This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
windinhishair · 61-69, M
Radioactive fallout would be greatest in the Northern Hemisphere, so a Southern Hemisphere location would be best. Tristan da Cunha is in an isolated island location in the South Atlantic, 1750 miles from Africa and 2000 miles from South America. An underground location there, with enough food supplies and access to fresh or treatable water for 20 years, would be the best location to wait out the nuclear winter that would result.
pinkie · 51-55, M
@windinhishair you never heard about nuclear winter , may be the whole world will be contaminated except tristan da cunha ...... YOUPEE
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@pinkie The impacts will indeed involve the entire world, but will be greater in some areas than others. And the nuclear winter will not be permanent--it will gradually lessen with time. The key to survival is being able to be in an area that is most likely to see lesser impacts. A remote island is a good bet.
pinkie · 51-55, M
@windinhishair radioactivity takes many years to lessen and is very dangerous ; your survivors will die of terrible illness without possibility of being cured or naving painkillers on your island....
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@pinkie Not necessarily. There are many short-lived radionuclides that can be somewhat mitigated by distance, because they are likely to precipitate out before they reach you. Hence being in a remote area far from areas of direct radiation release is important. Potassium iodide can be taken to prevent thyroid uptake of radioactive iodine. There is no guarantee of survival, but you can take your best shot.
pinkie · 51-55, M
@windinhishair if there is (helas) nuclear war , how many missiles would be launched ? This would not be tchernobyl ;;;;;; so potassium iode , why ? dying with healthy thyroid .....cool
Nimbus · M
@windinhishair Interesting 👍
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@windinhishair The problem with nuclear exchange is the nuclear winter. It doesn't have to last forever. Just like the meteor impact dust cloud that killed the dinosaurs. You only need it to last long enough to cause the ecosystem to collapse.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow Like the major extinction events at the end of the Cretaceous and Permian Periods, it would function as a reset button. But it doesn't wipe the slate clean. Ecosystems would recover slowly and differently in different parts of the world, just as it did following the Permian and Cretaceous.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@pinkie Studies of the worst case scenario with the maximum number of missiles launched in a US-Russia conflict show that something between half and two-thirds of humankind would be extinguished. But that is not all humanity. There will be places where survival will be possible. Actions like I have described will increase your chances of long-term survival.
PicturesOfABetterTomorrow · 41-45, M
@windinhishair I agree that life would reset but it would likely be worse for humans since on a near global scale now we have reduced the plants and animals we rely on for food to mono-cultures that already make our food chain more fragile.
windinhishair · 61-69, M
@PicturesOfABetterTomorrow I can't disagree with you. I am certain that it would definitely be worse for human beings, and for many (perhaps countless) generations. Recovery in a new world would take millennia at a minimum, and it won't resemble the old one.