With the events that are taking place in Japan, We here at TheTruthSyndicate thought that we should post something about what to do if your exposed, or there is a threat of being exposed to radioactive fallout. So here goes……….
We will start with an excerpt from Secretsofsurvival.com
Nuclear Power Is Our Friend
Let’s start by exploding a great misconception about nuclear energies (no pun intended). Firstly, the idea that radiation is by and of itself a harmful thing.
Most of the time that doesn’t appear to be the case at all.
Radiation, after all, is simply the waves of energy that’s created when bundles of energy called photons travel around an ordinary atom. It’s therefore around us all the time.
Some everyday examples are the microwave ovens used to cook food, radio waves from radio and television, light, and x-rays used in medicine. Natural waves and particles make up our visible light, ultra violet (UV) light, and microwaves (not ovens, but literally, ‘tiny waves’) with a spectrum of energies.
Radioactivity, however, is the by-product of unstable atoms whose photons have built up such a speed that the ensuing waves tear the atoms apart. The process, whereby electrons are torn from their orbits around an atom’s nucleus, is called Ionization or Ionizing radiation.
Either a lower-energy atom of the same form will result or a completely different nucleus and atom will be formed, depending on how the nucleus loses this excess energy. This is called radioactive decay.
These excessive radiations are of such high energy that when they interact with materials, they can remove electrons from the atoms in the material, causing the same decay in that substance as well. And so on and so on. This effect is the reason why ionizing radiation is hazardous to your health, and provides the means by which radioactivity can be detected. In short, ionization will literally cause the molecules and atoms making up your body to decay, while you live all the while to enjoy every new crumbling of your body into dust.
Examples of Ionized radiation are gamma rays and neutrons; radiation itself is measured in many ways, though it is commonly expressed in units of RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose).
The RAD — or, sometimes, Gray (Gy) — is a unit used to measure a quantity called absorbed dose. This relates to the amount of energy actually absorbed in some material, and is used for any radioactivity and any material. One gray is equal to one joule of energy deposited in one kg of a material. ‘Absorbed dose’ is often expressed in terms of hundredths of a gray, or centi-grays. One gray is equivalent to 100 RAD.
But while the units RAD and gray can be used for any ionized radiation, they do not describe the biological effects of the different radiations. Besides, not all radioactivity has the same biological effect, even for the same amount of absorbed dose. The most effective way to measure radioactivity’ s effect on living tissue is by calculating the equivalent doses in Sievert (Sv).
The sievert is a unit used to derive a quantity called equivalent dose. This relates the absorbed dose in human tissue, or the effective biological damage of the radioactivity. To determine equivalent dose, you multiply absorbed dose — Gray, or (Gy) — by a quality factor (Q) that is unique to that amount of incident radiation.
Nice and confused now? Just remember that RAD and Gray are the usual ways to measure the amount of radioactivity absorbed by a particular object; 100 RAD equals one gray. These are fine measurements, but they tell us nothing about any effect all this has on living tissue.
That’s where Sievert comes in. Multiplying the amount of radioactivity (expressed in Gray — Gy) to a number expressing the adverse effect, or quality (Q), that amount of radioactivity is sure to have on living tissue gives you the effect a particular blast of radioactivity will have on humans and animals.
An ‘equivalent dose’ is often expressed in terms of millionths of a Sievert, or micro-Sievert.
Terms Related to Radiation Dose
Chronic dose
A chronic dose means a person received a radiation dose over a long period of time.
Acute dose
An acute dose means a person received a radiation dose over a short period of time.
Somatic effects
Somatic effects are effects from some agent, like radioactivity, that are seen in the individual who receives the agent.
Genetic effects
Genetic effects are effects from some agent that are seen in the offspring of the individual who received that agent. The agent must be encountered before conception.
Teratogenic effects
Teratogenic effects are effects from some agent that are seen in the offspring of the individual who received the agent during pregnancy.
Stochastic effects
Stochastic effects are effects that occur on a random basis with its effect being independent of the size of dose. The effect typically has no threshold and is based on probabilities, with the chances of seeing the effect increasing with dose. Cancer is thought to be a stochastic effect.
Non-stochastic effect
Non-stochastic effects are effects that can be related directly to the dose received. The effect is more severe with a higher dose, i.e., the burn gets worse as dose increases. It typically has a threshold, below which the effect will not occur. A skin burn from ionized radiation is a non-stochastic effect.
Radiation Particles
The most common types of radiation include alpha particles, beta and positron particles, gamma and x-rays, and neutrons. We are protected from each in different ways.
Alpha particles are heavy and doubly-charged, which cause them to lose their energy very quickly in matter. They can be shielded by a simple sheet of paper, or merely the surface layer of our skin. Alpha particles are only considered hazardous to a person’s health if an alpha-emitting material is ingested or inhaled.
Beta and positron particles are much smaller and only have one charge, which cause them to interact more slowly with material. They are effectively shielded by thin layers of metal or plastic and are again only considered hazardous if a beta emitter is ingested or inhaled.
Gamma emitters tend to be associated with alpha, beta, and positron decay. X-Rays are produced either when electrons change orbits within an atom, or electrons from an external source are deflected around the nucleus of an atom. Both are forms of high energy electromagnetic radiation which interact lightly with matter. More dangerous than the previous particles, X-rays and gamma rays are best shielded by thick layers of lead or other dense material. In large doses they are even hazardous to people when they are external to the body.
Neutrons are neutral particles with approximately the same mass as a proton. Because they are neutral they react only weakly with material, but can release the worst radioactivity when a reaction does occur. They are an external hazard best shielded by thick layers of concrete.
Contamination
If you might be in an area of contamination, there are two exposure pathways of possible concern: external exposure, and the consumption of contaminated food. Unless you are seeking “wild” food, like mushrooms or game, you would be very unlikely to encounter contaminated food, so the main concern is external exposure. If you are concerned about areas within the contaminated region, you should have a Geiger Counter with you with a fine sensitivity.
The question of what radioactivity level is safe is however a more difficult and controversial question. In general, radiation is regulated under the assumption that there is no “safe” level, but that risk increases with the rate of dose. Most organizations follow the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in that the effective dose to the public should be limited to no more than 1 mSv per year above background.
Of course, it is not normally likely that you would be in an exposed situation for an entire year.
The other provision of the ICRP regulatory posture is that exposure to radiation should be kept to a minimum unless there is some benefit of that exposure, a la chemotherapy, etc. Benefit is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.
Biological Effects
The effect depends on the amount (dose), ranging from no effect (low) to death (high). Again, radioactivity creates ions in our cells, and these ions cause problems in our cells. Damaged cells may lead to cancer.
The radiation may interact directly with biologically significant molecules, like DNA and proteins. Radiation may also interact indirectly to cause damage, by interacting with chemicals in our bodies, such as water, and form very active chemicals like free radicals that may cause damage to our DNA and proteins.
The damage can be fixed, or the cell may die, or it may actually effect the tissue/organ if there is enough damage.
It is felt that the damage to the DNA is of the most importance, and could lead to increased risk of cancer. The damage could be to a single base pair, could cause the DNA to bind to itself or cause an actual break of one of the two DNA strands, or more rarely, to both DNA strands. If the damage is not fixed or is fixed incorrectly and the cell escapes apotosis (programmed cell death) it may be one of the several needed steps that results in the cell becoming a tumor.
One of the reasons cancer is not more common is that every minute of every day, your body’s repair mechanisms are working to fix damage to your DNA. It is surprising how many times each hour, each cell’s DNA is damaged.
If the damage is in the sex cells, there would be some risk of a DNA change, or mutation, being passed on to the next generation. The physical effects of these radioactive-induced mutations have never been seen in humans, however.
Humans have about a one in ten chance of passing along a natural (non-radiation induced) mutation to their offspring. Many studies have looked for the physical manifestations of radioactive damage in the children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren of Japanese Atomic Bomb survivors, and have discovered no increase above this natural rate.
At higher than normal doses (up to 1 Sv), bombarded cells might not be able to repair the damage, and they may either be changed permanently or die. Most cells that die are of little consequence, since the body can just replace them. But cells changed permanently may go on to produce abnormal cells when they divide. In the right circumstance, these cells may become cancerous.
According to some experts, our greater exposure to radiation and radioactive substances in the modern era is the origin of our increased modern risk to cancer.
At even higher doses, the cells cannot be replaced fast enough and tissues fail to function. An example of this would be “radiation sickness.” This is a condition that results after high acute doses to the whole body (>2 Gy), where the body’s immune system is damaged and cannot fight off infection and disease. Several hours after exposure nausea and vomiting occur. This leads to nausea, diarrhea and general weakness.
With higher whole body doses (>10 Gy), the intestinal lining is damaged to the point that it cannot perform its functions of intake of water and nutrients, and protecting the body against infection. At whole body doses near 7 Gy, if no medical attention is given, about 50% of the people are expected to die within 60 days of the exposure, due mostly from infections.
If someone receives a whole body dose higher than 20 Gy, they will suffer vascular damage of vital blood providing systems for nervous tissue, such as the brain. It is likely that at doses this high, 100% of the people will die from a combination of all the reasons associated with lower doses and the vascular damage.
There is a large difference between whole body dose, and doses to only part of the body. Most cases we are discussing concern doses to the whole body.
What needs to be remembered of course is that very few people have ever received doses more than 2 Gy. With the current safety measures in place, it is not expected that anyone will receive greater than 0.05 Gy in one year, whereas the above sicknesses consider only sudden doses delivered all at once.
Remedies (?)
In the event of a nuclear accident, there is currently no real, fully-recognized treatment or ‘home remedy’ for exposure to any resultant radiation exposure. People who know, or even suspect, they have been involved in a radiation (nuclear) accident should report the event to local authorities and seek the advice of their personal physician immediately.
There are, however, apparently a few things that might at least help prevent some radioactive-induced cancers from occurring.
The following italicized text is taken verbatim from a 1999 Congressional bill regarding the proposed value of potassium iodide tablets and the need to keep them in sufficient quantities for those who live or work around nuclear reactors, in case of an emergency:
Petitioner’s Basis for Requesting Potassium Iodide
The petitioner stated that potassium iodide (KI) protects the thyroid gland, which is highly sensitive to radiation from the radioactive iodine that would be released in extremely serious nuclear accidents.
By saturating the gland with iodine in a harmless form, KI prevents any inhaled or ingested radioactive iodine from lodging in the thyroid gland, where it could lead to thyroid cancer or other illnesses. The petitioner stated that the drug itself has a long shelf-life, at least 5 years, and causes negligible side effects.
The petitioner further stated that, in addition to preventing deaths from thyroid cancer, KI prevents radiation-caused illnesses. The petitioner notes that thyroid cancer generally means surgery, radiation treatment, and a lifetime of medication and monitoring. The petitioner asserted that the changes in medication that go with periodic scans put many patients on a physiological and psychological roller coaster. The petitioner stated that hypothyroidism can cause permanent retardation in children and, if undiagnosed, can condemn adults to a lifetime of fatigue, weakness, and chills.
The Petitioner’s Discussion of the Three Mile Island Accident (TMI)
The petitioner noted that in December 1978, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it had determined that KI was safe and effective for thyroid protection in nuclear accidents.
The petitioner stated that the issue attracted little attention, that the NRC and the Federal Government as a whole took no public position on the drug, and that three months after the FDA announcement, on March 28, 1979, the TMI accident began to unfold.
The petitioner stated that Federal and State officials, searching for supplies of KI in case it should be needed, discovered that none was to be had and that a supply had to be manufactured, literally overnight. The petitioner indicated that at 3:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 31, 1979, an FDA official arranged with the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company for the immediate production of 250,000 doses of KI.
The petitioner also discussed the Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (the Kemeny Commission report), issued in October 1979, and stated that the report was strongly critical of the failure to stockpile KI. The petitioner noted that among the Kemeny Commission’s major recommendations was that an adequate supply of the radiation protective agent, KI for human use, should be available regionally for distribution to the general population and workers affected by a radiological emergency.
And, as recently as November 2001 — two scant months after the 9/11 attacks — the FDA released a paper on the subject, concluding:
. . . FDA continues to recommend that radiation emergency response plans include provisions, in the event of a radiation emergency, for informing the public about . . . the manner of use of KI and its potential benefits and risks . . . FDA also emphasizes that emergency response plans and any systems for ensuring availability of KI to the public should recognize the critical importance of KI administration in advance of exposure to radioiodine.
Those who wish to read the entire FDA report regarding KI can click here.
The other possibility? Broccoli. That’s it — that simple, ugly-tasting green stuff you always had to drown in melted cheese just to make it taste kind of decent. Even among several noted doctors and scientists, word has it there really is something in broccoli that helps the body combat nuclear ionization, or radioactivity and its biological effect, to cut to the quick.
If true, it would be an amazing breakthrough to say the least. If not . . . well, at least you’ll know you’re finally eating the way your parents always said was right for you. Pass the melted cheese . . .
’This Is The End . . .’
http://www.secretsofsurvival.com/survival/nuclear_terrorists.html
Now an article from ultimatesurvivalskills.com
CLINICAL EFFECTS ARISING FROM RAPID WHOLE-BODY DOSES OF IMMEDIATE GAMMA RADIATION OR THE SAME AMOUNT OF RADIATION ACQUIRED IN THE COURSE OF ONE HOUR
Note:that the human body can stand MUCH more radiation if the radiation is spread out over a longer time (see below for longer time exposures).
| Whole body dosage in RADS | Incapacity in exposed persons | Death in exposed persons | Survivors period of convalescence | Clinical effects/therapy |
| 0-25 | 0% | 0% | n/a | Practically no “short-term” effects. May be some blood cell changes./ None required, just reassurance. |
| 25-100 | 0-25% | 0% | 7 days | A small amount of nausea and sickness for highest dose level. Blood changes noticeable./ Reassurance, rest, and blood counts checks, if possible. |
| 100-200 | 25-100% | approx. 25% in 30-60 days | Up to about 40 days | Definite identifiable changes in blood cells. Highest dose causes hair loss, livid skin spots, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fevers, hemorrhages, and great fatigue. Heart failure in some./ Rest reassurance, blood cell count, light diet, antibiotics. |
| 200-400 | 100% | 25-50% in 30-60 days. | Several weeks to months | Symptoms as above but more severe. Fatal to 25% in low range, 50% in high range./Same as above but blood transfusion(if possible)may help recovery. Sedatives for bad cases. |
| 400-600 | 100% | 50-75% in 20-35 days. | Several months to years | Symptoms as above but now very severe and occurring soon after exposure. Death will occur within shorter time span./Survivors will require all the above + a bone marrow transplant if possible. Sedatives for bad cases. |
| 600-800 | 100% | 75-99% in days. | Years | Symptoms as above but the circulatory system and parts of the central nervous system malfunction rapidly./Treatment as above but mainly supportive because of probability of death. Maintaining electrolytes may assist victim. |
| 800-5000+ | 100% | 100% in hours. | Outcome very rapid indeed. Vomiting, falling blood count, diarrhea, great fatigue, internal bleeding, organs fail, nervous system collapse heart failure/coma – death./ Purely supportive therapy, no possible recovery. |
Again, as these doses are immediate or one hour doses, these are strictly worse case possible results. The same dosage acquired over a longer time span would have significantly less drastic effects. (see below for time table)
The above is taken from the very fine book SURVIVING DOOMSDAY-C.Bruce Sibley. Available from Journal of Practical Civil Defence 11 Newport Cresent,Waddington Lincolnshire,LN5 9LZ, England for $15.00,postpaid or at your friendly survivalist bookstore. This book’s missiles table are outdated, but the rest of the book is one of the best I have seen.
The body can handle and repair a certain amount of free radical damage whether it is caused by radiation, drinking alcholol, heavy labor, heavy exercise, eating slightly rancid food, or from wounds. The following table shows this ability of the body to repair itself to a limited extent.
Medical care needed by Accumulated Radiation Exposures (R) over a period of
| One week | One month | Four months | |
| None, no deaths | 150 R | 200 R | 300 R |
| Some, 5% may die | 250 R | 350 R | 500 R |
| Most, 50% may die | 450 R | 600 R |
The above chart is from Richard C. Oster Sr.’s article in Journal of Civil Defense Oct 1987, Fallout Radiation: Levels and Effects.
(Note that the same exposure over 4 months causes 5% deaths whereas the same exposure over 1 hour causes 50+% deaths)
A further note. It has been stated that a daily radiation exposure of 3-12 rads per day will cause no short term effects. This is true to a limited extent. However, in radiation therapy where the typical daily dose is 15 Rads whole body, is has been noted that serious blood changes occur when day after day exposures hit around 150-200 R cumulative. Even if exposure is halted at that point, blood components will continue to deteriorate for the next 25-35 days.
The reason for the variance of outcome in exposure RATES is that radiation of the type that we are talking of is ionizing radiation. Ionizing radiation causes the formation of free radicals in the body. Radiation sickness is a free radical disease just as a hang-over is. The body can handle a certian amount of free radicals before the free radicals overwhelm the body’s free radical scavenging system. When overwhelmed, part of the free radical damage consists of damage to the body’s free radical scavenging system creating a vicious cycle. The body’s ability to scavenge free radicals may be improved by a factor of three using various vitamins and minerals (see the three books, LIFE EXTENSION – A PARTICAL SCIENTIFIC APPROACH, THE LIFE EXTENSION COMPANION, THE LIFE EXTENSION WEIGHT LOSS PROGRAM by Durk Pearson & Sandy Shaw).
The reason for the variance of outcome from exposure DOSES is that there is a wide variance in people’s ability to handle free radicals. This is based on genetics, age, state of physical conditioning, overall health, and quality of nutrition.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ZDncr0V7k
And finally this article from ultimatesurvivalskills.com that applies to any survival situation
THE TRUTH SYNDICATE STAFF
In the 1950′s, several thousand people had nuclear fallout shelters built, usually in their back yards. At first they met only ridicule by those neighbors who considered themselves above such hysteria.
In time, however, it occurred to those neighbors that something had changed in their relationship with the shelter builders. Often, those who had been friends for years came to despise each other.
It usually started like this: Sam would say to Paul, the shelter builder, “Paul, I don’t believe there’s going to be a war. But if it happens, I’ll know where to come.”
Paul would say, “But Sam, it’s not a matter of belief. If it happens, it’ll happen, and if it doesn’t happen, it won’t. Neither of us believes our homes will burn down some night. But we both have fire insurance. So my shelter is simply my nuclear war insurance.”
“What if you had fire insurance and I didn’t? If my house burned down, without insurance, I could never rebuild. Would you allow me to move my family in with you on a permanent basis?”
Sam might say, “But that’s a poor analogy. I’d be glad to put you up for a few weeks and even help you to rebuild.”
“But,” Paul would reply, “We both make about the same wages. What if I bought a boat instead of fire insurance, thinking, “What the hell, I’d rather play with a boat than sit around home worrying about an unlikely fire. Besides, good old Sam will bail us out. He’s our ace in the hole.”
“Would you want to be our ace in the hole if we left our welfare up to you while we ran around in a damn boat while you sat home worrying about a fire?”
“Harping on the boat again,” says Sam. “I said you could use it.”
“Forget the boat,” says Paul. “The point is, that you considered the boat more important than nuclear war insurance. You have all kinds of insurance but you don’t seem to know what insurance is. It’s not negotiable. You have hospital insurance and I don’t and I get sick; tough on me. You buy fire insurance and I don’t and my house burns down; your insurance company wouldn’t rebuild my house.”
“Like your life insurance, my shelter is nuclear war insurance which covers only my family. If you want that kind of insurance, buy it. Don’t expect to use mine.”
By now, Sam is seeing that friendship has its limits and he resents it. “Okay,” he says, “Just suppose your war should break out. So I haven’t prepared. But we’ve been friends for years and I never put you off when you needed help. And you’ve always been on hand to help us. But now, when it’s a matter of life and death, our friendship isn’t worth a bo-diddly? Is that what you’re telling me?”
“It’s not a matter of friendship,” says Paul. “My shelter was built for my family of five. It’s for two weeks; maybe four if we absolutely had to stay longer. You crowd your family of five in there and we’d all be dead in a week.”
“Maybe so,” says Sam, “but the point is, you would just keep us out, knowing we would all be sprawled around the door, dead as mackerels. (He breaks into sobs.) And my littlest, Jenny, she’s only five, you know. Before I’d let you close her out, I’d come with a gun.”
Such arguments would go on to the point where the neighbors were no longer friends. I never heard of a case where, rather than break up as friends, the other neighbor built a shelter.
Telling the improvident their time is running out seldom motivates them to prepare. The improvident are the improvident. That’s their nature. They know their basic helplessness, but will seldom admit it. They are more likely to react with hostility to survival advice than to begin their own preparations.
The difference between one who prepares and one who doesn’t is more important than a difference of opinion. If you prepare to survive, you deserve to survive. Those who can, but won’t prepare, don’t deserve to survive and the species would be better off without them. If you have the kind of intellect that’s geared to survival, it may be a matter of genetics.
Your neighbor may lack these survival genes. Therefore, becoming his means of survival could not only doom both of your families to death, but if you should make it, you would have enabled a non-survival type to further pollute the gene pool. That’s a no-no, although you might take in one of his brighter children if you really have enough room.
If you are really in a position to save someone, you ought to be selective. But don’t be too callous. Without basic human compassion, you might not be worthy to survive, yourself. Aside from making you seem callous towards others, your preparations put you out the Good-time-Charley field and you are seen as a part of the establishment. You are then no longer a buddy, but someone to use when things get rough. It’s hard to explain but it’s sort of like when you go into business for yourself; your wage-earning friends tend to drop away. You have a kind of security they can’t aspire to. So they either drop away as friends or become actually hostile.
So you see, friendship ends when you establish a permanency and security your friends can’t aspire to. Maybe they don’t care to put out the extra effort or money. Maybe they’re just lazy or stupid. It doesn’t matter why they drop away. Just recognize the fact that Survivalists are likely to see their friends drift away.
So don’t expect to impress a friend with your preparations. It’s far better to get him sold on the idea of making his own preparations.
It’s verly likely you can’t get your friend to exert himself to make any survival preparations. Serious preparation would upset his whole lifestyle.
Most neighbors would rather rationalize away the danger than do something about it. Say you bought a house on an earthquake fault. So a guy comes and tells you you’d better move or get shook to pieces.
So there you are, with everything you have threatened with destruction. A survivalist would move, taking his losses in money, energy, and time.
But the average person would rationalize away the danger and never bring up the subject again. If he was smarter than average he would try to unload the property on some sucker, of course, never mentioning the fault.
So if you broach the subject of survival to a friend and he gives you the horse-laugh, just think of him as one who knows his house is built on an earthquake fault. He’ll give you nothing but rationalizations as to why nothing will happen. Best just to ease away from him and tell him nothing further of your plans.
Since survival is the most important subject today, and only a few recognize it, you can’t waste time with friends who have little potential as allies. The time is coming closer when if a neighbor isn’t an ally, he’s highly likely to become an enemy.
Only those who are working on their own survival programs are fit to associate with at this point. I’m not suggesting you snub your friends or give up on non-survivors altogether. This would be rude and stupid. Besides, an intelligent friend might finally come around to your way of thinking as things get worse.
So just be businesslike when talking survival. It’s very serious, so the drinking buddy would be more likely to be offended than interested.
In survival programs, an ally is worth any number of friends. In the coming months, you will learn to sort out your allies, who are aware of the coming crash, from your friends, who think you’re a nut if you worry about anything but where your next baseball ticket is coming from.
As you come in contact with more Survivalists, you will be bored with your old buddies, anyway. And they will be bored with you, too. So don’t feel panicky at the thought of your old cronies drinking without you.
Of course, your first choice of allies should be among your friends, especially neighbors. If you and your neighbor both had a roomy, livable shelter, you could link them up with a tunnel.
Such a setup would enable you to share the burden of buying supplies. Tools, books, and the various items of hardware could be shared, rather than having to buy two complete sets for two families.
Linked shelters would also permit visiting for moral support and economy. They would also be handy to resist assault. If one’s shelter were under assault by the mob, the other could go through the tunnel and help fight them off. When the mob finally gave up and went off to die of radiation sickness, life in the shelters could become downright social.
In this way you can see how a neighbor who is an ally can be of great benefit. But a neighbor who depends on you to save his bacon is not only not an ally but he could become your worst enemy.
One way to help a neighbor to become an ally is to introduce him to other Survivalists. Then he will feel that you’re letting him in on something. Also, if you have three or four guys in your home talking survival, your neighbor will feel he’s the isolated minority in his stand that this is the best of all possible worlds.
Even if your area is an unlikely target for a nuclear bomb and underground shelters are not in your plans, the ally principle is still very important. You just can’t waste time with a friend who is of no use in your survival plans.
An ally can be a person you don’t even like socially. But if your ally shares your enthusiasm for survival, he will be far more useful to you than a friend who agrees with you on everything but survival.
http://www.ultimatesurvivalskills.com/nuclear-survival/friends-or-allies-choice-for-survival.html
![]() |
|
var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-18293288-1']); _gaq.push(['_setDomainName', 'none']); _gaq.push(['_setAllowLinker', true]); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']);
(function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();
Surviving a Nuclear “Incident” | The Truth Syndicate…
Here at World Spinner we are debating the same thing……
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s actual post text did not contain your blog url (http://thetruthsyndicate.com/1320/syndicate-survival/surviving-a-nuclear-incident) and so is spam.
[...] Surviving the Nuclear “Incident” | The Truth Syndicate [...]
[WORDPRESS HASHCASH] The comment’s actual post text did not contain your blog url (http://thetruthsyndicate.com/1320/syndicate-survival/surviving-a-nuclear-incident) and so is spam.