Prepared for Nukes? Alabama is planning. (News Link)
- Thread starter CrazyIvan007
- Start date
Uhmm ehr...
That may have been true for an all out Nuclear war with the Soviet with thousands of warhead some in the multimegaton range but in the article they stated they were interesting in protecting from dirty bombs ( a Weapon of Mass DISRUPTION to quote Nova. ) and fallout not blast. A terrorist attack is extremely unlikely to be in the megaton range and would probably be less than 10 war heads (Actually probably only one IMHO) so the requirements for shelter are somewhat different.
The biggest danger with "dirty bombs" is panic and misinformation causing fear and irrational responses.
This strikes me as a resonable first step.
NukemJim
PS The "Nukem" in NukemJim is because I work with radioative materials.
NukemJim
That may have been true for an all out Nuclear war with the Soviet with thousands of warhead some in the multimegaton range but in the article they stated they were interesting in protecting from dirty bombs ( a Weapon of Mass DISRUPTION to quote Nova. ) and fallout not blast. A terrorist attack is extremely unlikely to be in the megaton range and would probably be less than 10 war heads (Actually probably only one IMHO) so the requirements for shelter are somewhat different.
The biggest danger with "dirty bombs" is panic and misinformation causing fear and irrational responses.
This strikes me as a resonable first step.
NukemJim
PS The "Nukem" in NukemJim is because I work with radioative materials.
NukemJim
A shelter is counterproductive and dangerous, though, with a single terrorist weapon or dirty bomb.
If it goes off, there's no warning. Then you have people who are contaminated coming into an enclosed space with people who weren't, and now everyone's inhaling radioactive isotopes from dust on clothing, and they're all dead. Same with a single warhead. The idea of a shelter was to get in and lock the door before it hit. Not after.
A dirty bomb will not create fallout. A dirty bomb would be mostly psychlogical, and require expensive cleanup of the immediate area.
Decontamination stations and sensors for fissionables would make much more sense.
This is a soundbite solution, busywork, "duck and cover 2007", and it makes no sense at all in terms of the realities of a terrorist nuclear attack, where the only proper response would be shielded and trained first-responders triaging and decontaminating survivors.
The money would have been better spent on portable decontamination shower units.
If it goes off, there's no warning. Then you have people who are contaminated coming into an enclosed space with people who weren't, and now everyone's inhaling radioactive isotopes from dust on clothing, and they're all dead. Same with a single warhead. The idea of a shelter was to get in and lock the door before it hit. Not after.
A dirty bomb will not create fallout. A dirty bomb would be mostly psychlogical, and require expensive cleanup of the immediate area.
Decontamination stations and sensors for fissionables would make much more sense.
This is a soundbite solution, busywork, "duck and cover 2007", and it makes no sense at all in terms of the realities of a terrorist nuclear attack, where the only proper response would be shielded and trained first-responders triaging and decontaminating survivors.
The money would have been better spent on portable decontamination shower units.
You guys actually think that those shelters have something to do with a nuclear attack? That's what the government says they are for, but....
My sources indicate that Alabama has instituted a zombie-response-plan, and it is being labeled as a nuclear response plan to avoid panicking the masses. As everyone here should know (I've been trying to warn you people about the impending zombie uprising for years now), the real purpose of the shelters is to house the non-infected government employees when the uprising begins.
My sources indicate that Alabama has instituted a zombie-response-plan, and it is being labeled as a nuclear response plan to avoid panicking the masses. As everyone here should know (I've been trying to warn you people about the impending zombie uprising for years now), the real purpose of the shelters is to house the non-infected government employees when the uprising begins.
jlrmhilton
New member
Given this country's response to Three Mile Island and other issues surrounding radiation, I have no faith in our ability to handle any sort of a contamination problem...pretty sad really...nuke'em nailed it. Regarding the fallout shelters, I suspect they aren't really meant for a nucelar event....more likely a large hurricane hitting Mobile head on and needing to evacuate and house a quarter million folks or more.
Any politician or civil servant who spends a single dollar on fallout shelters before they have the resources in place to address the top five probable natural disasters should be fired.
Americans in general and politicians in particular seem to be totally incapable of assessing risk. People spend thousands of dollars a year on flight insurance, and don't check the inflation of their own tires on their own cars.
John Stossel did a great report on this phenomena a few years back. People spend money to protect themselves from whatever they preceive as the most scary instead of the most likely.
Americans in general and politicians in particular seem to be totally incapable of assessing risk. People spend thousands of dollars a year on flight insurance, and don't check the inflation of their own tires on their own cars.
John Stossel did a great report on this phenomena a few years back. People spend money to protect themselves from whatever they preceive as the most scary instead of the most likely.
Many moons ago, my father was stationed at Peterson Field , Col Springs. I was like 5 years old and we dug the hole from hell in the back yard. lined it with cinder block. 12' X 12" ties across the roof covered with 1/4 steel two feet over the sides of the walls, Splashed the inside with concrete, Set up a over pressure filtered air system With enough power to keep it going for 2 weeks. 200 gal of water, food for 30 days, two bunks, one for him and mom and other for me. Looked somewhat like a tornado shelter. Doors opened down into the stare case. Second door at the bottom of the stares. We even had three buckets for Poop! With covers I add! Inside dimensions would have been something like a room of 8 x 10 ft.
I wish I had one Now! It would be a cool place to retreat to and just chill out. It wouldn't be so bad to have if
The **** Hit the Fan and was concealed. Eaa?Absolutely 100% correct.
The problem being is who decides the probability and it's impact of a natural disaster versus the probability of a terrorist attack and it's impact.
Bold added by NukemJim
Was that like the people in Hiroshima and Nagaski? They were exposed to fallout without any protection or knowledge, Are they all dead?
Uhmm.. remember I posted
I still believe from some of the posts on this thread that this opinoin is correct
And that is why the .govs (Federal, some state, some local) have issued thousands or detectors (so many issued to so many people with poor training that false alarms are now a problem).
NukemJim
Last edited:
Those were both airbursts, not ground detonations, and it was the overpressure wave from the airburst that did most of the damage, along with the thermal effects. Those that died from radiation poisoning generally got several lifetimes' worth of gammas, but survived the thermal effects. Ground detonations generate significantly more fallout from ground matter. If Hiroshima had been a ground detonation, it'd still be uninhabitable today.
If a terrorist set off a nuke, it'd likely be at ground level. It'd only be an airburst if they had one in a small aircraft, which is also possible. An airburst would actually do more widespread damage because there's less in the way to get in the way of the expanding overpressure wave, but a ground burst would be dirtier and contaminate the area with strontium-90 and all sorts of other nasty things.