuclear war triggering a 10-year, full-on winter with 40-80 degree temperature drops? That's not happening. A meteor impact or super-volcanic eruption might do it, but nuclear war, nope.

Thanks for the cogent and thoughtful response!

For folks wondering how this KGB-generated fairy tale got started/pushed, see:
Soviet Exploitation of the 'Nuclear Winter' Hypothesis. (dtic.mil)
has a link to the full paper.

However, should the bogyman/Baba Yaga come to you in the middle of this night...
Where you should head to survive an apocalyptic nuclear winter, according to scientists | Science & Tech News | Sky News

 

Watch the movie The Road for a sort of visual representation of what you might be describing.

Large underground facility, multiple power sources, lots of UV lights, lots of filters, small animal production, literal tons of stored grains, seeds, etc. and plenty of spare parts. And clean water supply.

 

Watch the movie The Road for a sort of visual representation of what you might be describing.

Like with ALL novels turned movies, they are fantasy.

 

If any of the cataclysmic events occur in our lifetime, it's Game Over.
Essentially, loss of grid results in multitudes of nuclear power plant meltdowns.
So... survive event ABC 123 and then be prepared to die even more slowly, but quickly.
Research last pair, Chernobyl and Fukushima, meltdowns with hint of human control/recovery.
Mathematically imagine the results of all 436 (statista) operating plants today going POOF !

Fukushima endlessly continues to spill radioactive water into the Pacific... safe.
Chernobyl damaged hectares just disperse and leach a little... safe.
With its 1000sq mile Exclusion Zone... safe.
Where in northern hemisphere IS safe?

I am not remotely concerned due to above stated.
Man iz as Man doez Forrest.
Preserving your next decade of contentment, health, and happiness, is easier than for after.

 

I'm surrounded by weirdos, but I am not subject to the above mentioned side effects of catastrophic nuclear power plant shutdowns. They are all east of me, as far as I know. I moved from the Toledo area - downwind/adjacent to several nuclear plants from Chicago to Michigan in the immediate vicinity, and dozens more further to the north and west. Now I am in the suburbs of Santa Cruz.

The good news is that a very large percentage of my surrounding community won't fight, no matter what. I believe that they would rather OD than face a WROL situation. There are a number of large Hispanic communities to the south and east that could be challenging once the supplies begin to run out. They have the farmland and the regional food processing plants. It might take a while for them to get to the coast - depending on what season the emergency occurs during.

I don't know the effects of nuclear winter on the ocean fisheries, anyone?
In a grid down situation, our California farmland would revert to California semi arid wasteland without out of state irrigation. There are plenty of artichokes, strawberries, and avocados until the water goes away.

I read that a nuclear plant can't be black started without a jump from a piece of an active grid. Confirmed by some technicians I knew that worked at Davis Besse, west of Cleveland. Confirmation anyone?

 

Yeah ... I live between and around so many military installations of one sort of another that I'm gonna be vaporized in the first volley. I wish y'all the very best.

 

Define the length of a nuclear winter.
No one will flip a switch and it's over. Much more likely would be years of unpredictable weather. Early or late frosts, droughts, heavy rains......

If such an event would occur you better have a lot more than 10 years of supplies because gardening would be very difficult for a long time.

 

It's not nuclear bombs we need to worry about, it's power plants melting down as a result. The gift that keeps on giving.

 

You might need 10 million dollars to prepare for this.

 

It was just a thought....ash/debris fill the skies for 10+ years, temps drop significantly, being outside for long periods, unprotected, isn't an option. The sun just can't penetrate the miles deep clouds of ash. Your preps are really all you have, and obviously running your grid off of solar is out.
Speaking for me and mine ... after a year we'd be kinda screwed if foraging and growing are not possible. By then my teeth are falling out and my skin is glow in the dark green lol ....I'll be ready to kick the bucket then.

 

If it were that easy to cause Nuclear Winter, we would be in it all the time from yearly wildfires.

 

True, but over the years volcano eruptions have caused extended winters. Even one year with no summer/growing season and lowered sunshine is going to lead to massive deaths.

 

my guess is warmer areas would produce abundant crops, and in a few years, an abundance would be shipped around almost like now. so, IMHO, a few year dip - but, that is just speculation I have no expertise on the subject. just saying, 10 years is like forever, the number of things that could kill a person in 10 years if they were isolated is not a short list, so - I think I'd invest in some medical training, or some other situation that is just more likely. stocking medications. entertainment, anything that would get someone through 6 months, never mind 10 years. nothing wrong with it if you have the time and $$, maybe you'll save a bunch of people, or trade a bunch for medical care. reviewing preps is a good idea. always something to work on, but that much food storage is just way out of my league.

 

Not sure if this is in the right spot... anyway...my question is, if there was a 10 year long nuclear Winter, do you have enough preps to get you through it?

Not that id really want to, simply because of the sheer scale and work it would take to live in that scenario, but have any of us really thought about it?

I know I don't have enough for a decade, but I guess it's a goal to strive towards.

I think we're all toast if that happens. There would be multiple nuclear detonations in your immediate area if you couldn't go out until ten years later. I believe it's something like a max of 5 years later if a direct hit took place for the radiological isotopes to break down. That's worse case I believe. I guess this would depend on how intense the exchange was. A caldera eruption can cause a type of nuclear winter too. I would a imagine that's probably a few years of ash, cloud cover.

The weather would be absolute chaos too.

 

"When TSHTF, if you are not already living on a working, sustainable farm that is defensible and hard to find, you are probably going to die." I would say that time is now.

The actual nuclear winter will only last a few years, of more concern is the 450 + nuclear reactors in operation.

When the end happens, the grid will go down and then the backup generators at the nuke stations will cut in. Most have enough fuel for several weeks, but eventually that's gonna run out and they will stop, assuming the EMP didn't kill them outright. And the pulse is real. I personally saw it from the French Nuke tests in the Pacific on my electrometer, so be prepared with backup solar gear, inverters, comms radios and so on in your EMP safe. You have got one haven't you ?

When a nuke reactor is shut down, even at 100 %, shutoff, there is still between 10% and 50 % of latent heat to dispose of, hence the reason for the backup generators running the cooling systems.

What happens after the fuel runs out depends on the design. Some might just melt down internally, but most will melt down and the cooling systems will be compromised, causing a steam explosion, releasing radioactivity into the atmosphere. 400 + Chernobyl's all going off within a small space of time.

No where in the world will be spared as it spreads worldwide, crossing the equator. The really bad radio nuclides have relatively short 1/2 lives, except plutonium, and will decay away quite quickly. That said, you wont want to be within 200 km of a nuke plant, preferably as far away as possible, like the Moon or Mars !

After about a million years, it will be safe enough to locate yourself near to the site as the radio activity will have mostly decayed to lead.

Why prep then ? Well some will be left, possibly with massive chromosomal damage and grotesque cancers, but I suppose that's survival.

Joe average doesn't have a clue what's gonna happen WTSHTF, ignorance is bliss I suppose. All they want is pizza and the latest gossip from the net, along with cheap electric. Maybe a movement can be started to encourage people to go it alone with electric, thereby negating the usefulness of nuke power stations ? We are already totally off grid (for over 20 years now), and independent in water, electrikery, waste disposal and fuel (wood gas), so it can be done, why are you not doing it ? Money is no object as the Govt turds are spending billions on wars that don't concern us.

On the ignorance is bliss theme, Joe average has no idea what it takes to grow food, and I suspect some preppers don't either. Most think they can throw some seeds out and in a few days have food, with no preparation of the soil, fertiliser, weed and pest control etc. Perhaps they will be the lucky ones to die quickly.

Money, cash, bitcoin etc will be worthless, knowledge will be power, and .22 LR rounds the new gold standard. Stock up now.

Someone once said we get the leaders we deserve....

 

Who would want to try to survive a nuclear 10 year winter?
Out of here : )

 

1816 comes to mind, In the summer of 1816, the Northern Hemisphere was plagued by a weather disruption of seemingly biblical proportions. Following a relatively ordinary early spring, temperatures in the eastern United States plunged back below freezing, and communities from New England to Virginia experienced heavy snowfalls and crop-killing frost during June, July and August.


What was the “Year Without a Summer”? (history.com)

 

I doubt there is more than 10 people on this forum that have enough supplies set back to survive 10 years due to a nuclear winter. I think the threat of nuclear winter is over blown. The world has tested over 2000 nuclear explosions with 500 plus of them being open air test. We are still here and if anything it's warmer now.

 

That’s funny, I have said the same thing to people who are sure a single nuclear bomb will poison the world and end all life on earth.

 

This thread made me think of "Threads."

 

That’s a messed up movie. It was heavily influenced by the anti-nuke movement of the early 1980s, so they made it exceptionally tragic and awful.

 

A nuke winter wont last 10 years, a few at the most depending on how many go off. We have more danger in the nuke reactors fluorescing than a nuke winter.

 

One nuke bomb won't end the world, they have already tried that with the tests in the 60's. 10 probably wont, but the biggest threat is the nuke reactors going out of control. That's the one to worry about and there is SFA you can do about it.

 

"When TSHTF, if you are not already living on a working, sustainable farm that is defensible and hard to find, you are probably going to die." I would say that time is now.

The actual nuclear winter will only last a few years, of more concern is the 450 + nuclear reactors in operation.

When the end happens, the grid will go down and then the backup generators at the nuke stations will cut in. Most have enough fuel for several weeks, but eventually that's gonna run out and they will stop, assuming the EMP didn't kill them outright. And the pulse is real. I personally saw it from the French Nuke tests in the Pacific on my electrometer, so be prepared with backup solar gear, inverters, comms radios and so on in your EMP safe. You have got one haven't you ?

When a nuke reactor is shut down, even at 100 %, shutoff, there is still between 10% and 50 % of latent heat to dispose of, hence the reason for the backup generators running the cooling systems.

What happens after the fuel runs out depends on the design. Some might just melt down internally, but most will melt down and the cooling systems will be compromised, causing a steam explosion, releasing radioactivity into the atmosphere. 400 + Chernobyl's all going off within a small space of time.

No where in the world will be spared as it spreads worldwide, crossing the equator. The really bad radio nuclides have relatively short 1/2 lives, except plutonium, and will decay away quite quickly. That said, you wont want to be within 200 km of a nuke plant, preferably as far away as possible, like the Moon or Mars !

After about a million years, it will be safe enough to locate yourself near to the site as the radio activity will have mostly decayed to lead.

Why prep then ? Well some will be left, possibly with massive chromosomal damage and grotesque cancers, but I suppose that's survival.

Joe average doesn't have a clue what's gonna happen WTSHTF, ignorance is bliss I suppose. All they want is pizza and the latest gossip from the net, along with cheap electric. Maybe a movement can be started to encourage people to go it alone with electric, thereby negating the usefulness of nuke power stations ? We are already totally off grid (for over 20 years now), and independent in water, electrikery, waste disposal and fuel (wood gas), so it can be done, why are you not doing it ? Money is no object as the Govt turds are spending billions on wars that don't concern us.

On the ignorance is bliss theme, Joe average has no idea what it takes to grow food, and I suspect some preppers don't either. Most think they can throw some seeds out and in a few days have food, with no preparation of the soil, fertiliser, weed and pest control etc. Perhaps they will be the lucky ones to die quickly.

Money, cash, bitcoin etc will be worthless, knowledge will be power, and .22 LR rounds the new gold standard. Stock up now.

Someone once said we get the leaders we deserve....

 

Not sure if this is in the right spot... anyway...my question is, if there was a 10 year long nuclear Winter, do you have enough preps to get you through it?

Not that id really want to, simply because of the sheer scale and work it would take to live in that scenario, but have any of us really thought about it?

I know I don't have enough for a decade, but I guess it's a goal to strive towards.

From all that I have learned since 1982 when I first got interested in survival and survivalism not very many scenarios where one has to prepare for a disaster etc that would need ten years of supplies etc. Myself I think Yellowstone volcano exploding terribly is more likely than a ten year or even any nuclear winter. I do have about a 2 years supply of canned and freeze dried food but most of that is for emergencies and if I cannot get to a store. Such as in the winter where there is big blizzards and up to ten feet of snowpack. I will give a link at the end of this post that shows why nuclear winter is not credible.

MOD NOTE: I'm moving this to the Food and Water subforum because this really isn't specific to CBRN/Hazmat. "Nuclear Winter" is really a generalized term that covers global cooling caused by large volumes of particulates injected into the upper atmosphere, the cause doesn't need to be nuclear war, and as I will explain below, it's almost impossible for the conditions mentioned above to occur via any credible nuclear exchange scenario.

I only prep for credible scenarios and the above isn't one of them. "Nuclear Winter" is sort of a misnomer because it gives the impression of full-on winter conditions (snow, etc) and that isn't going to occur with a nuclear war. Most of the modern "studies" I've read predict a degree or two of global average cooling. Even with those more reasonable projections, there are still significant concerns and debate over the mechanics used for particulate generation, lofting mechanics, weathering, etc. But a nuclear war triggering a 10-year, full-on winter with 40-80 degree temperature drops? That's not happening. A meteor impact or super-volcanic eruption might do it, but nuclear war, nope.

Very glad you wrote that and one other also gave a link to a post about nuclear winter. I have posted the great survival book > www.oism.org/nwss many dozens of times in this huge forum and other places such as in a few face book groups. Sometimes it seems that I am one of a very very few who have read and who believe what is written in that book. I truly think that the link I just gave is the Best book on survival and specifically nuclear war survival anywhere. Here is a quote from that book and the chapter with a great list of myths and facts about nuclear war > Ch. 1: The Dangers from Nuclear Weapons: Myths and Facts - Nuclear War Survival Skills (oism.org)

"° Myth: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" surely will follow a nuclear war. The world will be frozen if only 100 megatons (less than one percent of all nuclear weapons) are used to ignite cities. World-enveloping smoke from fires and the dust from surface bursts will prevent almost all sunlight and solar heat from reaching the earth's surface. Universal darkness for weeks! Sub-zero temperatures, even in summertime! Frozen crops, even in the jungles of South America! Worldwide famine! Whole species of animals and plants exterminated! The survival of mankind in doubt!

° Facts: Unsurvivable "nuclear winter" is a discredited theory that, since its conception in 1982, has been used to frighten additional millions into believing that trying to survive a nuclear war is a waste of effort and resources, and that only by ridding the world of almost all nuclear weapons do we have a chance of surviving.

Non-propagandizing scientists recently have calculated that the climatic and other environmental effects of even an all-out nuclear war would be much less severe than the catastrophic effects repeatedly publicized by popular astronomer Carl Sagan and his fellow activist scientists, and by all the involved Soviet scientists.
Authors, Starley L. Thompson and Stephen H. Schneider, are atmospheric scientists with the National Center for Atmospheric Research. They showed " that on scientific grounds the global apocalyptic conclusions of the initial nuclear winter hypothesis can now be relegated to a vanishing low level of probability."

 

Like I said in my previous post, the meltdown of several hundred nuke plants pose more of a threat than a few dozen nuke bombs do.

Yes, nuke plants need a load to operate into, much like a hydro plant, but with a hydro plant the intake vanes can be moved to restrict the output. The grid is like a giant bootstrap pulling itself together because its already together. Break that chain and if it all falls over, its never coming back, or at least its gonna take a lot of effort and work, far beyond what survivors will have time or knowledge to do.

 

No we don't have enough to last that long, but if things get that bad I'm not sure I would want to live through it anyway. One of the things that concerns us both is if something does happen we wouldn't be able to get medications we need anymore. Even if we did survive for a while neither of us would do well. I need medication for my seizures and if I was out of it I would be having a really rough time.

 

We try to keep a little hoard of needed meds. Due to no fault of ours a supply chain issue caused me to be with out one of my main much needed meds.for about 2 weeks. Won't go into all of the gory details but if it happens again I will gladly walk several hundred miles to get my needs.
Do not want to even think about being without ever again. YUP I am a big sissy when looking at days/weeks without my pain pills.

 

True, but over the years volcano eruptions have caused extended winters. Even one year with no summer/growing season and lowered sunshine is going to lead to massive deaths.

Yep, but again, you're talking about volcanic eruptions, not nuclear detonations. As I said above, nuclear exchanges =/= volcanic eruptions or meteor impacts. The impetus for the hypothesis that "nuclear winter" results from nuclear war has always been rooted in politics, not science. As a result, there's always pressure to make the findings as dire as possible... and that's why the theory and its proponents have lost credibility. The biggest nail in the theory's coffin for me was the Kuwait oil well fires in '91. Proponents of the theory started rushing to the media, claiming major climatic effects from those fires. In effect "nuclear winter" would result! Except, their dire predictions didn't happen. So, again, I'm not saying the theory is wrong when it comes to massive events like massive eruptions or meteor impacts... those events can translocate the requisite amounts of material to the upper atmosphere. Fires, on the other hand, can't. It's really that simple.

Definitely a bolide impact can do it, it's happened many times, including the one that wiped out the dinosaurs. Some major volcanic episodes have done it as well, but they are mainly associated with warming. It is not known how long the major bolide impact winters lasted. It could be a few years up to a few thousand years. A few thousand years is still brief in geological terms. Normally, volcanic dust only stays in the air a few years. There have been a few volcanic cooling events in the last few thousand years. The one in the early 1800s took global average temp down 1.7°C, which quite a bit. For comparison, interglacial to glacial is 4° and glacial max is another 4.

The term "Bolide" varies whether you're talking to an astronomer or geologist. I've seen more than a few bolides as defined by an astronomer... I hope to never see or experience what a geologist calls a "bolide". But yes, large impactors and large eruptions can definitely do it. I don't think anyone will argue otherwise.

That’s a messed up movie. It was heavily influenced by the anti-nuke movement of the early 1980s, so they made it exceptionally tragic and awful.

Which is the same reason the "nuclear winter" predictions are so dire.

I rarely cite or post links to substantive YouTube videos, but this one is really good