You guys are gonna think I'm nuts...........

[mjncad]

Looking at the tornado shelter web site, the first thing I noticed was only one entry into the thing. What happens if that entry is covered by debris, and the fire department doesn't know you have one of these things and where on your property its located? A good idea that could become a tomb in my opinion.

If ****** Hussein was still around, maybe he'd endorse them.

Personally if I had one on the house, it would have a basement entrance opening into the shelter, and a roof hatch as secondary egress. For those of you without basements, I would still find a way to have two entrances to any shelter of this kind.

As for nuclear fallout protection, forget it...point me in the direction of ground zero so I can be vaporized immediately. I don't want to be around to pick up the pieces after mankind commits species suicide. Take a look at Haiti, and multiply that mess by thousands of times if an all out nuclear war were to break out.

 

[Cat_Driver]

If the "bomb" ever comes I want to be right under it because I will be considered the lucky one.

I would not want to be around after the bomb because I think it would look like a MAD MAX meets real life - no thanks.

Tell me where it's coming down and I'm driving towards it.

But if you're gonna do it do it right. Needs to be deep, needs to be best entered from the house underground through the basement and built as far from the house as possible. You need food, eater, electric, waster treatment. couple of ventilation systems, heat, solar power, batteries, lighting, radio, maybe air conditioning, medical supplies, guns plenty of ammo, a couple of entrance and exits in case debris closes off one or more of your exits, a chain saw, shovels, pick, general tools, and plane on being there for quite a while if they have to rebuild your house.

If you're the only one with food water etc, you will be a victim of violence. People are being killed in Haiti for a bottle of water.

Check this out
http://www.carnegieprecast.com/

 

[texasjohn]

Done some of that thinking myself. "On The Beach" is too remote, shortages due to weather/economic conditions...much more likely.

My conclusion..... spend current dollars in order of probability of being able to use them in case of a disaster/problem....thus, have spent $$ on following items.

backup generators
9mm auto handgun and license, hunting guns, ammo
tools for repairs, including chainsaws
large tanks for fuel storage, both diesel and gas
supplies for repairs
weather warning radios
livestock and garden plot
am working on plans for tornado shelter/safe place made from buried big (and free) concrete culverts.

 

[wedge40]

backup generators
9mm auto handgun and license, hunting guns, ammo
tools for repairs, including chainsaws
large tanks for fuel storage, both diesel and gas
supplies for repairs
weather warning radios
livestock and garden plot
am working on plans for tornado shelter/safe place made from buried big (and free) concrete culverts.

I might start including .38s. Seems like the 9mm have gone out of fashion.
AND LICENSE? Who's going to check on this?

Wedge

 

[scoutcub]

Might as well go to the .40 cal and some hydroshocks! I've had some fleeting thoughts on this myself.....how about burying a 20' or 40' container box? Then cut everything in....

 

[Lt CHEG]

I've attached a document from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) about how to best survive a nuclear attack. It appears the article that you read must have gotten its numbers from the attached DHS document.

I was a nuclear trained submarine officer for my first career. I was trained to calculate the radiactive dosage that a person would receive in different scenarios and what the potential health affects would be. It is my opinion that the article you drew a completely incorrect conclusion from the data. Let me explain.

Here is the source quotation from the attached DHS article: During the first hour after a nuclear explosion, radioactivity levels drop precipitously. Radioactivity levelsare further reduced by about 90% after another 7 hours and by about 99% after 2 days. This quotation is describing radioactivity levels that result within the near vicinity a nuclear blast during the first couple of days. A nuclear blast is an uncontrolled chain reaction as neutrons bombard isotopes of uranium or plutonium atoms and split them and release enormous amounts of energy. The splitting of the atoms in turn release more neutrons that bombard other atoms and split them to release even more energy. During the first hour or hours the nuclear fuel will become used up so the new radioactivity that is generated will drop off significantly. Radioactivity levels near the blast will drop off dramatically as the force of the blast disperses the radioactive materials as seen in a mushroom cloud. As the radioactive materials are dispersed due to air pressure from the blast and wind, the radioactive levels near the blast will drop as the materials are being carried away from the area. Please keep in mind that even though the radiactivity levels have dropped to 1% of the initial amounts in the vicinity of the blast, that 1% is still deadly and will very likely kill you if you are not already dead.

Now, let's talk about the radioactivity that is disbursed by the air pressure from the blast and the prevailing winds. The materials that get contaminated by the radiation will stay contaminated at lengths of time determined by the half-life of the radioactive sources (uranium and plutonium isotopes). Many of the isotopes of these elements have half-lives of thousands of years. For example, plutonium 239 which was used to destroy Nagasaki, Japan during WWII has a half life of 24,100 years. What that means, it will take 24,100 years for radiactive plutonium 239 to become half as radioactive as it was at the beginning of the 24,100 years. If an area has enough radioactivity to be deadly, it will take many years, decades, or centuries for that area to ever be safe again. Just look at Chernobyl ( Chernobyl disaster ). So if you happen to live down-wind of a city that was destroyed by a nuclear blast, over the next several days, weeks, or months, the radioactivity levels where you live may actual be increasing as more of the contamination from the city reaches you.

Here are the conclusions I believe you should draw. If you are near enough to a nuclear blast that the radioactivity levels drop by 99% within 2 days, then you are so close to the blast that you may not be alive 2 days later even if you are in a shelter. If you do survive those first 2 days, you will probably receive lethal radiation doses when you leave the shelter, even if your exit occurs weeks later.

Please keep in mind that in event of a catastrophy, the goverment will place a high priority on preventing panic. As such, governing officials will likely paint a rosie picture to prevent widespread panic that could occur if people understood the actual depressing facts. While the DHS document could make it appear that you would be ok after 2 days, anyone with a nuclear background can recognize what the results will really be.

I'm afraid that the article's conclusion is not even close to being accurate based on the reasons I have stated above. I have to wonder what the interests are of the person who wrote this article. Is this person just misinformed or do they have something to gain by misrepresenting the facts?

Those are all some very good points Obed, but I would also add this. In the event of a nuclear war or partial nuclear war in which we would be attacked by another government then most likely they would be using thermonuclear weapons. In the case of the thermonuclear weapons there is only a very small fission (P239 or U235) device which triggers the larger fusion device. Now there are pluses and minuses to thermonuclear weapons better known as Hydrogen bombs to some. A minus is that they are far more powerful, but a plus is that the byproducts of the attack are mostly Tritium. Tritium has a much much shorter half life (think night sights on a handgun) and is less likely
to activate other materials that it comes into contact with. I believe that thanks to our missle defense systems that we'd have a pretty good chance of not getting too many direct hits. With that being the case I think if you're in for a direct hit, then likely you are screwed regardless, however if you are near enough to be affected by fallout but far enough away to survive a direct blast that you may very well be able to survive if able to hold up in a bunker for a couple of weeks. I also think that because we'd likely be able to prevent a lot of missles from hitting us that we'd have a good chunk of military and emergency services left to begin a cleanup and rescue effort, keeping contamination levels from getting too high.

As for the other reason that there is some optimism, the most likely scenario of us getting hit by a nuke would be one made by a rogue terrorist organization. This device would likely be much much smaller, think Hiroshima sized at best and effect much fewer people. The sheer difficulty in producing enriched Uranium or Plutonium which is enriched enough to support a fission device means that there would likely not be more than 1 or 2 that were able to be brought here for detonation. In this scenario the ability to shelter in place in an area slightly away from ground zero could be very helpful. In all likelihood a massive rescue and recovery operation would be underway to help mitigate the contamination and get the situation under control.

I'm not disputing some of the problems that were pointed out with that article. I'm just trying to suggest that the ability to survive a nuclear attack is not as ridiculous as it might seem depending on the situation. As a caveat I'll note that I am not affiliated with anyone that builds these kinds of shelters nor do I have one myself, so I don't really have a stake in the discussion. I'm just trying to add another perspective.

 

[Redneck in training]

When I was in military in sixties we received some nuclear attack training. The question:
What are you supposed to do if you see nuclear explosion?
The correct answer:
Take very good look at it because you will never see it again.

 

[dave1949]

If you are really serious about surviving a war or complete civil chaos, you will need multiple resources. Food, water, etc. cached in various locations known only to you. Some of these should be quite remote from where you live, allowing you to reach a predetermined destination, or choice of destinations.

One shelter in the vicinity of your home is one huge single point of failure. If you are forced to leave it, you will scurry around around like a mouse out of it's hidey hole.

Have you read 'The Road' by Cormack McCarthy? It will give you food for thought.

Dave.

 

[GPintheMitten]

If you want to take care of your family, build a tornado shelter and use the other resources to set up a college fund for your kids.

 

[mmurphy]

Here's my thinking. Tornado shelter? Yes. Nuclear bomb shelter? No.

I would rather get vaporized with everyone else, than walk around getting radiation sickness with a bunch of death and destruction all around me.

If someone pulls the triggers, I just hope it happens quickly.

I have to agree. You are in an area for tornados and that would be feasible, but nuclear I can not imagine how the aftermath would be like. Face it, if a country invaded our home land, we would be called insurgents!