Posted: 12/15/2010 9:33:25 PM EDT
|
While scanning the news on msn.com noticed the following:
By WILLIAM J. BROAD The New York Times updated 12/15/2010 8:26:51 PM ET 2010-12-16T01:26:51 Suppose the unthinkable happened, and terrorists struck New York or another big city with an atom bomb. What should people there do? The government has a surprising new message: Do not flee. Get inside any stable building and don’t come out till officials say it’s safe. The advice is based on recent scientific analyses indicating that a nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50 percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far. (more followed) Those of us who regularly read posts here know the age old question is whether to Bug Out or Hunker Down. Certain events will, by necessity, require a Bug Out. But for the "Big" event referenced above there has always been a question of whether to shelter in place or bug out. It appears the 'government' may have had a change of attitude. Anyway, it is worth paying closer attention to what they are currently saying and perhaps getting your hands on the latest report. 
|
|
Based strictly on the OP's original post:
The reason people would die during such an event is due to blast effects. After the event, the killer is fallout. Leave your home = expose yourself to fallout. If you bug-in, you will have fallout on the surfaces of your home. This is bad enough; but if you leave, you will be breathing that crap into your lungs, into your mucus membranes, in your eyes & ears. THAT is a thousand times worse! |
|
Quoted:
Based strictly on the OP's original post: The reason people would die during such an event is due to blast effects. After the event, the killer is fallout. Leave your home = expose yourself to fallout. If you bug-in, you will have fallout on the surfaces of your home. This is bad enough; but if you leave, you will be breathing that crap into your lungs, into your mucus membranes, in your eyes & ears. THAT is a thousand times worse! Depending on the sheilding that you have between you and the source, it might not matter anyway. Proper sheilding with enough supplies to keep you alive and you might could wait for the levels to drop. All of this takes planning and having it in place and you in place. Also depending on the distance, wind, any rain will dictate much. MSN huh? |
| There was a cable show last year on surviving various SHTF scenarios and what do do when a city got nuked was one of them. Quickly finding a suitable shelter and reducing exposure was the goal. Show only lasted for several episodes but had some really good advice. |
|
really depends.....if there was a nuke dropped and the fallout was blanketing the area, I am unsure.... Chances are I would be vaporized, being I am so very very close to one of the probably top 10 most important armories in the country....
Civil unrest, rioting, breakdown of basic services, etc...id stay in, unless things got REAL hot. I know we woulds stand a good chance, between my neighbors, family, and tenants. We have a guy from corrections next door, a city SWAT member who is a single young guy that rents from us, neighbor was trying for the Olymics as a pistol shooter.....a good bunch. None of them would be cutting and running, especially my neighbors as they have too much to lose by abandoning their homes which they have worked so hard for. Tough people. Basically hunker down, hand out a few guns if I needed, harden the structures a bit. Things would have to get pretty tough for me to bug out. |
|
It's important to remember that fallout isn't really a concern with an airburst; local fallout really only occurs with a ground burst. If the explosion was an airburst, bugging out might be the best plan. Of course, you'd have to know the nature of the blast to make that decision. If I didn't know, then I'd probably bug in. |
|
Quoted:
It's important to remember that fallout isn't really a concern with an airburst; local fallout really only occurs with a ground burst. Not quite true. Fallout will still be present with an airburst. It'll just be less fallout than a surface burst. It's still something to plan for, though. If the explosion was an airburst, bugging out might be the best plan. Of course, you'd have to know the nature of the blast to make that decision. If I didn't know, then I'd probably bug in. Most of the people in the fallout area probably wouldn't know what kind of detonation it was, but knowing that you're downwind of a nuclear blast would be important information. To the OP, I wouldn't say THE big question is whether to bug out or bugin, but rather WHEN to consider either option. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: It's important to remember that fallout isn't really a concern with an airburst; local fallout really only occurs with a ground burst. Not quite true. Fallout will still be present with an airburst. It'll just be less fallout than a surface burst. It's still something to plan for, though. If the explosion was an airburst, bugging out might be the best plan. Of course, you'd have to know the nature of the blast to make that decision. If I didn't know, then I'd probably bug in. Most of the people in the fallout area probably wouldn't know what kind of detonation it was, but knowing that you're downwind of a nuclear blast would be important information. To the OP, I wouldn't say THE big question is whether to bug out or bugin, but rather WHEN to consider either option. There is fallout, but as I said there is pretty much no local fallout. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm |