Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-05-2014, 04:32 AM   #11
ABC Warrior's Avatar
ABC Warrior
-- co-founder --
  • Aug 2014
  • 21
Only just seen this. Truly outstanding material just spot on and oh so true! I just wish the general public was so well informed. Only one question what about background radiation from a multitude of nuclear warhead detonations especially in the States (I'm from the UK but I know there are a lot of nuclear facilities/bases in the SW and fallout is always a factor). I know the the rule of 7 and 10 but I wonder are Red zones truly still that radioactive after 132 years? If you consider that even a 10000 rad per hour zone would be at 0.01 rads per hour after 94 years (if my maths is correct it is late here so I may have made an error??). Are are Red zones something else entirely? Hard science question I guess. I really don't want any game spoilers though I'm just curious. AR is going to be THE POST APOCALYPTIC GAME when it comes to realism!
Quote
Old 12-05-2014, 12:47 PM   #12
Ole's Avatar
Ole
-- co-founder --
  • Nov 2014
  • 22
I know for a fact that some radioactive isotopes have a half life of many thousands of years, I read Plutonium 239 has a half life of 24100 years, and Uranium 238 is at 4,5 billion years. The fukoshima accident caused Cesium 130 to be leaked into the ocean, now there we have a half life of 30,2 years. So after around 150 years there will be only around 3% left scattered over a vast area(maybe not as I don't know how it deposits). The diminishing of rads per hour depends on what isotope we're talking about as far as I understand, maybe you meant something entirely different and I just didn't get your meaning :D

And what exactly do you mean by the rule of 7 to 10? Haven't heard about it before.

Last edited by Ole; 12-05-2014 at 12:54 PM. Reason: Adding info
Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 03:49 AM   #13
ABC Warrior's Avatar
ABC Warrior
-- co-founder --
  • Aug 2014
  • 21
As far as I am aware the established rule for the breakdown of fallout (only) is for every multiple of 7 hours fallout radioactivity is is reduced by a factor of 10 i.e after 7 hours you have 1/10th and then 49 hours you have 1/100th and so on. This is why you should stay in a shelter for a minimum of 72 hours (radiation at 1/100th) but preferably 2 weeks (radiation from fallout would then be approx. 1/1000). This is the time factor when calculating dose rates but also shielding and distance from source are important. I could be out of date with latest scientific theory but it is what I learnt years ago. I agree some isotopes have a far higher half life but fallout from nuclear detonations is only certain isotopes. I am thinking of all those (I note far less due to reductions in the game scenario) nukes going offer as part of the Reset. Also currently spent fuel rods are stored in cooling ponds which without power for said cooling go up in a large steam explosion which also spreads fallout .. here I am thinking of nuclear power pants of course but maybe they have been replaced with fusion (let's hope!). I'll do a little research to check my info is still accurate particularly when it comes to Chernobyl and Fukushima and that type of event as these things are important to me to understand. It really was an academic question and shouldn't have any bearing on the game at all. It is a game after all and I don't expect it to be entirely scientifically accurate just fun to play in the long run. It is just the well thought out logical and accurate answers to the above common assumptions lead me to thinking about this matter.
Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 11:09 AM   #14
Ole's Avatar
Ole
-- co-founder --
  • Nov 2014
  • 22
Interesting! I didn't know that. So by the 7-10 rule, you then mean the time it takes for the air to be less toxic to inhale or get on your skin. The more radioactive particles in the air the more radiation exposure, so it got nothing to do with half lives of isotopes then? Btw I was wrong about the isotope leaked from Fukushima, it was Cesium 134 and 137 that was released, Cesium 130 has a half life of 29 minutes.

Oh now I've done it, started reading about nuclear blasts and fallout.
After the initial detonation there will be a lot of short lived radioactive isotopes that will emit high dose of radiation, but these isotopes will be gone in a relative short time. After these isotopes decay to something stable the radiation will drop significally but never go entirely away cause of the long lived isotopes. So if we lock ourselves in a airtight container that can block out gamma-, beta radiation and the radiactive dust for a decent amount of time we will be relatively safer from exposure when we eventually decide to go out again, that is until we start eating food or drinking water that is contaminated by the long lived isotopes.

Last edited by Ole; 12-06-2014 at 12:31 PM. Reason: correcting and adding more info
Quote
Old 12-06-2014, 10:28 PM   #15
MrNixon's Avatar
MrNixon
-- administrator --
  • Jul 2013
  • 579
ABC Warrior, you're right (as well as scientists of the UG) that is something wrong with Red zones. And you, Ole, as also right about the long lived isotopes. Most of the "blind spots" in the lore are the well thought and scientifically sound parts of the AR setting.

Anyway, please, feel free to discuss them: it helps me to double-check them and encourage me when seeing I didn't spent so many resources working on details in vain :)
Quote
Old 12-07-2014, 04:35 AM   #16
ABC Warrior's Avatar
ABC Warrior
-- co-founder --
  • Aug 2014
  • 21
Oh dear Ole now you have really got me going but if this info helps someone then my job is done! The main thing to worry about is gamma radiation (I'm ignoring neutron bombs for now) as that is the truly penetrating type and a detonation releases a massive pulse of it but if you survive that then things can be managed with difficulty of course. Alpha is stopped by the the skin (but would cause damage on contact as would Beta) and Beta by a thick layer of clothing. The real problem with those two when it comes to protection is inhaling or ingesting them. A gas mask (up until the filter is clogged and as long as it is decontaminated) will protect from both and when it comes to food root crops are pretty good (as they are below the surface) as is anything sealed as the fallout on the covering doesn't really effect the contents. In fact if you wait 3 months when fallout has reduced to 1/1000th and remove the top 3 inches of soil then crops can be grown fairly safely.Water is a different matter but there are purifiers easily available that can remove any fallout particles as the particles are quite large when it comes to microns and they are based on kidney dialysis machines tech and really don't cost much (see Sawyers filters) there are other simple ways such as a covered Gypsy well. The trick would be to avoid exposure to fallout by doing several things such as not breathing it in or ingesting it, keeping a good distance from you and where the fallout builds up and finally shielding and there are rules for that as well. In regards to shielding basically about 3 feet of earths reduces 1000 rads per hour of radiation by 50% per 3.2-3.3 inches (If I remember correctly) so it would be down to about approx .5 rads per hours (and then time decay must also be factored in!) and denser materials of course do better i.e .5 inch of concrete is good for 50% reduction. Dust is the main problem as it gets in to a shelter and then you have no shielding or distance.

Maybe we should take this discussion off the forum as it is getting a bit deep please feel free to PM me but I am not an expert just a prepper who has studied such things for nearly 30 years. Mr. Nixon I am glad there is more mystery to discover and I am sorry to hijack one of your topics but if others are interested I could start a separate thread if that would be ok??? So few people understand fallout out and its effects and how to protect against it.
Quote
Old 12-08-2014, 03:07 AM   #17
ABC Warrior's Avatar
ABC Warrior
-- co-founder --
  • Aug 2014
  • 21
Just correct myself about my last post it is lead not concrete that gives a 50% reduction in radiation per .4 inches of shielding. Concrete takes is 2.4 inches and my earth (packed) calculations are out as it takes 3.6 inches so 3 feet would reduce 1000 rads per hour to approx just under 1 rad per hour but after 7 hours that would be down to under 0.1 rads. So basically 3 feet of packed earth is good.

Mr. Nixon I am wondering if the UG scientists have come up with some thing better than Prussian Blue? Many post apocalyptic games treat radiation exposure wrongly. You get to walk into a contaminated area then walk out and as long as you don't get a lethal dose you can come back again later. In reality you get a full body cumulative dose which doesn't just 'go away' and a further exposure would just increase it until you get a lethal dose. I assume you still have some extremely radioactive areas in the game so I think this question is of some importance.
Quote
Old 08-23-2015, 07:24 AM   #18
Talishan's Avatar
Talishan
-- registered --
  • Aug 2015
  • 6
Continued discussion on radioactive zones
I was fascinated by this article and wanted to chime in with AMC Warrior and try to get this discussion moving somewhere that might actually help your game development. First of all, my credentials, I majored in chemistry and minored in physics, and although I specialize in magnetism (especially regarding electron "spin"), I have enough interest in radiation that I've studied it quite a bit. Besides, any chemist worth his salt is completely fascinated by the reactions and particle interaction of nuclear physics. As a disclaimer however, I do not have an advanced degree such as a PHD (I doubt anyone with such credentials has time for games). Second of all, I don't know if you are aware, but there are already red/yellow zones mapped for the USA in terms of radiation.

http://www.epa.gov/radon/zonemap.html

Of course they don't have the same meaning, but their importance is additive. We have existing radon radiation present throughout our environment from natural background sources, and any other radiation type that came about would only add to their harmful effects. So basically if another radiation hotzone occurred inside a high radon zone, it would be even more harmful to humans. This has nothing to do with lasting red zones, however, but that's my next point. Nuclear reactions and the presence of radiation can actually break down extremely heavy elements, causing them to become unstable and start leaking radiation themselves. Complex reactions can even occur if a nuclear blast is close to a natural deposit of such materials, and modern science has not even come close to exploring the potential results of such reactions, but current science can not discount even some of the stranger predictions regarding such reactions. This is because one of the few places that complex nuclear reactions can be studied is in facilities like the ones CERN has, making the research slow as many scientists who want to do experiments end up on a waiting list if they even get the chance at all, assuming they have the funding and backing to get access to a particle collider or other advanced equipment. I say all of this to support this possible explanation for redzones:

Redzones, rather than being the areas where the nuclear blasts were centered, could instead be centered on deposits of Thorium, bismuth, plutonium, or uranium which were destabalized by nearby nuclear blasts. These deposits, once destablized, could release radiation for long periods of time, although many factors would influence their longevity. Different isotopes of these elements produce radiation at different levels and for different periods of time, some relatively short, some extremely long. In general, the longer they produce radiation for, the weaker that radiation. However, the more of these elements that is present, the more radiation that would be available in a redzone. In addition, all of a deposit wouldn't have to go radioactive at once, if there is enough radiation present, a chain reaction could occur with deeper or more well protected deposits destabalizing later, which could allow redzones to last a very long time. It would add scientific authenticity to the lore if some of the redzones eventually became yellow zones, and if some redzones were more dangerous than others. So those are my initial thoughts on the matter, I'm sure that I've overlooked some things and I will update if I realize that I've made any mistakes or if anyone points one out.

Last edited by Talishan; 08-23-2015 at 07:52 PM.
Quote
Old 08-24-2015, 12:26 PM   #19
MrNixon's Avatar
MrNixon
-- administrator --
  • Jul 2013
  • 579
Thanks, Talishan, for that lead. Need to ponder about it.

I thought that any proper deposit must be enriched first to be able to get destabilized. But I need to consult about that idea.

Thanks for the map link as well. If you have a link on the deposited for US with their occurrence depths, please, share.
Quote
Old 08-26-2015, 04:11 PM   #20
Talishan's Avatar
Talishan
-- registered --
  • Aug 2015
  • 6
Since uranium is the most commonly known about, I'll get into it here. First of all, even "depleted uranium" is still radioactive, and natural uranium was used in nuclear reactors... might still be, I'm not sure if it's all been replaced with various enriched versions. "enrichment" is just the process of trying to get the highest concentration of the 235 isotope possible, which is the most useful for nuclear processes. A Nuclear blast releases all manner of particles, which can change the isotope. It would take a miracle for this process to cause another nuclear reaction, but it could theoretically increase the radioactivity by a lot. In addition, an element could even change to a different element with all of the quarks, protons, neutrons, electrons, and even antimatter particles like positrons and neutrinos flying around near the heart of a nuclear blast. The things that happen near a split particle are still being studied, but what's been discovered so far is pretty amazing. I'm actually completely terrified to even look for a map of Uranium deposits, as the US government likely monitors that kind of info and since I live in the country of their biggest rival... well suffice it to say I don't have a map for that! I would like to add, in case it wasn't clear, that it is highly unlikely that these redzones would form in this way, but it's FAR more likely than redzones over a hundred years old existing in any other way that I can think of. The science behind it is theoretically feasible, while a sustained redzone for that length of time without something to sustain the radioactivity is not. But we're looking at science fiction here, so it only needs to be possible, not likely.
Quote
Reply

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools
Display Modes