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!

 

[TrafficCopSmith]

A tornado shelter and college fund are probably the best ideas on this thread so far.

 

[Stargazer]

Hi Google fallout /tornado shelter. Many sites had scanned the 60' CD phamlets on contruction etc. Funny within 100 yds of my house I know of 3 fallout shelters not just nado sheds. Check out the 80's movie The Day After centered on KC Think there are still missle silos under control of whitman/warren AFB.

 

[Obed]

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. ... 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 looked up the half-life of tritium. Yes it is much shorter than P239 or U235. The half-life of tritium is 12 years. So it takes 12 years for the fallout to become half as dangerous as it was originally. I admit, there are other factors to consider. Rain can wash away some of the radioactive dust to diminish the radioactivity levels. After a few days, the radioactive dust may settle some making it less airborne and less of a breathing hazard.

The most likely scenarios we face are a single dirty bomb or a suitcase bomb from a terriorist attack. Here's what I would do if I lived in an area that was experiencing hazardous radiactivity levels. I would pack up the cars and leave the area immediately, the sooner the better. Trust me, that would be much safer for your family than sitting in a bunker. Evacuating would be the best thing you could do. Sitting in a bunker would only expose your family to more radioactivity, not less. Knowing what I know from my nuclear submarining days, if my house and property were exposed to hazardous levels of nuclear radioactivity, I would never ever want to live there again. Thus, there would be no incentive to stay there to protect it from vandals and thieves so I wouldn't need a fallout shelter.

The best reason a fallout bunker would be useful would be if you could not leave the area for a place that had less fallout. In the event of a limited terrorist attack, you could always just leave the affected area. In the event of an all-out nuclear war with Russia or China, the whole country would be devastated so there would be no place to which you could easily travel. In that case, the bunker might slow down the radiation poisoning, but I would see the long term survival prospects of being low.

The cost of building a tornado shelter would be much less than building a fallout shelter. For a tornado shelter, you only need to be in it for minutes up to a few hours so it doesn't need to be very big, doesn't need a toilet, doesn't need food and water, and doesn't need a concrete shell and roof. If there is a terrorist nuke attack, you would probably leave the premises immediately anyway so the bunker would be of no use.

Obed

 

[forgeblast]

I think the root cellar type would be a better way to go. the dirt that surrounds it will act as a buffer for the radiation plus it would be more hidden. I would just want two ways in, or one way in and two ways out so that in case of the door being messed with you can still get out. there was some sites out there that showed how much dirt you needed to be safe.
if you have ever seen the show secret passages, they show this bunker a guy built by himself at night with a little concret mixer, amazing. i have never been able to find net pictures of it, but it was a thing to marvel at.

 

[6thgpSF]

I'm sixty and remember going through the cuban missile crisis when I was in jr.high.Some guy in our neighaborhood built a bomb shelter,the govt. would send you plans for one,we used to pratice for nuc. war in school.all municipal bldgs. stocked food in the form of some kinda biscuit.I remember seeing them in the basements of the Vets. hospital where I worked in Topeka,Ks. that were still there in the 70s.I don't think there would be much left in an all out war,the human species would just about have to start over I think.Didn't we develop a nutron bomb?as I understand it doesn't destroy the buildings etc.I myself use a cave or root cellar for tornados and such.I think we all should be more concerned about terroists using a bio weapon against us like annthrix or plague.the methods to do this are a lot less sophisticated than to hit us with a nuclear bomb. russ

 

[CumminsLuke]

This is all great info and great responses. I don't know, what I am going to do, I just feel like I should do something? I could build a pretty good tornado shelter in my basement relatively easy and inexpensively. The thought of all the evil in the world and their desire to due us harm makes me think I should examine bunker options in order to take cover from whatever could happen. I just don't know? I feel like my family deserves a fighting chance.

 

[Trails2004]

I don't know, where I live it is highly unlikely that a nuclear attack would happen anywhere even close, but the fallout from such an attack could affect us.......

With all due respect- fallout would affect you- Fallout will eventually touch everything- water supplies 1000 miles away- Food sources 2000 miles away.

It is not IF-- it is WHEN

Enough doom and gloom already

 

[GPintheMitten]

CumminsLake,

I can relate to you wanting to do what you can for your family. You're the man of the family and you want to protect them. You are also the leader of the family. They will all take their cue from you.

I think if you get into a bunker mentality that could over take you and affect the whole outlook in the family. If you could pass on the feeling of optimism and can do attitude, while meeting their physical needs of protection and bread winning, you will do them more good than trying to create a bunker of protection from the world. Let go of this fallout shelter part of the project and just make reasonable precautions for natural disasters or power losses etc.

Then live your life to the fullest. They are looking to you to lead them in life.

Best wishes....GP

 

[sld]

Very, very interesting thread!

Sometimes it is easy to get overwhelmed with the doom and gloom.

Without trying to offend anyone, putting your trust in the Almighty goes a long ways towards peace of mind.

I subscribe to the group that says if it a nuclear attack happens, let it be quick.

 

[Lt CHEG]

Very good points Obed, I guess I am thinking more along the lines of having more options. For example if I were on the edge of a nuclear attack and the wind was heading in my direction I might be inclined to shelter in place for a bit until some rain washed much of the airborne contamination out of the atmosphere before bugging out. If I was able to get away quick in a direction where the wind was blowing away from me then I would probably go away immediately. I'd prefer to deal with accumulated contamination that is not airborne for a couple of days rather than deal with airborne alpha emitters for even an hour.

Secondly if for whatever reason a terrorist nuclear attack was imminent and for whatever reason it was announced by the terrorists so as to maximize panic and fear, there would be a good chance that we couldn't get away in time. In that circumstance since I am not directly in a big city I might have a shot at withstanding the blast effects from a direct hit to the closest big city in my bunker and then waiting for a little bit for airborne contamination to subside before venturing away from the area. Again the best choice would be to get the heck out of dodge but if panic causes a traffic snarl that wouldn't allow us to get out then you've got an option.

In all these instances I agree that getting away is the best option in the event of a nuclear blast from a terrorist, but I do think that a bomb shelter does have some value, especially if it can double as a tornado shelter to a person prone to tornado activity. It would definitely have much less use in the event of a full scale nuclear war, but I'd rather have a chance and hope that our missle defense systems could limit the number of direct hits. With all that said a shelter such as this is much further down my priority list than some other survival plans so that is why I don't have one, nor do I plan on building one any time soon.

As an aside, my first real job out of college was as a nuclear engineer for the Navy.I was a civilian but I spent a bunch of time on the LA Class, Ohio Class, Nimitz Class and the Enterprise. I never got the chance to go to the RC of the Seawolf class and I left that job before the Virginia was commissioned. I really didn't like my job and thought I spent too much time pushing paper instead of doing engineering but I definitely got to see some cool stuff while I was working there. The only thing I miss about that job was getting to see on a daily basis what our enemies had in store for them if they ever messed with us, not only in our vessels but also the sailors who manned them. Definitely a lot of good people. When did you get out Obed, I wonder if we ever crossed paths? I was at Norfolk until 2003.