Replies

Those are good questions and considerations in your comment #51. Here’s what I’ve gathered from information so far.

The talk about a tsunami is nothing more than comedy. Nukes have been shot in the ocean and made some pretty good small waves in the immediate vicinity but nothing great. But that’s all beside the point anyway, and here’s why.

The Russians have described what would be, in essence, a torpedo that would detonate somewhere along a coast near a beach. That would cause a crater in the sand and quite a bit of fallout.

On the east coast, the considerably heavy part of the fallout from such a weapon would reach about 50-100 miles or so out into the Atlantic, decay quickly and have little effect. Lesser amounts of it would fall upwind, on coastal land areas.

The slower decaying stuff (cesium, etc.) would fall to the bottom of the sea and be digested by many kinds of microscopic creatures and thereby decay out more quickly than if left alone in soil. Any of it ingested by fish would most likely be more quickly decayed out by way of digestion and muscle activity in the fish. Yes, many fish would die, but such an event would not put any noticeable dent in the overall fish population.

Offspring of live fish with cesium in them would be okay to eat. Same with land animals in agriculture. Rains would quickly wash cesium into the ground in open areas, but beware food in forests (mushrooms, etc.) and avoid getting on hands and knees in dead leaves (where cesium would stay for a while longer).

The real main concern would be small nukes on missiles aimed at cities and various kinds of facilities. Most of them would be air bursts for maximum effect but with little fallout.

More fallout would come from ground bursts on the largest aircraft runways (long enough for large bombers), possibly some nuclear power plants (more fallout effect due to the slow process of shutting those down), some kinds of military installations (mostly our nuclear weapons related facilities) and a few other kinds of targets. Downwind within about a hundred miles of such potential ground targets, build fallout shelters or have them installed for yourselves and/or your families.

Want some real luxury after the big disaster? I installed and relied solely on a small PV solar power plant for electricity for over six years.

Well, a nukefest is the most likely disaster that big shots in the know have been preparing you for through entertainment media. A worldwide biological disaster would also be a possibility, in which case, you would want to be prepared to be isolated as long as possible.

Study everything you can find about off-grid PV solar power systems, especially safety for installing and maintaining such systems. Then, build and maintain a small, off-grid type solar power plant now or as soon as possible, batteries, too.

Avoid a large power plant, unless you want to pay the ongoing cost of replacing a more expensive, large array of batteries. 600 watts of charging (solar panels) with about 1000 amp-hours of battery would make a mighty ample little system for lights, electronics (laptop computer, radio, etc.), washing machine and solar freezer (like the Sundanzer) in an environment with a medium number of sun days per year (about 150 sun days, give or take).

And remember that the more well prepared your neighbors are, the better your security. Put a bug in their ear about it (not literally), and find little, subtle ways of starting discussions with them about it from time to time. If you build a little solar power plant, give them a tour of it with some information that will help them keep their costs down. They’re going to see it from a distance anyway.

Other security concerns: blinds or thick curtains over windows and/or lights out at dark. Fences or hedges to block views of solar modules (panels) from the nearest road, with fencing tall enough to block view of panels from road but not tall enough to block morning or afternoon sunlight.