Posted on 11/01/2001 7:41:35 PM PST by butter pecan fan
Then why are we all not dead from background radiation and even medical X-rays? Hmmm?
I don't really see that I'm in any more danger than I was 10 or 15 years ago. There are just some things you can't control. It's better to focus on the things you can.
In other words, live right, kiss those you love each day, wear your seat belt, watch your cholesterol, and pray.
Because, El Gato, our bodies are capable of either (a) repairing, or (b) living for a long time with the small amounts of damage caused by those sources of radiation.
The background / medical radiation issues are specifically why I purposefully didn't write, "THERE'S NO 'SAFE' AMOUNT OF RADIATION." A thing can cause a SMALL amount of actual (but very real) damage, even on an infallible basis, yet STILL be considered reasonably "safe" by prevailing community standards.
Point #1: An "actual nuke" is only one of the three major scenarios I've outlined above. Odds are therefore good that a nuclear terrorist attack may involve ONLY radiation, and NOT a big boom.
Point #2: Even if it is an "actual nuke," far, FAR more people will survive the initial blast, yet have to take measures to avoid the radiation, than those who would be killed initially.
Let's suppose the initial blast generally kills people within a total of four square miles (i.e, a 2-mile radius from ground zero). This seems to me a very reasonable, even too large estimate, since any "actual" terrorist nuke (if they do indeed have any, instead of just "dirty bombs") will almost certainly (20 to 1?) be a SMALL, tactical one.
People potentially affected by the fallout (which will take a while to reach the ground) will be roughly in a 10 to 20-mile radius from ground zero. A simplification, but it'll do for our purposes.
This is roughly a 100 to 400-square mile area, as compared to the 4-sq-mile "kill zone." Given a bit lower population density as you get further out from the city center, I'd guesstimate maybe 250 or 300 square miles' worth of people at the same population density as the central area.
In other words, even IF you're near an "actual nuke," I'd estimate the odds are easily greater than 50 to 1 that you'll be within an affected area - but NOT killed by the initial blast.
That last sentence is true, but bear in mind that THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DETONATED APPROXIMATELY *ONE HUNDRED* NUCLEAR BOMBS, SQUARELY IN THE AMERICAN MAINLAND, during the 1950's and 1960's. These nuclear tests were conducted out in the Nevada desert.
Do Americans suffer from health problems caused by these detonations today? They certainly do. Particularly, there are thousands of cases of thyroid cancer, some fatal, specifically caused by these nuclear tests (a whole lot fewer than the cancer cases caused by cigarettes, but that's a different story).
But how many people do you personally know who have died of thyroid cancer? Odds are, not that many. Some FReepers might of course know one or two.
If you really *want* to be "dead or sick," I guess I can't stop you. MY plan, God willing, is to come through any such tragedy alive and in at least reasonably good health.
Sorry, I meant a ONE-mile radius (=a 2 mile DIAMETER).
Even if you should assume "death to all within 2 miles" (very unlikely IMO), that's still less than 16 square miles, versus at least 20 times that area with very significant radiation problems.
Hello, anybody home? How old are you, you sound like my youngest kid?
Your question was answered under the " "Safe" Levels of Exposure to Radiation" section of this post.
That's okay, miss the point, have your doubts and leave the K-1 for people who are serious about their lives and the lives of their children, it's too late now for folks to have to hard sell other folks the obvious truth.
This ain't a joke.
Good Luck, you'll need it.
Sorry, failed to complete the sentence. Should read:
An appropriate dose should also be taken daily for as many days as you are exposed to radiation. You should be able to determine when the threat is past by using your radiation meter to see if you can personally detect any elevated level of radiation, and by listening to public health announcements.
Hello Butter pecan fan,
Your argument in my opinion, is very convincing.
I am concerned about the integrity fo the vendor, KI4U.
Do you have any PAST experience with them?
Did they deliver what you ordered on time?
Any suggestions on ways to confirm KI4U's legitimacy?
My response:
I discovered the ki4u.com site yesterday or the day before; and placed my first and only order late last night. I therefore CAN NOT personally vouch for them at this point.
That said, I've done a Google search on them, and can state the following:
1) They've been around at least 2 years, based on info I found from November 1999.
2) A newsgroups search turned up one message:
----------------------------------------
From: Johan (Johan@notmyrealname.net)
Subject: Re: What do you guys think of this place?
Newsgroups: misc.survivalism
View: Complete Thread (8 articles) | Original Format
Date: 2001-10-23 18:26:14 PST
twofish,
I like ki4u.com very much. From what I can tell, all the information is
accurate and thorough. He has the lowest prices I have seen on the net. In
my opinion, he is more interested in educating and helping people than
making money. I ordered KIO3 from him and received the order in a few days.
I recently emailed him with a question and he responded within an hour.
Regards,
Johan
-------------------------------
3) The newsgroup search turned up NO negative comments.
4) Recommend you have a good look at their web site and see whether, in your opinion, they have the "look and feel" of a legit company. To me they do. Things that impressed me were:
a) They give you free information and tell you how you can make your own device for free instead of buying their kit for $25;
b) When I first logged on, their order-status information was less than one day old.
5) A FReepr named Rebelbase has ordered from them in the past. You could ask him / her for input from experience.
Myself, I am keeping 3 weeks worth of food and water ready to go. There are too many nuke plants in New York that are upwind of me, thankfully, my planned escape route seems to miss them.
I havent heard anyone talk about weather patterns here. Radiation fallout will follow the wind, so, if you are aware which way the wind blows, historically this time of year, and you can judge your distance fairly accurately, you should be able to either avoid the wind patterns, or drive around the downwind areas.
Also, I would not assume that 20 mile downwind area as the only dead zone. I would be more concerned with the time to put out the fire, for the chernobyl effect will continue as long as the fire burns. All downwind will accumulate radiation exposure over this time period, that is why I am planning on a several week existence away from home. Once the fire is out, the exposure levels will drop to zero from fallout, and leave only that which fell.
That leaves the radiation on the ground where downwind carried it. Thankfully, rain takes SOME of it away, but I am afraid excavation is the only answer for some tracts of land that will be contaminated.
We must also remember, tens of thousands of radiation sick Japanese lived through Hiroshima and Nagasaki and survived. We need only worry about the initial exposure time. Also, who lives in your house when you get back!
As far as I can determine, this involves spinning Johnny Depp as rapidly as possible.
--Boris
The relevance of the Chornobil accident in a discussion of LWR accident potentials is questionable at best. The RBMK system was designed and built without a containment structure. All LWRs in this and other countries have containments. These reduce the accident source term significantly. Even if you had 100% core damage (like at TMI) you are probably not going to have much release other than noble gases with only produce submersion dose, not accumulated organ dose.
There are natural mechanisms which act to reduce elemental iodine concentration. After a LOCA, the interior walls of the containment are covered with a film of water resulting from steam condensation. Absorption into this film of liquid reduces the concentration quite dramatically. A similar argument can be made for methyl iodide, but this form is less reactive and has lower solubility in water, so its rate of depletion is slower.
Depletion of radionuclide-bearing aerosols are more complex mechanisms, and have dependences on such parameters as the temperature and density gradients in the atmosphere as well as agglomerational and gravitational settling. Gravitational settling tends to dominate for these forms.
Release term limits can also be effected by engineered removal systems in the containment, again something that the RBMK design lacks. To this end, recirculating air filtration systems are a feature of the containment of many reactor designs, and in-containment spray systems are used extensively in water-cooled reactor designs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.