h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

It's short, it's sweet, it's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A537329
Tell me what you think...

When reading the headline I was prepared to find some information about wind directions, decay rates, jodine (sp?) tablets, hiding in bunkers and other attempts, hopeless or not. In the middle section you were on that road, mentioning decreasing security and third world countries striving for the big ones.

So IMHO this is rather an entry for the Unedited Guide... It's more opinion than fact, and sarcasm seems to be the basic idea.

...It all depends on what you're talking about. Here I am speaking of "Global" fallout and how to survive it.
Although global fallout in a literal definition could be any small amount of radiation anywhere on Earth rising into the atmosphere and sprinkling us with a tiny microbe or two (one in Buthole, Montana and the other in let's say...Azerbaijan), I'm speaking of massive amounts of radiation coating the entire planet. Unless you have a fallout shelter in your backyard, you are signed up for one or have a very intricated plan for breaking into one your chances of making it out of an irradiated Earth soup without radiation poison are, to say the least, slim.
Now let us take about a different angle, let's say that it doesn't get that bad and you are able to have children before the radiation takes a major toll on your reproductive organs. Your children will still be more prone to the effects of radiation poisoning than you and even IF one of the twenty kids that you WEREN'T able to have before you repro.s went survived, the damage would already have been done. Human chromosomes are not as forgiving as Mother Earth.
I am very sarcastic, yes, what else is there to be, it's not as if I have any control over whether the BIG one gets dropped or for that matter the millions of little ones. I guess it's better than mulling over it all day, though.

Hey, if you take your last posting as the basis you can make a worthy entry out of it -- rewrite it into 3rd person and discuss the topic, if it's a controversial one (which nukes&fallout surely is). That's what the Guide is all about. And even better if you manage to tame that sarcasm (I don't say delete!)

"How NOT to Survive Global Nuclear Fallout"???

"How not to survive global nuclear fallout...in style"??

"How not to survive global nuclear fallout but at least maintain your sense of style?"

So, are you saying that I should put it in a story format and keep the nomer "How to Survive Global Nuclear Fallout?" Thats a good idea... I'll have a guy walking around after the apocalypse reading respective entries in a book called "How to Survive Global Nuclear Fallout" when he comes across an obstacle.

Hmm...

Well, I'm not hugely convinced, I'm afraid to say. I do like it as an unedited entry - love the humour, but it's not really factual or informative enough to be accepted into the edited guide...

In fact, surviving world war three is just about possible, if highly unlikely for any individual: people have done studies, and we're not quite at the stage where we could completely destroy humanity. We could kill a lot of people, sure, and the insuing radioactivity would lead to an awful lot of mutants, much leukemia, but enough people would live to be able to breed, and enough of their children (etc).

Obviously, anyone in a major city in Europe, the USA, or USSR would be wormfood in short order, but the rest of the world should be unaffected by direct explosive damage. Similarly, people in the USA or USSR countryside would have a chance of surviving such. Fleeing to the countryside would work, except everyone else will be trying to do the same, and the insuing chaos will trap all but the very first to try and leave. Helicopters or private jets are a better option, provided they are not mistaken for attacking enemy troops by crazed AA operators.

If a nuclear shelter is not available, caves, basements, the London Underground, quarries, and suchlike will all help. In hilly areas try and put a cliff between yourself and likely nuclear targets (IE, large cities). This will help shield you from both the blast, and from the radioactive wind that will sweep after it. The EMP effects of nukes are equally deadly: anything with a wire in it will probably get destroyed, and this effect extends further than the nuclear blast. Say goodbye to h2g2.

However, there are other risks. The complete breakdown of law and order is one: it has been estimated that casualties in the USA would be vastly higher, simply because there is wider gun ownership there. Rioters and madmen with guns do much more damage than those with clubs and knives. Places where there are active terrorist organisations will have similar problems: expect the Yakusa to take over control of Japan, and the IRA to finally reunite Ireland.

Another risk is being drafted, which is likely to involve you working in high radiation zones, surrounded by the aforesaid madmen. Avoid at all costs. Conventional war in general is a big problem: with the major world power completely disabled, smaller countries will wish to establish their places in the new world order. One bonus is that war is normally accompanied by rape, including child rape, which should help to counteract the drop in population in the longterm. High contraceptive use is not typical in war situations.

On a smaller scale, expatriots who hail from nuclear nations can expect to be hunted down and murdered by those who are understandably miffed at the situation. They have a life expectancy of about three weeks in normal circumstances. The same goes doubly so for those attempting to flee from irradiated areas: refugees will be shot on sight by the army of the countries they wish to flee to. However, this is still likely to be the best option for survival.

Immediate nuclear fallout is a big problem: but it should fall in reasonably large clumps: the so-called "gray rain". If quickly swept away from the dwelling area the damage should be fairly small, except to the sweepers who need to wear very heavy clothes covering their entire body, and still get it in the neck. Also, gray rain will be subject to normal weather effects, so some areas will get none, just by wind movements and suchlike.

Nuclear winter is possibly the final nail in the coffin, but that too is avoidable. With the majority of mankind killed, stored food should be ample for the survivors for many years. In addition, some levels of hunter-gathering will be possible, though it will take time to relearn the appropriate skills. Plants are much more radiation reistant than humans. And of course, there will be *lots* of cockroaches, which are high in protein.

Another risk is knocking the earth out of stable orbit with the explosions, but this would require detonating all nukes in the same area, so is not a significant risk. It will certainly change weather patterns significantly, but the effect will be small compared to the nuclear winter.

The big saving grace is that it is expected that many nukes will fail to be launched, as the appropriate people will refuse to launch them, will malfunction, will be struck by opposing nukes and disabled, or be intercepted by fighters flying directly into their path. Without this human factor, things could be worse still.

sorry lucinda, but you have some of that wrong. the problems is not radiation, but nuclear winter, and lack of food. research done for spaceguard uk has found that if a reasonable sized comet hit, it would have the same sort of problems associated with it, except for the radiation. the problems that were identified were to do with countries only having about four DAYS reserve of food, most of which is stored in the cities (which would be the first thing to get it in a nuclear war). communication would also go in a nuclear war due to the electromegnetic pulse caused by the detonations destroying the chips in anything turned on.
As regards to destroying humans, we wouldn't even need something the size of the dinosaur killer, and we easily have more nukes than that.
as for the people in their radiation shelters for two years, how do they plan to drink the contaminated water, and eat what little contaminated food that will exist. If we do get a nuclear winter, it will be even worse, as the plants will die off in weeks, the plant eaters in a couple of months, and the meat eaters soon after.

I mentioned EMP and nuclear winter...

One difference with comets is that nukes are specifically aimed to explode above their target, whereas comets 'explode' on impact with the earth. This makes quite a difference in the amount of dust thrown up into the air.

The WHO study estimated that one billion people would be killed outright, and another billion would be killed by a nuclear winter if one occured. Check out this reference: "Sagan, Carl. The Nuclear Winter, Council for a Livable World Education Fund, Boston, MA, 1983."
{it's probably searchable: I haven't checked}.

Water can be filtered to get rid of much of the radiation: a handkerchief will work in a pinch, but the military have more advanced systems. It won't make it safe as we would see it, but in after a nuclear war it would be "safe enough", compared to the other risks. People won't survive past the age of forty, max, so the long term effects of radiation won't matter, only the short term effects.

You don't need to be in a nuclear shelter for two years: just during the initial strikes, and possibly retreating back there if you are unlucky enough to be hit by particularly heavy fallout - depending on the winds. Of course, if you were paranoid about radiation you'd aim to stay there for two years and die of starvation after two weeks. So it goes.

I'm going to have to agree with Lucinda on this one Xyroth.
The effects of the moderate amount of radiation existing in the atmosphere in our day in age are pronounced to say the least. Radiation effects the the least protected organs (reproductive and immune systems) first and is right now besides Lucinda did not indicate or favor as to which, radiation or nuclear winter, would have the most effect.
On another note, although most comets do explode on impact, comets made up majoritively of ice do explode up to a mile above the Earth's surface (ie Tunguska, Siberia circa 1908).

Sorry I don't have much time right now to argue points so I will try to talk tomorrow.

yes, tunguska is a good example. this was a small comet, which did an air burst explosion, and flattened all of the forest ina 2000 mile diameter. it missed moscow by 4 minutes, and if it had hit it would have radically changed world history, due to a lack of the soviet union.
A modern nuke can do the same thing, but leaves the area radioactive as well. Also, the nuke will leave a lot of dying in the surrounding areas.
but in the event of a nuclear war, you will not have 1 tunguska sized event, you will have thousands. this will drastically effect the functionality of governments, and destroy most of the stored food suply.

I completely agree Xyroth: many, many people will die, both directly and indirectly. Governments will crumble rapidly. It will not be a pleasant time. But there's a long way between that and the destruction of the human race.

Editorial Note: This Conversation has been moved to the new 'Flea Market' Forum.

This is where we move any Peer Review, Writing Workshop or Alternative Writing Workshop Conversations where the original author has *not* posted to h2g2 for three months. This prevents the active Review Forums from clogging up with dormant entries, but in the Flea Market they can be picked up by others and polished off.

There's a Peer Review thread now, at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F48874?thread=135142 As there shall only be one Review thread for any entry, I'm going to have this thread moved back to the entry. Bossel

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'The Flea Market' to 'How to Survive Global Nuclear Fallout'.

One other problem with the survival of a neuclear winter not mentioned in this 2001 thread:

Desiese. Although radiation may have a small sterilisation effect the rotting corpses and animal matter left after such a war would not be properly buried causeing massive increases in virus and bacteria based epidemics. Add to this the lowering of peoples immune systems and there would be many fatalities.

A good resourse is the government handbook called "Protect and Survive". I respectfully ask that any entry on this subject be edited after reading this text.

It's as good as any place. Good point.