Quote from: Crosscut on July 11, 2022, 03:26:08 PM90 second Nuclear Preparedness PSA video from NYC Emergency Management released today: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-5d7V4Sbqk

Knowing is half the battle, the other half of the battle apparently involves nuclear weapons.

Gotta love that the end result here will be a lot of wet, naked people huddled together in the dark.  Anyone want to wager on the activities that will ensue? 

A link to an applicable site. Pick your poison and place the impact zone near a likely target and see how your BOL/BIL fairs.

You can select yield, air bust and ground bursts.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

As an example I selected Erath, LA for 3.3 MT airburst.

Why and what the hell is Erath?

A strike against this site would strike 9 interstate gas pipelines and 4 intrastate pipelines. BTW a 3.3 MT would be over kill for this target. You cannot view this attachment.

Quote from: NT2C on July 11, 2022, 04:35:12 PMHiroshima and Nagasaki were each hit with a single, very low-yield atomic bomb.  Considering we're talking about the White House, major military bases like Andrews Air Force Base, Quantico Marine Base (home of the FBI Academy too), Portsmith Naval Shipyards, Norfolk Navy Base, and a slew of locations operated by various clandestine agencies, if we didn't get plastered with less than a dozen hydrogen bombs I'd be very surprised.

Theoretically, yes of course they could destroy the entire area, there´s certainly enough firepower. Actually just drop another Tsar there and you´re probably good. My point is that I think it´s highly unlikely to drop multiple nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles on closely situated targets, it´s an assessment of probability.

Then there is the fact that they´d have lost their biggest threat. I can´t think of many possibilities to surpass an attack like this and NATO would have to retaliate with similar devastation. A smaller singular attack for demoralisation purposes is something much more likely. The scenario you describe could be the desperate last insurrection in an already lost case. But in that instance, there would have been multiple opportunities to get out beforehand.
Or a head of state going absolutely bonkers, there is that.

I just tried out Raptors nukemap, and even the originally planned yield of Tsar Bomba with 100 Mt only produces a fireball of 7-8 km.
The closest eyewitness report of a survivor of Hiroshima that I know of is 300m away from ground central. If you manage to be outside of the fireball range and in a secure building you have a small chance of survival. The human body can survive an astonishing amount of pressure and the direct impact zone is relatively small compared to your distance to the targets regardless of fission or fusion technology. There is a large possibility of debilitating consequences, so in a lot of cases going instantly might be kinder.

I may very well be too optimistic and trust logics and the ability to correctly predict the ramifications of one's actions and act accordingly too much. It has happened before.
Let´s hope we won´t ever find out who´s right.

On a side note, they could actually drop the 100 Mt on the White House and you should still be fine if you are inside a secure concrete building. Or in this case the White House would be fine if they drop it on your house, I was doing it in reverse. Lets hope that doesn´t happen either.

I am seeing a lot of rumors online about why NYC put out the PSA.
Most of them involve a *dirty bomb* that supposedly has come into the city.
I thought they had stuff to detect things like that?
Anyway, my go-to to check veracity of rumors like this is to look where the politicians, celebrities and the elite are.
If they all bolt out of town, then I'll worry.

Quote from: Lambykins on July 12, 2022, 06:22:21 PMI am seeing a lot of rumors online about why NYC put out the PSA.
Most of them involve a *dirty bomb* that supposedly has come into the city.
I thought they had stuff to detect things like that?
Anyway, my go-to to check veracity of rumors like this is to look where the politicians, celebrities and the elite are.
If they all bolt out of town, then I'll worry.

It wouldn't have "come into" the city, it could originate there.  Hospitals and the like generate a lot of radioactive medical waste that has to be collected and disposed of.  That waste could become a dirty bomb fairly easily.

Quote from: tirls on July 12, 2022, 06:59:14 AM

Quote from: NT2C on July 11, 2022, 04:35:12 PMHiroshima and Nagasaki were each hit with a single, very low-yield atomic bomb.  Considering we're talking about the White House, major military bases like Andrews Air Force Base, Quantico Marine Base (home of the FBI Academy too), Portsmith Naval Shipyards, Norfolk Navy Base, and a slew of locations operated by various clandestine agencies, if we didn't get plastered with less than a dozen hydrogen bombs I'd be very surprised.

Theoretically, yes of course they could destroy the entire area, there´s certainly enough firepower. Actually just drop another Tsar there and you´re probably good. My point is that I think it´s highly unlikely to drop multiple nuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles on closely situated targets, it´s an assessment of probability.
Then there is the fact that they´d have lost their biggest threat. I can´t think of many possibilities to surpass an attack like this and NATO would have to retaliate with similar devastation. A smaller singular attack for demoralisation purposes is something much more likely. The scenario you describe could be the desperate last insurrection in an already lost case. But in that instance, there would have been multiple opportunities to get out beforehand.
Or a head of state going absolutely bonkers, there is that.
I just tried out Raptors nukemap, and even the originally planned yield of Tsar Bomba with 100 Mt only produces a fireball of 7-8 km.
The closest eyewitness report of a survivor of Hiroshima that I know of is 300m away from ground central. If you manage to be outside of the fireball range and in a secure building you have a small chance of survival. The human body can survive an astonishing amount of pressure and the direct impact zone is relatively small compared to your distance to the targets regardless of fission or fusion technology. There is a large possibility of debilitating consequences, so in a lot of cases going instantly might be kinder.
I may very well be too optimistic and trust logics and the ability to correctly predict the ramifications of one's actions and act accordingly too much. It has happened before.
Let´s hope we won´t ever find out who´s right.
On a side note, they could actually drop the 100 Mt on the White House and you should still be fine if you are inside a secure concrete building. Or in this case the White House would be fine if they drop it on your house, I was doing it in reverse. Lets hope that doesn´t happen either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle


Attack on Kansas city, Lawrence area and the former ICBM missile bases


https://youtu.be/7VG2aJyIFrA

Quote from: flybynight on July 13, 2022, 04:54:10 AMhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_independently_targetable_reentry_vehicle

And those, agreed. However then you are back down in explosive power giving you a maximum impact zone of around 2,5 to 4 km in radius for each head and unless you are directly in it you have a reasonable possibility of survival if you are in a safe building. Safe building meaning something like a concrete basement or building, not necessarily a nuclear bunker. The chances are of course lower if the explosion isn´t airborne, but it does not mean guaranteed instant death. Even radiation sickness up to a point is survivable.

I still think the chances of this happening are immensely small. There is not much room for intensification after such an assault making an area-wide nuclear attack without any premonition highly unlikely. You´d need an absolute madman for such a scenario and even with the current occurrences, Russia is not it (yet). The other leading politicians who I do thing would be capable of such an action at this point in time do thankfully not have the technology for it, or at least it isn´t known off. A dirty bomb by terrorists or a singular target for intimidation purposes are just more probable.

I don´t think we´ll agree on that topic. Maybe I have a too European viewpoint. Germany to the Russian border is about the distance of NapalmMan67 to NT2C , so we are talking different tactics being viable.

Regarding the warning of a nuclear attack I think Raptor might be right. Either the electric grid or a disruption of communication might be a good indicator considering the EMP caused by a nuclear explosion. It certainly won't be any sirens for me. There is an app for warning messages, but we don´t have any cell reception where we live.

Quote from: tirls on July 13, 2022, 11:24:19 AMwe don´t have any cell reception where we live.

That sounds like a blessing and a curse.

QuoteYou´d need an absolute madman for such a scenario and even with the current occurrences, Russia is not it (yet).

An absolute madman, plus the followers loyal enough to carry out the order.  I truly hope that by the time Putin is truly desperate enough for the former, he will have lost too many of the latter.  

Quote from: Mr. E. Monkey on July 13, 2022, 11:51:53 AMThat sounds like a blessing and a curse.

I don´t mind it at all.
But in the case of warning messages it is detrimental. The app is known to be buggy though so it might not be such a loss.

Quote from: Mr. E. Monkey on July 13, 2022, 11:51:53 AMAn absolute madman, plus the followers loyal enough to carry out the order.  I truly hope that by the time Putin is truly desperate enough for the former, he will have lost too many of the latter. 

I remember reading about a sowjet submarine officer in the cuba crisis refusing to launch a nuclear missile or torpedo.
The thing that scares me is that some of the things Lawrow says are a lot worse.

Been playing with this calculator for the past hour, http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx , mostly with U-235 and PU-239 and different shielding types and thicknesses, and thinking about how rearranging some of the heavier (more massive) objects in the house outside the walls of our 'fallout shelter room' might provide more protection.  Nothing too extreme, but since we already keep a few 5 gallon pails of water for flushing and 1 gallon bottles of distilled water for the batteries, might as well store them where they'll be between us and the radiation for example.  Same for things like tool chests or tool boxes, books (shelves), or any other heavy items.  And also considering, yet again, how I could have designed our home better in regard to a radiation event.  The pantry, with shelves of canned goods, and our big lead acid batteries could have been positioned better to provide more shielding around the shelter room without adding any additional cost during the construction, among other things.

With short notice, or even after an event, stacked containers of water might be an expedient method of adding more shielding.  Stacked coolers, plastic totes, or 5 gallon pails with ~12" of water is about one halving thickness for U-235 gamma radiation according to that calculator, better than nothing and maybe enough to make a difference in some cases.

Water is a good convenient and low cost shielding material. Radioactive items are frequently stored in pools of water for that reason. 

QuoteWater as a neutron shield
Water, due to the high hydrogen content and availability, is effective and common neutron shielding. However, due to the low atomic number of hydrogen and oxygen, water is not an acceptable shield against gamma rays. On the other hand, in some cases, this disadvantage (low density) can be compensated by the high thickness of the water shield.  In the case of neutrons, water perfectly moderates neutrons, but with the absorption of neutrons by hydrogen nucleus, secondary gamma rays with high energy are produced. These gamma rays highly penetrate matter, and therefore they can increase requirements on the thickness of the water shield. Adding a boric acid can help with this problem (neutron absorption on boron nuclei without strong gamma emission) but results in another problem with corrosion of construction materials.

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/neutron/shielding-neutron-radiation/

That water container idea is brilliant.
Other important aspects of bomb shelters are gas tightness, an orthogonal shifted entrance and air filtration. As far as I remember the air filtration is achieved by filtering it through large amounts of quartz sand, but I might be wrong there.
Not sure how to achieve that without a proper building though. Unless you have a chest type freezer you want to lock yourself into.
I´m going to look for the construction plans of the one in my parents' house. They have got to be around somewhere, but it might take a while.

If you stack the water canisters (or anything, really) around the inside of the exterior walls, make sure to leave enough room for ventilation. Otherwise you might get damp walls and mould or worse. But that is just my inner blinkered specialist talking.

ANY gap will allow gamma, x-ray and neutron rads to pass through.  Look up how shielding is applied to the walls of a radiology lab.

Quote from: Raptor on July 14, 2022, 12:49:09 PMWater is a good convenient and low cost shielding material. Radioactive items are frequently stored in pools of water for that reason.

QuoteWater as a neutron shield
Water, due to the high hydrogen content and availability, is effective and common neutron shielding. However, due to the low atomic number of hydrogen and oxygen, water is not an acceptable shield against gamma rays. On the other hand, in some cases, this disadvantage (low density) can be compensated by the high thickness of the water shield.  In the case of neutrons, water perfectly moderates neutrons, but with the absorption of neutrons by hydrogen nucleus, secondary gamma rays with high energy are produced. These gamma rays highly penetrate matter, and therefore they can increase requirements on the thickness of the water shield. Adding a boric acid can help with this problem (neutron absorption on boron nuclei without strong gamma emission) but results in another problem with corrosion of construction materials.

https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power/reactor-physics/atomic-nuclear-physics/fundamental-particles/neutron/shielding-neutron-radiation/

I read that quote about a dozen times trying to understand if a relatively thin layer of water alone would be desirable for neutron shielding, or not. 

Finally found this which helped explain it for me https://www.iasj.net/iasj/download/77884b680a61914b

QuoteNeutron Shielding
The attenuation of neutrons involves several different phenomena; first, the very fast neutrons must be slowed down into the moderately fast range, which requires a suitable(inelastic) scattering material, such as one containing Barium or Iron. Then the moderately fast neutrons have to be decelerated by (elastic scattering) into the slow range by an element of low atomic weight.Water is very satisfactory for this, since it‟s two constituents; Oxygen and Hydrogen,both have low atomic weights. The slow neutrons must then be absorbed by elements of low atomic weight. Also sufficient gamma-attenuating materials must be included to minimize the escape of gamma-rays created as a result of neutron capture [4].

It also mentions concrete, with its 7-8% water content being a good alternative for both gamma and neutron shielding.  Although if I understand it right the high energy neutrons are really only a concern in the second or so following the blast and not so much for fallout/residual radiation.  I could be mistaken on that however.

Quote from: tirls on July 14, 2022, 02:57:23 PMI´m going to look for the construction plans of the one in my parents' house. They have got to be around somewhere, but it might take a while.

I'd be interested to see the plans if you can find them tirls.

QuoteThe slow neutrons must then be absorbed by elements of low atomic weight.

Excuse my non scientific mind since the coffee hasnt kicked in yet (closing shift last night) Wouldn't this be an issue if using drinking water as a barrier?

Quote from: SCBrian on July 15, 2022, 11:01:55 AM

QuoteThe slow neutrons must then be absorbed by elements of low atomic weight.

Excuse my non scientific mind since the coffee hasnt kicked in yet (closing shift last night) Wouldn't this be an issue if using drinking water as a barrier?

From what I understand, it shouldn't be a significant issue (as long as we're talking about simply absorbing radiation in closed containers, and not actually collecting fallout), but I am going to try to find something more authoritative than a monkey on the internet who may just be pulling this from his 4th point of contact.

https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/food_water_safety.html

Quote

• Water in other containers in your home, such as a toilet tank or hot water heater will also be free of radioactive material.
  
  
  • You can still use tap or well water for cleaning yourself and your food.
    
    
    • Even if the tap water is contaminated, you can still use it for decontamination. Any radioactive material that gets into surface water or ground water sources will be diluted to very low levels by the water and will be safe to use for washing skin, hair, and clothing.

Everything I've been able to find so far indicates that it's potential radionuclides, such as uranium, radium, and radon, rather than any radiation absorbed by the water, that is a problem.  

https://www.easyhome101.com/how-to-remove-radiation-from-water/#:~:text=Irradiated%20water%20is%20unsafe%20for%20consumption%2C%20especially%20if,water%20include%20active%20carbon%2C%20reverse%20osmosis%2C%20and%20ion-exchange.

QuoteRadiation water contamination occurs when unwanted radioactive substances "also known as radionuclides" get into the water sources such as lakes, rivers, and underground water.

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/will-it-be-safe-me-eat-food-or-drink-water-my-area-after-radiological-emergency

QuoteFood in sealed containers, bottled water, sealed juice, unopened soda containers and any unspoiled food in your refrigerator or freezer will be safe to eat. 

That's about all I've been able to find so far.

Quote from: Zed hunter on July 15, 2022, 08:49:38 AMANY gap will allow gamma, x-ray and neutron rads to pass through.  Look up how shielding is applied to the walls of a radiology lab.

You are right that any gaps allow room for radiation. I meant a space between the wall and the objects, one encompassing layer (wall) that blocks part of the radiation, followed by a small air space, followed by another encompassing layer (water containers) that blocks part of the radiation, not openings through the layers. As I said, my inner blinkered specialist talking, I work in building design and have seen enough damages.

Quote from: Crosscut on July 15, 2022, 08:57:31 AMI'd be interested to see the plans if you can find them tirls.

I have found some of the documents, but I need to translate them first and probably redraw some of the construction plans as they are quite faded. I´ll try to get it done by next week.

Being about 6mi from DMAFB... I hope we get warning as early as possible.
But, Things don't usually go that way, If we have say a 90min warning,
Then I'd have a set of mountains between us and DM.
If it's more like 30min... The last part of our run would be speeding our collective ass off
to avoid the outer edge of the blast radius (Tsarbomb 50MT), and hopefully clear the initial fallout zone.

According to nukemap the b.o.l. is outside both due to mountains being between it and the base
And the general wind currents.
We could make it to the far side of the mountains in 30, but having the 90min to make it there
and get into the basement/shelter would be better.

Maybe time to rethink the current strategy on our bug out...
J