By Duncan Long

No matter how much freeze-dried food or grain you may have stored away in your
survival stores, if a nuclear war comes to pass, sooner or later your food will
run out. Then what will you do for food?
If you’re in an area with few survivors, traveling to your local grocery stores
MIGHT be of help. Food in sealed containers would be safe to eat if you were
careful to wipe off any fallout dust on the container before opening it.
Radiation doesn’t make food dangerous and only slightly alters it so that it
loses little of its food value.
But chances are good that any store will be stripped during a pre-war panic.
Even if it were full at the time of the attack, time is against you. Foods
have a finite life during which their nutritional content remains high. Once
this time is exceeded, the nutritional value of the food gradually drops off.
Food will remain eatable for some time but it will not necessarily supply all
your nutritional needs.
Nutritional shelf lives of stored foods are short. Most canned food (whether
in cans or jars), has a life of only 6 months (though the food will be eatable
for longer). Canned meats and non-citrus fruits last a bit longer; they have
some food value for up to a year.
Evaporated milk has a nutritional life of 6 months; bouillon, instant cream,
nuts, cereals, and hydrogenated (or anti-oxidant treated) fats/vegetable oil
all have nutritional shelf lives of a year.
About the only things worth eating after a year are coffee, tea, cocoa,
candy (that isn’t nearly 100% sugar), or spices like sugar, salt, pepper,
etc. So even IF you have a grocery store to use for supplies, the nutritional
value of the food will be nearly nill after a year.
Foraging? Maybe. But if you’re in an area where the plants are producingenough food to support you, chances are good that there’ll be a large human
population as well. If you have to compete with others for wild food sources,
chances are there won’t be enough to support you. Foraging also takes a lot of
energy for the caloric return to carry out; you burn up nearly as much energy
as you gain. So don’t plan on doing more than supplementing your larder
through foraging unless you’re living in a very remote area with a lot of food
just waiting for you to pick it off the plants.
Hunting? Again, much the same argument can be made against it as is with
foraging. If the animals survive, a large population of humans will probably
be competing with you for the food. Hunting could supply supplemental meat for
your diet but probably won’t be a main source unless you’re really out in the
So most of us who are planning on surviving a nuclear war for more than a
few years need to be able to raise our food or have a skill (like dentistry,
medical work, etc.) which can be bartered for food.
Is gardening or farming possible in a radioactive fallout contaminated environ-
ment? Yes.
Fallout from a nuclear weapon is different from that of commercial radioactive
waste. While the waste from a nuclear reactor may last for thousands or even
tens of thousands of years, radiation from a nuclear weapon decays very quickly
to a safe level. (The flip side of this is that fallout is initially more
dangerous than radioactive waste since the levels of radiation it gives off are
Even in the shadow of a very dirty ground blast, the levels of
radiation will sink to safe levels in a relatively short time. This means that
you could be gardening in a very contaminated area within a year’s time if you
had to.
Though long-term dangers from such activities may remain to show up in20 or 30 years in such an area, if the choice is between starving in a few
months or MAYBE having a radiation-related disease like leukemia or cancer 30
years down the road, it shouldn’t be too hard to decide.
Too, fallout is like sand or dust. It isn’t a liquid that runs into the
earth. With care, even in areas of maximum fallout, the top soil–along with
the fallout–could be removed and the land used for gardening. If you had
access to heavy earth-moving equipment, even full-scale farming could be
carried out after removing several inches of top soil.
If removing the soil is not possible, it’s also possible to plow fallout
under so that it’s below ground. This allows plants to obtain nutrient
from the soil while the earth acts as density shielding to lower the radiation
to levels that will not harm either the plants or the person growing them.
While this isn’t as ideal as actually removing the contaminated soil, it is an
easier alternative. The produce produced on such land will not be quite
as safe to eat from a long-term health point of view but, again, it beats
More dangerous to plants than radiation will be the ultraviolet radiation
created by damage to the ozone by nuclear weapons. This damage, like fallout,
is fairly short-lived, however. The ozone layer will renew itself so that, by
a year after the worst of a nuclear war is over, a less harsh environment for
growing plants will again be available.
Since it now appears that the problems of a nuclear winter have been
exaggerated and, even if they should occur, will be over after the first year
as well, things would be fairly decent for gardening within a year’s time.
(Fallout, ozone damage, and nuclear winter are three good reasons to have
stores of food to get through that first year.)
If it were necessary to grow plants in the open during the first year, some
plants are more resistant than others to ultraviolet radiation. The bestare wheat, soybeans, rye, barley, alfalfa, and corn (all of which are excellent
sources of nutrients). Though high levels of ultraviolet light may stunt these
plants’ growth somewhat, they’d still produce food.
Best bet would be a greenhouse created with sheets of plastic or the like. The
plastic would cut down on ultraviolet light and the enclosed area would help
you to control pests and maintain a warm temperature if that should be a
Provided you’ve had the foresight to purchase non-hybrid seeds, you could produce crops for your family for years to come in such an
environment. (Hybrid seed would be great the first year, but the seeds you get from the hybrid plants may not grow to create a second
Seeds. Some good sources of seeds are: Cross Seed Company, RR #1, Bunker
Hill, KS 67626; M & M Enterprises, Box 64, Island Lake, IL 69942; Seeds of
Survival, 228 W. North St., Whitewater, WI 53190; and Vegetable Seed, Box 192,
Madison, GA 30650. Check the stores in your area as well since they’ll have a
selection of seeds tailored to grow well in your area (again, avoid hybrids.)
Despite tales of scientists growing wheat from seeds encased with Egyptian
mummies, seeds have a finite shelf life in the real world. Each additional
year that seed is stored, a higher percentage of it loses its ability to
germinate. Therefore, seed should be replaced every year if at all possible.
Actually, this is good news; it forces you to practice planting and growing the
seeds you’ve been storing.
If you grow plants in a contaminated environment or forage for plants to eat in
areas of fallout, you can process them so that they are safe. Again, remember
that fallout is like dust, not a liquid that can penetrate material.
If you carefully peel and clean the plants, most of the fallout will be removed with
the outer layers of plant material so that you can eat them without fear of
ingesting radioactive materials.
Fruits or vegetables with smooth skins (like tomatoes or green peppers)
can be cleaned by washing (though peeling is probably safer).Plants whose eatable parts come from the ground can be more thoroughly cleansed if you first remove the top layer of soil around
their base (which may have some fallout dust in it) before digging up the plant. Eatable tubers and roots should be very thoroughly
A vegetarian diet with everything your body needs to stay healthy is not too easy to maintain in the best of times. In a post-nuclear war
environment, it would be nearly impossible. Meat will be all but essential for survival. (Ideally, you’ll have a diet mix of somewhere
around 15% protein, 52% carbohydrates, and 33% fat.)
How do you get the meat processed (whether you’re hunting, discover “wild”
domestic animals, or are raising farm animals) so that it is safe to eat?
First, you need to study the way the animal is behaving. Does it look healthy or sick?
If animals have ingested fallout (on grass or other food sources) but have NOT
become sick from radiation exposure, they’re safe to eat if you follow a few
precautions. (Such animals will also probably remain healthy enough to
live as long as non-exposed animals so that they can be used for breeding
stock; don’t kill what you don’t need.)
When radioactive contamination is ingested by animals, it is stored in certain
locations in their bodies. The habit for post-nuclear war survivors to
learn is that of avoiding eating parts of the animal that will be collecting
the radioactive materials. If you avoid the parts with high concentrations of
contamination, you will be able to remain healthy while still being able to
take advantage of the available meat.
Parts to avoid: thyroid glands, kidneys, liver, and meat next to the bones as
well as the marrow in the bones. Avoid eating these and eat only muscle meat,
you’ll be in good shape. Another important precaution is to thoroughly cook
the meat so that ALL bacteria are killed in the meat; since radiation lowers
resistance to disease, the animal may have higher than normal concentrations
of bacteria in it and you will be less able to fight such bacteria off.
AVOID EATING RED MEAT; always cook it thoroughly.
Remember that the waste parts of the carcass and parts you shouldn’t eat
are probably contaminated. Bury the parts in an area where they can not
contaminate your water or crops.If an animal is sick, don’t kill it. Though the meat may not contaminated
with radiation, the animal is sick because of some sort of disease-causing
virus or bacteria (radiation causes a lowered resistance to disease, remember).
Meat from these animals can cause food poisoning since cooking the
meat will only kill bacteria or viruses in the meat but won’t rid it of the
toxins the micro-organisms have produced. The meat will be poisoned and no
amount of cooking will rid it of the poison.
You may be able to nurse the animal back to health, too. If so, you could
eat it later or use it for breeding stock. If the animal dies, dispose of the
carcass carefully since it will be contaminated and dangerous to your health.
If the sick animal is in a herd or flock, immediately separate it from the
others so that the disease can’t spread (lowered resistance again). Keep a
herd’s area extra clean so that diseases can’t get started, too.
Food will be hard to come by following a nuclear war. But radioactive fallout
doesn’t penetrate or contaminate as much as many people think. Provided you
have a little know-how and the foresight to plant some fruit trees, save some
seed, or take other survival precautions, you and your family can produce food
and survive long after a nuclear war has come to an end.
The author of this article, Duncan Long, is well-known as the writer of many
gun, self-sufficiency, and survival books. His firearms books are available
from Paladin Press, P. O. Box 1307, Boulder, CO 80306 (303) 443-7250 (call for
free catalog). Long’s NUCLEAR WAR SURVIVAL is available for $14 from Long
Survival Publications, 115 Riverview Dr., Wamego, KS 66547. Long’s sci-fi
book, ANTI-GRAV UNLIMITED released from Avon Books (available from local book
stores or from Avon Books, 105 Madison Ave., NY, NY 10016; for autographed
copy, send $4 to: Long Survival Publications, address above). The author’s
Box 1197, Port Townsend, WA 98368 for $15.Gathered bit by bits by the Cybermonk!
Reprinted from: American Survival Guide 11/91
Planning For Survival By C.E. Teal
In light of recent events, such as the Persian Gulf War, terrorism, and economic instability, many individuals and families are taking a
fresh look at the dreaded “S-word,” survivalism.
As with any beginners, these people need some sort of plan for these uncharted waters. I hope that this article can give some useful
guidance to those new to the field, and perhaps some new insights to others who have been left to their own devices in coming to grips
with this virtually all-inclusive field.
This plan consists of nine major points: 1. Determination; 1.
Becoming/staying healthy; 3. Allocating your Budget; 4. De
veloping plans of action; 5. Have a “bug-out” kit; 6. Plan for
duration; 7. Get training; 8. Practice; 9. Don’t advertise.
The first requirement to insuring your (and your family’s) longevity is DETERMINATION. You must want to survive. Contact others
upon whom you might rely (and whom may likewise rely upon you) in a crisis.
This is not a game, although games can play a part in the training aspect. If we are to survive as individuals, as families, as a society,
we cannot approach this as a one- person show. It will take cooperation of the highest order. The stakes are literally life and death.
Many people take the attitude that “If it happens, I wouldn’t want to live anyway, ” This is an attitude which almost guarantees defeat
or death. A husband, father, or single mother with this attitude is virtually condemning his or her family to a similar fate.
BECOME/STAY HEALTHY. Every-one in the family or group should get a complete medical, dental and vision checkup. Find your
weaknesses and limitations so you may cope with them, before they take you by surprise Get caught up on immunizations such as
tetanus, hepatitis, and measles. If eyeglasses or contacts are needed, get at least one spare pair, or save old ones.
Stock up on cleaning solution if you wear contacts. Work to bring your teeth up to the healthiest level possible. A toothache can be a
major problem even in normal times when a dentist is available. Imagine trying to make critical decisions while suffering with a
toothache when there may be few, if any, dentists in operation.
Make sure your feet are in good condition. They may someday be your only mode of transportation. Begin and maintain an exercise
program which balances strength with endurance and flexibility. Running, swimming, and stair climbing are all excellent conditioners.
ALLOCATE PART OF YOUR BUDGET. Acquire supplies as your budget
allows. Be practical; set priorities. For example: set aside $10 per month for weaponry (including ammunition and cleaning supplies,
($10 per month for clothing (if you don’t have the proper clothing already on hand. Three-piece suits or tennis outfits have very
limited survival applications) , another $10 a month for reserve food and medical supplies, and so on. If money is tight, you can
alternate purchases from month to month.
The important thing is to make some sort of survival-based acquisition regularly, or at every opportunity. In making survival
investments, you should consider the following points:
Might you actually need it (Does it serve a legitimate survival need, such as food) ?b) Do you have the skill to use it properly, and would you be able to repair it when it inevitably breaks down?
c) Will it need something else, such as electricity, gas, heat, or water to operate?
d) How many/much will you need, and how long do you expect it to last (see Plan For Duration) :
e) Is it practical for the conditions you anticipate, such as proper clothing for the climate?
DEVELOP PLANS OF ACTION. You should discuss with your family or group the conditions under which you would run (Where?)
or stay; whether to hide (For how long?) or fight (Whom? How?) .
Every member of the group must be in agreement with the final plan. One dissident could destroy all your intentions; for instance by
“setting-out” the group to an adversary.
You should also develop “backup” plans to cover various contingencies such as those mentioned. Plan for the worst-case scenario and
work down from there.
HAVE A “BUG-OUT” KIT. Keep a short-term (up to one week) survival kit handy in case you must leave NOW. Remember the
priorities: shelter, water, food, medical supplies, weapons, communications. Ideally, you should have several kits; one for
each member of the family and group, another one in each vehicle in case a crisis occurs at an unexpected moment (as they usually
do) .
And a large cache of supplies away from the home, in a place safe from discovery or disaster; in the event you must evacuate your
home quickly, as in the case of fire, earthquake or war. Each of these kits or caches should be planned to supplement and extend the
capabilities of the next smallest kit.
Avoid making your personal bug-out kit too heavy to run with; you may have to carry it long distances, quickly.
PLAN FOR DURATION. Try to realistically anticipate how long you expect your scenario may last, and add a little more to the
estimate as a buffer against hortsightedness.
Do you expect your disaster scenario to last for days (such as waiting for disaster relief after a major storm, fire, or earth quake) ,
months (i.e., a major strike by unions; re
building after a disaster) , or years (such as being caught in the clutches of a dictatorship, foreign invasion, or persecution) ?
Try to be realistic in your preparations. Plan for the consumption of food (calories per person per day, plus other essential nutrients) ,
water (gallons per person per day, for drinking, cooking and sanitation) , ammunition (as much as can be obtained, with a suggested
minimum of 500 rounds per weapon) , air quality (while in shelter, or masks for outside), medical supplies (including prescription
medicines), and so on.
Some of your scenarios may look unlikely in the context of present conditions, but it only takes an open-eyed look at the world, the
nation, or the neighborhood, to see the potential for frightening situations to rapidly develop which would not allow time for
preparation after the fact.
For instance, note that many people reacting to a disaster often converge on all the nearest stores for provisions such as food, candles,
bottled water, batteries, and so on. Frequently, the crowd gets impatient, not wanting or waiting to be left without essentials for
themselves or their families. Occasionally, rioting and looting begin, feeding upon itself as the unprepared start to panic.
Your aim must be to store adequate supplies for all intended members of your group for the longest time that you will likely be on
your own, with self-sufficiency being your goal. The federal government recommends having at least three to five days supplies on
hand, to sustain you until relief agencies can get into action. The more serious the crisis, the longer you may have to wait for outside
If you are able, lay in extra supplies for a few additional persons who will, most likely, show up either on their own, or with members
of the group (“My mother was visiting at the time; I couldn’t just leave her”) . As pragmatic as you must be, you must also notsurrender your humanity completely. Otherwise, you are no better than the predators you may be fleeing. Of course, there is a
practical limit to how much you can be expected to cope with. Examine your own conscience on this issue.
A plan must also be drawn up to deal with waste management. Essential “luxuries” such as toilet paper, soap, and proper means of
disposing of human waste and garbage with become major issues during a survival situation. Goods and services we have
always taken for granted may no longer be available.
You must also plan to cope with your people’s emotional survival. The abrupt change in lifestyle, the day to day fight to stay alive,
will take its toll psychologically if not treated quickly and continuously. Find things to alleviate boredom, such as games or projects.
Give every able person in the group a job they will be responsible for. Even children can be instructed to secure trash, act as lookouts,
or help with food preparation or
gathering supplies. Also attempt to continue with their education, albeit with a different emphasis. Find duties which require a person
to study the situation and come up with a solution. Hold meetings to keep everyone current on what’s happening, and conduct frequent
and regular classes for everyone in survival arts. Keep your people, and yourself, busy. Despair may be your worst enemy.
GET TRAINING. Your group should learn how to use weapons effectively. Safety, maintenance, handling malfunctions, and
marksmanship are all of equal importance in a survival context. Because this is an area where mistakes can be fatal, instruction
should be sought from qualified professionals, such as the National Rifle Association. Also, everyone should study unarmed self-
defense under a qualified instructor; one who teaches combative, not tournament techniques.
Tactics are another important area of study. Learn how best to utilize your weapons under various conditions and environments, such
as snow, rain, or at night. There are several reputedly good schools for this type of study. There are also many books
such as military manuals which can be of help, if accompanied by lots of practice.
Study first aid diligently, as this is one of the most essential areas of self help study. The American Red Cross has excellent,
inexpensive courses on CPR and basic and advanced first aid. Everyone should be encouraged to take and pass such a course. A study
of improvised medicines and first-aid equipment would also be useful. Some community colleges offer non-credit courses in
herbology, folk medicine, and edible wild plants.
There are many very good reference books on the subject. Another variation on this theme would be the study of medicinal minerals.
You might seriously consider taking an Emergency Medical Technician course (or a Paramedic course if already an EMT) and joining
a volunteer ambulance corps.
Not only would you be contributing to a vital community function,you would also be gaining practical, real-life, hands-on experience
which no course can give by itself.
Remember, in a crisis, your body does what is has been trained to do. The untrained reaction to crisis is usually panic Practical
experience aids tremendously in overcoming the panic which accompanies disaster.
Fieldcraft is another valuable area of study. Learn the difference between, and uses of, cover and concealment. Learn how to survive
in rural or urban wilderness, how to find or construct proper shelter, how to gather food and collect and purify water, the use of correct
sanitation procedures, basic land navigation, and much more.
PRACTICE. Conduct realistic simulations with your equipment and your people to gain valuable experience and confidence working
together. Get the bugs out while it’s relatively easy. Learn what works and what doesn’t.
Go to the firing range often, preferably when you or your group can use it without onlookers. Practice on human-shaped targets, using
tactics. Train in firing techniques for real world situations (such as varying weather conditions, target distance and size. Learn
different firing positions, practice in-house techniques, etc.) . Always rigidly enforce appropriate safety procedures while training with
As an EMT, you can work on an ambulance or in the emergency room to practice and to accustom yourself to the suffering of others.
It’s certainly not pleasant, but it is crucial in over coming the shock of seeing something happen suddenly, perhaps to someone youlove. This allows you to get on with treating the patient rather than wasting valuable seconds in panic. With practice, reaction becomes
almost automatic, and confidence is
gained. Without practice, hard-earned skills are gradually lost.
You should try to incorporate your survival skills into every day life, making it a normal part of your existence.
Don’t, however, carry it to extremes, such as walking around in public wearing cammies with a 10-inch knife on your belt. Be discreet.
Shooting and hand-to-hand practice, ambulance duty, making your own clothes, and canning your own food; all these
skills and more will not only add to your survival repertoire, they will enhance the quality of your life, as you become less dependent
on “the system” and more confident in your own abilities.
Learn the strengths and weaknesses of your equipment, your people, and yourself. Without practice and effort you are just wasting
time and money, and someone close to you could die needlessly.
DON’T ADVERTISE. Keep your actions and intentions as low-profile as possible. You could risk discovery and the loss of
everything you have been working for, or wind up with a lot of people on YOUR doorstep in a crisis; people whom you cannot
and who may have no positive survival value. If you intend to support dependents, prepare for them with your supplies.
One last thought. Because predatory people are out there, firearms are an essential element of survival planning. Unfortunately, they
have been abused frequently enough to give the whole survival movement a bad reputation in the eyes of the general media, who too
often seem to be looking to discredit and ridicule the movement. Survivalists should respect firearms and view them as tools to protect
what they have: their lives,
families, homes, and provisions; not as weapons of conquest.
The more you prepare, the more ready you must be to defend against those who don’t.
The Possible Effects of Nuclear Weapons & a Realistic Scenario for the
Days after the Initial Offensive
(NOTE FROM SYSOP – this article has some SERIOUS errors, omissions, and falsehoods in it. I will try to add some footnotes on
these later. I’m sure the author tried to do the best job he could. However, if the work that you use as a reference is wrong, your
summation will be just as wrong.)
The largest bomb of the Second World War exploded with a force equivalent to thirteen kilotons, thirteen thousand tons, of dynamite
(TNT). This bomb was called “Little Boy”.
The ironic thing about the name is that when the bomb is compared to the warheads of today, the only word that comes to mind is
little. Most of our modern warheads are a
hundred times as powerful, or more.
To give you a little perspective, let’s say that a fifteen kiloton nuclear missile exploded over New York City while most of the
population was out to lunch. A report from the Secretary-General of the United Nations says out of the eight million people in the city,
approximately one million people will die on the first day.
If a one megaton bomb was exploded over Detroit, approximately 640,000
people would die immediately.
If a twenty-five megaton bomb exploded, approximately 3.2 million people would die out of the four million people living there.(1) A megaton is equivalent to a million tons of TNT.
It would take 10,000 railroad freight cars to carry one million tons of TNT.
The following is the possible outcome of an explosion of a one megaton nuclear warhead over the city of Detroit, Michigan. At
ground zero, directly underneath the bomb, there would be a crater measuring one thousand feet wide and two hundred feet deep.
(3) There would be a highly radioactive rim extending two thousand feet from the center,
(4) this would keep unprotected persons from entering this circle for nearly twenty-five years. Up to 1.7 miles from the center you
would not see any signs of buildings.
All buildings within this circle would be completely destroyed. Between 1.7 and 2.7 miles from the center, you might be able to see
the infrastructures of the more heavily built buildings.
(5) There would be almost no survivors until after 2.7 miles from ground zero.
(6) Up until approximately eight miles out, houses would be flattened from
the over-pressure produced by the bomb.
(7) From 2.7 to 4.7 miles, all light walled structures would be destroyed and
the contents of the top floors of the strongest buildings would be blown out
into the street.
(8) The over-pressure, about five pounds per square inch, would cause
the windows and frames of all buildings to be blown out.
(9) In the band from 4.7 miles to 6.3 miles out, the 3 p.s.i. over-pressure would cause people to be blown out of modern office
buildings and would cause millions of flying projectiles.
These projectiles are capable of killing anyone they hit.
The winds would cause people to be blown against walls with a force many
times greater than gravity.
(10) Up to fifteen miles from the explosion, the winds would cause
objects to fly with a force capable of fracturing the skull (of a human)
fifty percent of the time.
(11) The bomb would cause the death of approximately 640,000 people on
the first day.
There are approximately 5.75 billion people in the world. The NUCLEARALMANAC says that approximately 20 – 160 million civilians would be
immediately killed by a nuclear attack on present United States’ strategic
weapon bases by one megaton warheads (as you know, the Soviets have 100
megaton warheads). the radioactive cloud produced by these weapons would
cover about fifty percent of the United States.
(13) Approximately 25 million more people would die to cancer and
genetic defects caused by the nuclear weapons.
Added to what is the predicted deaths of other countries, the total deaths
would be from 120 to 260 million people.
This means that from 4.3 to 9.5 percent of the Earth’s population would be
killed within a couple of years after the war. (Remember, radiation causes
sterilization. This was not placed into the above calculations.)
In 1958 there was a study on the possible fatalities in the United States during a hypothetical nuclear war. The explosive power totaled
2,500 megatons and the population 175 million persons. They figured that on the first day 42 million people would die.
By the seventh day 17 million more would die.
On the fourteenth day there would be a total of 71 million people dead
and by the sixtieth, 83 million people would have died in the U.S.
(Remember: the strategy of the time was military targets, now
we go after large civilian populations, large industrial areas, etc.)
There would be 25 million injured and 67 million left uninjured.
(15) It is predicted that up to 2/3 of the injured would eventually die
from their injuries. Almost half of the population of the United States
would die.
A so-called limited attack by the Soviet Union on ten U.S. refineries
using about two percent of the nation’s nuclear arsenal would kill more
than 5 million U.S. citizens.
The following is a summary of a fictional account of what may happenafter a nuclear attack:
Almost right after the attack, people from all over crowded into the
rural towns. They were escaping from the destroyed cities, looking for
food, shelter, clothing, and medical attention.
They had nothing except the clothes on their back. They had no where to go. After the first few days the hospitals closed their doors to
new patients. Not only because of the high radioactivity outside, but they just did not have any room. The very sick were left to die.
The others were left to fend for themselves.
Radio communications were nearly wiped out. The President came on the air once in a while.(Chances are no one would hear him:
EMP) he would usually talk about the “cease-fire”. He kept telling them about how the Soviets were hurt just as much as the U.S. He
told them 100 million people were killed. He said the government was doing all they could.
(Let’s remember, the Pres. has a rather nice distance underground and
most likely not seeing true reports on what is going on.)
Food became scarce. People raided the grocery stores and the houses of
the people living in shelters. Some were stealing the farmers’ cattle. A
few went out into the woods to try to find the few remaining wild animals.
About two weeks after the explosions, the food did all but run out.
People looked to the government, or what was left of it. The president
said they were doing all they could.
In the spring, people changed their attitude. Crops were planted.
Some even tried to rebuild the cities and factories. The government tried
to stop the barter system and reinstate currency. People found the money
worthless and kept trading. Some thought things were going to get better.
When winter came around, the food ran out. People started eating dogs,
cats, and rats; animals by their habitat were protected from the
fallout.(also cockroaches) The weak, the old, and young started to die.
The first winter took its toll on the living. People were rebelling.
The government came together to figure out what to do. They could not
come up with a decision that would agree with everyone. By then, no one
knew what to do. The life they were used to: cars, computers, the office,
golf, schools, the Superbowl, parties, all disappeared. What was left? Chaos.(17)
It is interesting how after our civilization becomes so technologically
advanced and complex, we could destroy it all in a matter of moments. Our
lifestyles would go back to the horse and buggy era. Most of our
complexities, i.e. computers, would be forgotten. We would learn how to
farm and care for animals. We probably would not be able to rebuild our
previous civilization until after a few generations.
The survivors would concentrate on survival, not worrying about selling
stock for IBM or even going to school. There would be no use for them.
Our country would be set back a couple of hundred years. People might even
deny our previous civilization, and turn back to a more simple life:
one in which there would be no offices, no taxation, no hostility.
We might even become friends with the Soviets.
Hopefully, we, the people of this planet, will one day realize the
dangers of nuclear war, and will stop it. Hopefully everyone on this
planet will become on family, working for the betterment of all. Maybe
we will one day become the perfect civilization that only Karl Marx, Plato,
and other philosophers have dreamed of.
The last paragraph scares me because our society is going down the tubes
fast as the other ancient societies did.
The Persian, Syrian, Babylon, Greek or Roman empires are not ruling today
are they?
The Book of Revelation says many things, all of which will eventualy come true.
My own personal feeling is that Revelation 18 is about the good ‘ol USA
and when this New World Order junk comes to pass it will be because the
Russians or the UN is running it.Not the United States and it’s double crossing socialist party A and socialist party B (ie democrats and republicans) I believe the
Russians will probably nuke us and try to take over, try to destroy Israel and rule the world as hitler tried, but this one has a happy
ending. Jesus Christ will return and defeat the armies of the world.
The only “perfect society” will be in the hereafter with Jesus Christ!
JOHN3:16 ROMANS3:23-26 ROMANS10:9-11 JOHN8:24 JOHN14:6
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus
came into the world to save sinners– of whom I am the worst. But for that
reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus
might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would
believe on him and receive eternal life. Now to the King Eternal, immortal,
invisible, the only true God be honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen
1 Congress of the U.S., Office of Technology Assessment, THE EFFECTS OF
NUCLEAR WAR, 1980, pp. 27-33
2 ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA, 1985 ed., s.v. “Nuclear Weapons.”
York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., Publishers, 1964), p. 14
4 Ibid.
5 Congress of the U.S., pp. 27-33
6 Ibid.
7 Jack Dennis, ed., THE NUCLEAR ALMANAC (Reading, Mas.: Addison – Wesley
Publishing Company, Inc., 1984), p. 101
8 Congress of the U.S., p. 31
9 Ibid.
10 Dennis, p. 102
11 Ibid., p. 101
12 Congress of the U.S., p. 27-3313 Dennis, p. 154
14 Ibid.
15 Linus Pauling, NO MORE WAR! (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1983),
p. 154
16 Dennis, p. 153
17 Congress of the U.S., pp. 124-138
Works Cited
Brown, Neville. NUCLEAR WAR: THE IMPENDING STRATEGIC DEADLOCK. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc.,
Publishers, 1964
Congress of the United States, Office of Technology Assessment. THE
Dennis, Jack, ed. THE NUCLEAR ALMANAC. Reading, Mas.: Addison – Wesley
Publishing Company, Inc., 1984
Foster, Jr., John S. “Nuclear Weapons”. ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA. 1985 ed.
Pauling, Linus. NO MORE WAR!. New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1983
What you have just read was written by yours truly in December of 1986
for people who have limited knowledge pertaining to nuclear weapons, etc.
To keep the feeling of the original script, I only made changes in
punctuation and added words in (). I apologize for some of them, it’s
late and I am tired. I am sooner or later going to write another
“article” with newer data and maybe more info pertaining to blast effects,
radiation levels, current armament and strategies. I hope this will be
helpful. I will gladly accept any pros, cons or general howdies, etc.
from anyone who has read it. I’m Fred Witsl. Give a holler.
This file was Gathered by the Cybermonk for more info call Fred!
Freedom Information Network (FINET) is a multi-disciplinary Christian
ministry. We exist to serve God, glorify Him and delight in Him. We
endorse whole-heartedly the original Westminster Confession.The SysOp engages full-time in multidisciplinary theological, scientific,
technological and geopolitical research. We are transdenominational.
Our historical scope is that of classical and philosophical apologetics.
We research and advise on a very broad spectrum of cults, religions and
occultism–which includes the illuminist’s efforts to usher in the
Aquarian age–, and assist educators, researchers and pastors with these
matters, as well as Septuagint, theological and historical studies.
Freedom Infonet BBS telephone (609)586-4847 USR dual standard
16.8Kbps HST & 14.4 V.32bis, 8N1. We carry several networks, Online
Bible files and door, thousands of files including Christian text files
including CRI text index, topical verses, apologetics, the cults and the
occult, and patriot–freedom is at issue. We are New Jersey’s Christian
resource online, and premier forum for issues both temporal and eternal.
We are a BBS for people who think and believe.

Like (0)

Nuclear, Power for The Future


One of the largest threats to the environment is global warming; scientists and experts cite fossil fuels as one of the major factors in climate change. It just so happens that a substantial amount of the human race’s energy is generated by the burning of fossil fuels, therefore it is logical to find an alternative source of power. When one considers the possible substitutes, it may seem as though alternative sources of power have underdeveloped technology and are rendered impractical for mass use or the sources do not generate a significant amount of energy and consequently fail to meet the needs of the human race; however, they pale in comparison to the power of nuclear energy.

One of the before mentioned complications with the current energy sources is their vast impact on the environment. Some energy sources like coal and oil produce high amounts of CO2 gas which is one of the leading causes of the greenhouse effect among other emissions. When taking measurements on the emissions from power sources, it is important to look at all of the sources that emissions can come from in the line of production, from when the materials are extracted from the earth to when they are used. So effects from processes such as emissions from mining equipment to transportation, or other various processes which would cause pollutants to enter the air, and that’s the way this study conducted it.

Perhaps the most important result of this analysis is the tabulation of CO2 emission rates for the non-coal facilities. This leads to the realization that in contrast to popular belief, the nuclear and wind facilities are not zero-emission energy sources and that when a proper accounting method is used, values ranging from 8 to 17 tonnes of CO2/GWeh are calculated. Certainly, the CO2 emissions from non-fossil fuel sources are much smaller than the ≈974 tonnes CO2/GWeh from coal-fired power plants (as well as natural gas and oil-fired units) ( White 5 ).

so although this shows that nuclear and other forms of renewable/alternative energy are not 100% clean, it does show that they can easily range from 50 – 100 times cleaner than what is achievable using fossil fuels. Margins like that would be able to make a gigantic difference to the environment if we were to consider converting from coal to nuclear. Although when speaking of coal power you need to acknowledge the use of “clean coal” power plants. You have most likely heard this term used before, but you may not know what it means. Clean coal power plants are power plants that use many varying methods to try and reduce the emissions, one of witch filtering the emissions before they get outside into the environment, this is done via the use of membranes that can be placed along the emissions system to capture specific chemicals in the gas being released.  The Journal of Membrane Science wrote about some of the technology that is used in these systems

To make such large reductions in CO2 emissions while still using coal combustion as a low-cost means of generating power is a significant challenge. Currently, a variety of technologies are being evaluated for their ability to capture CO2 from power plant flue gas. None of the capture options is a clear winner at this point. The most commercial-ready technology – amine absorption – is costly, energy intensive, and if implemented, would result in large increases in the cost of producing electricity (Merkel 13).

This study shows that even in the opinion of the field professionals that the technology for membranes is not adequate to effectively clean the emissions of the plants, let alone to do it in a cost-effective way. Both of which are extremely important when it comes to the notion of clean coal power production. This is just one of the reasons that “clean coal” is just effectively a buzzword as of right now, and the practice of using it does not and can not actually exist in the modern world.

Other major factors that are important to look at when talking energy sources is the different cost of each source of energy. Generally, when you measure the cost of electricity you use cost-per-kilowatt-hour, and what this means is the cost of using 1000 watts of power in an hour. Now when looking at the different costs, we will go through a few nonrenewable, and renewable power sources, such as coal, petroleum, nuclear and solar. We are also going to go through these from highest to lowest cost. Starting out with petroleum, the cost to produce in the year 2000 was around 6-7 cents per kilowatt-hour, but since then the price has skyrocketed to around 21 cents in 2011. This massive boost in cost can be gone into with a paper of its own, ranging from not only the reserves of it becoming less and less common but also instability in the Middle East. Whatever the reason is for the price hike though, the cost shows that it is not viable for power anymore. Then there is solar power that as of 2017 is able to produce power at a low of 6 cents per kilowatt-hour. Though this is a lot lower than petroleum, the size that solar takes up is huge, and it is not really a reliable source of energy, because of how much production can vary, but also with the fact that it can only produce in the day. Next up is coal, coal can produce at around half the cost of what solar does, with only 3.23 cents per kilowatt-hour, but has started to have a slight upward trend in cost and this can be for a few reasons, but it is not that significant of a rise. Then we come to nuclear power, the lowest cost of all power sources, being at only 2.19 cents per kilowatt-hour as of 2011, and has been on a very slight downward trend. There are a few reasons the cost of nuclear power is so low, one of them is that with nuclear power, the fuel, although more costly to transport and buy per-pound, the reactors are more efficient and can use fewer materials for an exceedingly longer time.

Along with cost to produce electricity, the efficiency of the powerplants is a major characteristic when you are analyzing different kinds of power plants. To measure the efficiency of power plants you take the Btu, (British Thermal Unit) the standard amount of heat required to raise the temperature of one pound of water by one degree Fahrenheit. And divide the Btu used to produce a kilowatt-hour of electricity. (I did these calculations myself to save you the time of reading over countless numbers and figures for this paragraph) When converting these into percentages nuclear power plants run at around 33%-37% efficiency, with the newer Generation IV reactors easily working at above 45%. Now at first, this may seem low, but let’s compare that figure to other forms of power. Coal can run at 33% efficiency, the best ones doing about 40% when well maintained and with quality fuel. Then you can compare that with other clean power sources, take solar for example, it may be extremely clean, but only runs at an efficiency of around 15%-20%, by far making nuclear one of the best clean power sources.

Efficiency isn’t the only thing that matters when it comes to reactor material though. Sure Btu is important, but there are two different kinds of Btu, one is how much is released at a time, and the other is total potential Btu. Potential Btu is how much heat energy the material can provide before it runs out, and this is important to keep in mind when talking about energy sources. Take, for example, 1 lb of Eastern US bituminous coal, this the highest potential of any type of coal, being 13,000 Btu, and goes for a cost of around 3 cents per pound. Then take uranium, sure it costs more at about $20-$25 a pound, but it produces around 180,000,000 Btu. Compare that to the Btu of coal, and you would need to use $415.38 to get the same amount of power only using coal. If you think that is a big difference, take a look at enriched uranium, 1 lb of 3.2% enriched uranium has a Btu of 1,250,000,000, going far beyond both normal uranium and coal. So although the materials cost more per pound and in the cost of transportation, this is far offset by how much more heat can be given off by the uranium.

When we talk about nuclear power though there is a gigantic issue that comes into play more than almost any other, and that is how the public views the use of nuclear power. The general public opinion on anything nuclear-related tends to strike fear to most people, and this comes from a few things. Radiation is something that scares a lot of people because of the effects that some kinds of radiation have on your health. While other people have fear of nuclear weapons being made in power plants, and even what happens if those power plants have an accident, like in Chernobyl and Fukushima. In a study titled “Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada”, they go into detail about how the public sees the effects of nuclear materials and radiation. The study closes stating,

The reality of extensive media coverage documenting major and minor problems and controversies involving nuclear technologies. Attempts to “educate” or reassure the public and bring their perceptions in line with those of industry experts face great difficulties because industry and government lack trust and credibility and because evidence of incompetence is much more persuasive than evidence of competence.

and this problem only gets worse as it continues, as it has since when the study was made. Now the public opinion on nuclear power has stagnated in a negative view.

When it comes to these kinds of misconceptions it’s important to dismiss them. A good place to start with this would be with nuclear waste, although it is true that it can be bad for the environment, that is only when its poorly taken care of. One of the first forms of taking care of spent fuel is to put it into a spent fuel pool in a power plant, or secure location, and this is surprisingly safer than it sounds. In the book What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions, the question is asked, “What if I took a swim in a spent nuclear fuel pool?” and the answer is pretty astonishing when you hold preconceived notions about radiation.

The most radioactive fuel rods are those recently removed from a reactor. For the kinds of radiation coming off spent nuclear fuel, every 7 centimeters of water cuts the amount of radiation in half. Based on the levels provided by Ontario Hydro… you could swim around as much as you wanted – the dose from the core would be less than the normal background done you get walking around… you may actually receive a lower dose of radiation treading water in a spent fuel pool than walking around on the street (Munroe 12-13).

As you can see the process for safely taking care of the spent fuel is not a highly technologic and expensive process, the pools of water and containment rods they use do a highly effective job at stopping the dangers of radiation from getting to the people and area around the powerplant. Keeping the environment and people safe from the dangers that can be posed by radioactive materials is one of the top priorities when it comes to the use of nuclear power. There are also other ways to help contain the materials used in reactors. Pyrochlore, for example, is a chemical that is used to keep all kinds of radioactive materials contained and safe for transportation, and there is a vast range of materials that this chemical is effective for, ranging most of the periodic table, “The use of pyrochlore structure-types in the immobilization and safe storage and disposal of plutonium and other actinides. Pyrochlore is particularly suitable because this very simple, but elegant, structure has the ability to accommodate a wide variety of chemistries–some compositions, such as the titanates and zirconates, being extremely durable under expected repository conditions.”(Ewing) Predicted behavior of the use of this chemical can be confirmed because there is a vast variety of studies for actinide-bearing pyrochlores in nature that can be from hundreds to thousands of millions of years of age. In looking at this study, being long, having mass amounts of research into the subject, along with it being tested on many different materials, concludes that we have more advanced methods that are available to us to not only safely but effectively contain, secure, and protects hazardous materials from being tampered with and causing harm to the areas around them whether it be in transporting the material, or keeping it stored away from people in the long term.

Of course the natural effects of nuclear materials are not the only thing that people worry about when it comes the topic, there’s also the idea of those nuclear materials being used to make weapons, and this is a fair thing to worry about, nuclear weapons are a dangerous thing that can cause mass amounts of destruction. This is of course taken into account by the people running the power plants, there have even been studies done on whether or not people are able to use the materials in non-peaceful ways. “The overall level of assurance against diversion also importantly depends on two other factors – the frequency of inspections, and the accuracy of the measurement techniques employed. Containment and surveillance systems limiting access to strategic points within a facility are an important adjunct to the IAEA’s materials balance system.” (Cochran) it is of course very important to keep these kinds of hazardous materials extremely controlled. Due to the result of this, there are many governments, international, and even local security and nuclear energy organizations, some examples of these are the International Atomic Energy Agency, Greenpeace, and even representatives from the United Nations, who all keep a close eye on nuclear power plants to make sure none of the materials are being misused.

Nuclear energy has had a giant turnaround from what it was back when we started to use it in the 50s. From then there have been massive advancements in how safe it is, and the price of using it has gone down significantly. Today the use of nuclear energy is not only a no-brainer, but the stigma around it prevents us from using it as a primary source of power, and this not only hurts our wallets but our environment too. The use of nuclear power is the future, and the sooner we accept that the better off everyone will be.



Works Cited

Cochran, Thomas B. “The Amount of Plutonium and Highly-Enriched Uranium Needed for Pure Fission Nuclear Weapons.” 13 Apr. 1995, pp. 1–16.,

Ewing, Rodney C., et al. “Nuclear Waste Disposal—Pyrochlore (A2B2O7): Nuclear Waste Form for the Immobilization of Plutonium and “Minor” Actinides.”Journal of Applied Physics, vol. 95, no. 11, 2004, pp. 5949–5971., doi:10.1063/1.1707213.

Merkel, Tim C., et al. “Power Plant Post-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture: An Opportunity for Membranes.” Journal of Membrane Science, vol. 359, no. 1-2, 2010, pp. 126–139, doi:10.1016/j.memsci.2009.10.041.

Slovic, Paul, et al. “Perceived Risk, Stigma, and Potential Economic Impacts of a High-Level Nuclear Waste Repository in Nevada.” Risk Analysis, vol. 11, no. 4, 1991, pp. 683–696., doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1991.tb00658.x.

“Spent Fuel Pool.” What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions, by Randall Munroe, John Murray, 2015, pp. 10–13.

White, Scott W, and Gerald L Kulcinski. “Birth to Death Analysis of the Energy Payback Ratio and CO2 Gas Emission Rates from Coal, Fission, Wind, and DT-Fusion Electrical Power Plants.” 2000, pp. 1-20. doi:10.1016/s0920-3796(00)00158-7.

Like (0)