(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)

I was doing a little project about finding a way to grow uncontaminated
food after an all out nuclear war. Turns out areas hit by radioactive
fallout, although "safe" to spend a few hours a day outside your fallout
shelters after two or three weeks, the soil may remain too contaminated
to grow food on for decades. This is because it takes far lower levels
of radiation to make you sick if radioactive particles are ingested VS
simply walking around on it. Rain will carry some fallout away, but the
soil will absorb at least some of the fallout. btw, radiation is
measured at distance to vital organs, so what may be "safe" for adults
may remain deadly for children and pets to walk around on or by
traveling in low riding cars. And I suspect the maps showing fallout
patterns would show much longer and wider patterns if it were showing
areas of soil that became contaminated. I suspect the entire east coast
of the US will be blanketed and the only uncontaminated areas of the US
will be a few places on the west coast.

There are basically two accepted standard plans to deal with minimizing
radioactive contamination in food grown after a nuclear war. One is to
scrape off the top layer of soil and grow food in the exposed, less
contaminated soil. The other is to wait for the government to identify
uncontaminated areas and then evacuate to those, but I again suspect
those will be only less contaminated. Fallout pretty much follows
weather patterns which are pretty much horizontal around the world with
far less movement vertical. If Canada and Mexico don't get hit they may
be the best bet for large sections of uncontaminated land.


Then the idea struck me, where to find completely uncontaminated soil
even in areas hit by heavy radioactive fallout, and even possibly next
to ground zero. Soil under concrete pads of buildings, concrete
driveways, concrete highways and sidewalks would also be uncontaminated.
It is generally accepted that food can recieve high levels of radiation
and still be edible (although will have lost some nutrition); It is only
when radioactive particles originating from the nuclear fireball itself
get into the food that the food becomes poisonous. The same would be
true of soil.

It was just a few months ago (about May 2008) the press was talking
about radiating all our food to prevent food poisoning including e Coli
and to extend the shelf life of food. This was radiation at extreme
levels far beyond anything in a nuclear war except at ground zero. After
such a treatment, even raw meat could sit openly on a shelf and not
spoil. The food was still "edible", but had lost nutrition including all
the "food enzymes" found only in raw food, something the mainstream
doesn't want us knowing about or they'd lose money.

Back on topic: According to Cression Kerney, the author of "Nuclear War
Survival Skills", although I think he said it in the video set that goes
with the book, the finest radioactive fallout particles take the longest
to reach the ground and even take a year to finally reach the ground.
Therefore rainwater may still be contaminated for months after a nuclear
war. So to grow completely uncontaminated food would require a water
well or other means to remove contamination, such as permanent solar
stills.

When catching rain, the first that falls and washes off the roof will
have the most contamination, but a down spout "first flush" diverter can
discard this. For edible plants you'd want a first flush diverter anyway
because of the chemicals in roof shingles and a screen to keep out
bigger things, but you're better off not even using rain off asphault or
treated wood shingles for edible plants unless you had to, but rain off
a greenhouse should be ok.

http://www.aquabarrel.com/product_do...irst_flush.php
http://www.braewater.com/index.php?/...rst_flush_dive
rters/
http://www.reuk.co.uk/First-Flush-Sy...Harvesting.htm
http://www.harvesth2o.com/first_flush.shtml
http://www.rainwell.com.au/rfd/aboveground

Roof-collected rainwater fails health test
http://www.physorg.com/news88268999.html


To grow food in completely uncontaminated soil means building
greenhouses over concrete that was then removed or building a greenhouse
over the crawlspace of a woodframe house that was removed. Of course
reconnecting the house to utilities would not be practical since repair
parts would be in short supply, but instead the house would become a
storage area or used for parts; I'd also be used for fuel for cooking
since burning contaminated wood would put ultra fine contamination into
the air. Uncontaminated food could also be grown in uncontaminated soil
in buckets or other containers inside greenhouses which is probably the
quickest and easiest set up.


So then....

The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?

Thanks.

btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?

Ralph wrote:
(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)

I was doing a little project about finding a way to grow uncontaminated
food after an all out nuclear war. Turns out areas hit by radioactive
fallout, although "safe" to spend a few hours a day outside your fallout
shelters after two or three weeks, the soil may remain too contaminated
to grow food on for decades. This is because it takes far lower levels
of radiation to make you sick if radioactive particles are ingested VS
simply walking around on it. Rain will carry some fallout away, but the
soil will absorb at least some of the fallout. btw, radiation is
measured at distance to vital organs, so what may be "safe" for adults
may remain deadly for children and pets to walk around on or by
traveling in low riding cars. And I suspect the maps showing fallout
patterns would show much longer and wider patterns if it were showing
areas of soil that became contaminated. I suspect the entire east coast
of the US will be blanketed and the only uncontaminated areas of the US
will be a few places on the west coast.

There are basically two accepted standard plans to deal with minimizing
radioactive contamination in food grown after a nuclear war. One is to
scrape off the top layer of soil and grow food in the exposed, less
contaminated soil. The other is to wait for the government to identify
uncontaminated areas and then evacuate to those, but I again suspect
those will be only less contaminated. Fallout pretty much follows
weather patterns which are pretty much horizontal around the world with
far less movement vertical. If Canada and Mexico don't get hit they may
be the best bet for large sections of uncontaminated land.


Then the idea struck me, where to find completely uncontaminated soil
even in areas hit by heavy radioactive fallout, and even possibly next
to ground zero. Soil under concrete pads of buildings, concrete
driveways, concrete highways and sidewalks would also be uncontaminated.
It is generally accepted that food can recieve high levels of radiation
and still be edible (although will have lost some nutrition); It is only
when radioactive particles originating from the nuclear fireball itself
get into the food that the food becomes poisonous. The same would be
true of soil.

It was just a few months ago (about May 2008) the press was talking
about radiating all our food to prevent food poisoning including e Coli
and to extend the shelf life of food. This was radiation at extreme
levels far beyond anything in a nuclear war except at ground zero. After
such a treatment, even raw meat could sit openly on a shelf and not
spoil. The food was still "edible", but had lost nutrition including all
the "food enzymes" found only in raw food, something the mainstream
doesn't want us knowing about or they'd lose money.

Back on topic: According to Cression Kerney, the author of "Nuclear War
Survival Skills", although I think he said it in the video set that goes
with the book, the finest radioactive fallout particles take the longest
to reach the ground and even take a year to finally reach the ground.
Therefore rainwater may still be contaminated for months after a nuclear
war. So to grow completely uncontaminated food would require a water
well or other means to remove contamination, such as permanent solar
stills.

When catching rain, the first that falls and washes off the roof will
have the most contamination, but a down spout "first flush" diverter can
discard this. For edible plants you'd want a first flush diverter anyway
because of the chemicals in roof shingles and a screen to keep out
bigger things, but you're better off not even using rain off asphault or
treated wood shingles for edible plants unless you had to, but rain off
a greenhouse should be ok.

http://www.aquabarrel.com/product_do...irst_flush.php
http://www.braewater.com/index.php?/...rst_flush_dive
rters/
http://www.reuk.co.uk/First-Flush-Sy...Harvesting.htm
http://www.harvesth2o.com/first_flush.shtml
http://www.rainwell.com.au/rfd/aboveground

Roof-collected rainwater fails health test
http://www.physorg.com/news88268999.html


To grow food in completely uncontaminated soil means building
greenhouses over concrete that was then removed or building a greenhouse
over the crawlspace of a woodframe house that was removed. Of course
reconnecting the house to utilities would not be practical since repair
parts would be in short supply, but instead the house would become a
storage area or used for parts; I'd also be used for fuel for cooking
since burning contaminated wood would put ultra fine contamination into
the air. Uncontaminated food could also be grown in uncontaminated soil
in buckets or other containers inside greenhouses which is probably the
quickest and easiest set up.


So then....

The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?


You need to define 'soil'. Compost (microbes, worms, decaying matter,
water) mixed with clay is a growth medium. The depth depends on the
plants desired. At least 6 inches.

The answer is: the square footage it takes to grow food for one person,
times two.



Thanks.


Good post.


btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?



Glass.


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
so great) words of knowledge:
(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)

I was doing a little project about finding a way to grow uncontaminated
food after an all out nuclear war. Turns out areas hit by radioactive
fallout, although "safe" to spend a few hours a day outside your fallout
shelters after two or three weeks, the soil may remain too contaminated
to grow food on for decades. This is because it takes far lower levels
of radiation to make you sick if radioactive particles are ingested VS
simply walking around on it. Rain will carry some fallout away, but the
soil will absorb at least some of the fallout. btw, radiation is
measured at distance to vital organs, so what may be "safe" for adults
may remain deadly for children and pets to walk around on or by
traveling in low riding cars. And I suspect the maps showing fallout
patterns would show much longer and wider patterns if it were showing
areas of soil that became contaminated. I suspect the entire east coast
of the US will be blanketed and the only uncontaminated areas of the US
will be a few places on the west coast.

There are basically two accepted standard plans to deal with minimizing
radioactive contamination in food grown after a nuclear war. One is to
scrape off the top layer of soil and grow food in the exposed, less
contaminated soil. The other is to wait for the government to identify
uncontaminated areas and then evacuate to those, but I again suspect
those will be only less contaminated. Fallout pretty much follows
weather patterns which are pretty much horizontal around the world with
far less movement vertical. If Canada and Mexico don't get hit they may
be the best bet for large sections of uncontaminated land.


Then the idea struck me, where to find completely uncontaminated soil
even in areas hit by heavy radioactive fallout, and even possibly next
to ground zero. Soil under concrete pads of buildings, concrete
driveways, concrete highways and sidewalks would also be uncontaminated.
It is generally accepted that food can recieve high levels of radiation
and still be edible (although will have lost some nutrition); It is only
when radioactive particles originating from the nuclear fireball itself
get into the food that the food becomes poisonous. The same would be
true of soil.

It was just a few months ago (about May 2008) the press was talking
about radiating all our food to prevent food poisoning including e Coli
and to extend the shelf life of food. This was radiation at extreme
levels far beyond anything in a nuclear war except at ground zero. After
such a treatment, even raw meat could sit openly on a shelf and not
spoil. The food was still "edible", but had lost nutrition including all
the "food enzymes" found only in raw food, something the mainstream
doesn't want us knowing about or they'd lose money.

Back on topic: According to Cression Kerney, the author of "Nuclear War
Survival Skills", although I think he said it in the video set that goes
with the book, the finest radioactive fallout particles take the longest
to reach the ground and even take a year to finally reach the ground.
Therefore rainwater may still be contaminated for months after a nuclear
war. So to grow completely uncontaminated food would require a water
well or other means to remove contamination, such as permanent solar
stills.

When catching rain, the first that falls and washes off the roof will
have the most contamination, but a down spout "first flush" diverter can
discard this. For edible plants you'd want a first flush diverter anyway
because of the chemicals in roof shingles and a screen to keep out
bigger things, but you're better off not even using rain off asphault or
treated wood shingles for edible plants unless you had to, but rain off
a greenhouse should be ok.

http://www.aquabarrel.com/product_do...irst_flush.php
http://www.braewater.com/index.php?/...rst_flush_dive
rters/
http://www.reuk.co.uk/First-Flush-Sy...Harvesting.htm
http://www.harvesth2o.com/first_flush.shtml
http://www.rainwell.com.au/rfd/aboveground

Roof-collected rainwater fails health test
http://www.physorg.com/news88268999.html


To grow food in completely uncontaminated soil means building
greenhouses over concrete that was then removed or building a greenhouse
over the crawlspace of a woodframe house that was removed. Of course
reconnecting the house to utilities would not be practical since repair
parts would be in short supply, but instead the house would become a
storage area or used for parts; I'd also be used for fuel for cooking
since burning contaminated wood would put ultra fine contamination into
the air. Uncontaminated food could also be grown in uncontaminated soil
in buckets or other containers inside greenhouses which is probably the
quickest and easiest set up.


So then....

The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?

Thanks.

btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?



Use hydroponics. As long as your water is radiation free, your plants
will be radiation free.

Ted Campanelli wrote:

Ted shuffled out of his cave and grunted these great (and sometimes not
so great) words of knowledge:

how do you know Ted actually exited his cave? it is possible
Ted has in his possession communications technology allowing
Ted to grunt from within his cave..

g

On Sep 19, 9:24*pm, (Ralph) wrote:
(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)


The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?

Thanks.

btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?

You have to remember that all the dust that is blowing around is also
radioactive.
That will contaminate anything that is not dust proof.

I would think it would be easier and more productive to just scrape
off the top layer of a grader plot and then erect the green house over
that, instead of looking for a proper slab and removing that.

Look at how big a garden needs to be normally, then look at putting a
green house over that.

CanopyCo wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:24 pm, (Ralph) wrote:
(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)


The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?

Thanks.

btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?

You have to remember that all the dust that is blowing around is also
radioactive.
That will contaminate anything that is not dust proof.

According to Cresson Kearny (in his videos I think) the biggest chunks
are the most dangerous because they hit the ground first, but the finest
dust takes the longest to reach the ground, up to a year. Therefore, the
radioactive dust will be the last to reach the ground and be very widely
dispersed.

I would think it would be easier and more productive to just scrape
off the top layer of a grader plot and then erect the green house over
that, instead of looking for a proper slab and removing that.

Less labor intensive, but more contaminated and the soil less
productive.

Look at how big a garden needs to be normally, then look at putting a
green house over that.

I have a question. Can you purify the water that has been
contaminated? boiling the water? I read that a solar still would be
needed but is it able to rid the water of toxic componets? and for
drinking would iodine "cure" the water?

I have a question.
CY: You can't ask questions, only flames on this group.

Can you purify the water that has been
contaminated?
CY: yes.

boiling the water?
CY: Boiling will kill microbes, won't help much with radiation.

I read that a solar still would be
needed but is it able to rid the water of toxic componets?
CY: Radioactive contamination can happen in one of several ways. Some
particles settle out, or can be filtered. Others dissolve, and need to be
held back while you distill off safer water.


and for
drinking would iodine "cure" the water?
CY: No. Iodine from the camping places will help kill microbes, will do very
little to help with radiation.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:21:09 -0700 (PDT), CanopyCo
wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:24*pm, (Ralph) wrote:
(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)


The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?

Thanks.

btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?

You have to remember that all the dust that is blowing around is also
radioactive.
That will contaminate anything that is not dust proof.

I would think it would be easier and more productive to just scrape
off the top layer of a grader plot and then erect the green house over
that, instead of looking for a proper slab and removing that.

Look at how big a garden needs to be normally, then look at putting a
green house over that.


I agree.

Gunner

"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:


and for
drinking would iodine "cure" the water?
CY: No. Iodine from the camping places will help kill microbes, will do very
little to help with radiation.

Depending on the dose and all, iodine might help (marginally) lowering
the amount of radiation uptake by the thyroid. But in the great scheme
of things in a Mad Max post-nuclear world, that is probably the least of
your troubles.

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 11:19:42 -0700, (Ralph) wrote:

CanopyCo wrote:

On Sep 19, 9:24 pm, (Ralph) wrote:
(Skip ahead to "The Question Is:" if you want to skip the survival
commentary and get to the gardening question.)


The Question Is......
The Question Is......
The Question Is......

How much soil or buckets of soil would it take to sustain one person,
multipled by 2 in order to preserve enough to get through
the winter, but grown in a greenhouse to extend the season?

Thanks.

btw, can anybody recommend a good quality greenhouse fabric, the stuff
that covers a greenhouse to let light in, but not water and lasts years?

You have to remember that all the dust that is blowing around is also
radioactive.
That will contaminate anything that is not dust proof.

According to Cresson Kearny (in his videos I think) the biggest chunks
are the most dangerous because they hit the ground first, but the finest
dust takes the longest to reach the ground, up to a year. Therefore, the
radioactive dust will be the last to reach the ground and be very widely
dispersed.

I would think it would be easier and more productive to just scrape
off the top layer of a grader plot and then erect the green house over
that, instead of looking for a proper slab and removing that.

Less labor intensive, but more contaminated and the soil less
productive.

One only needs to remove the first inch or two.


Look at how big a garden needs to be normally, then look at putting a
green house over that.

"Obama, raises taxes and kills babies. Sarah Palin - raises babies
and kills taxes." Pyotr Flipivich

The easier, and more viable method is to 'scrape off' the
politicians and other morons that think war is a good idea. I get the impression they think "If I can't have it, no-one can." But it is we who will pay the price for their stupidity.

Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
"Stormin Mormon" wrote:


and for
drinking would iodine "cure" the water?
CY: No. Iodine from the camping places will help kill microbes, will do very
little to help with radiation.

Depending on the dose and all, iodine might help (marginally) lowering
the amount of radiation uptake by the thyroid. But in the great scheme
of things in a Mad Max post-nuclear world, that is probably the least of
your troubles.

Potassium Iodate is what is used to protect the thyroid from radiation.
Why are there so many places selling it if ordinary iodine would do? I'm
pretty sure iodine won't do the trick.

Gets a million hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...q=8&oq=potassi

GINSBERG5150 wrote:

I have a question. Can you purify the water that has been
contaminated? boiling the water? I read that a solar still would be
needed but is it able to rid the water of toxic componets? and for
drinking would iodine "cure" the water?


This is the kind of still I was talking about:
http://www.thefarm.org/charities/i4at/surv/sstill.htm

The ultra fine radioactive dust particles that take several months to
reach the ground are so fine you can't even see them, but these will be
very widely distributed around the world. When radioactive fallout lands
on burning buildings or forest fires, some of it is put back into the
air in the form of smoke and this will be ultra fine particles difficult
to filter. Plus a nuke war will pretty much put a vast array of
pollution into surface water from busted sewer lines to destroyed
chemical plants. Even ocean water along the coast will likely be
contaminated soon after coastal cities are destroyed. Charcoal (cooked
wood) can absorb some things, but won't remove alcohol or petrolium
products like gasoline. A solar still won't remove any chemcials in the
water that can evaporate with the water like petrolium products. Almost
every flood will be highly polluted. If nuclear plants are hit they will
release radiation that is very persistant.

The safest water will be out of water wells. Rain water or water from
some wells unfit to drink (such as high mineral content) could be made
drinkable using solar stills.

Course it all depends on the level of contamination and polution. You'd
be best off moving to an area with the least contamination. Since
radioactive fallout follows weather patterns, the healthiest places in
the US after it goes through a full scale nuclear war will likely be on
the west coast. If only air bursts are used on its cities most of
California will likely have little contamination. Why did the nicest
real estate in the US have to get occupied by the weardest Americans?

I rembered another thing from Kearny's video. When eating tasty animals
that have ingested some fallout but are still healthy, consume only meat
not too close to the bones because radiative particles tend to collect
in the bones. I'm guessing internal organs are out too. Never eat a sick
animal.

I may be going a bit over board with minimizing elminating contamination
from food and water, but it may be worth while doing it for your
children and babies who are more vulnerable to poisoning. Generally it
takes 30+ years for cancer from radiation to develop, so the older you
are the less important.

In article ,
(Ralph) wrote:


Potassium Iodate is what is used to protect the thyroid from radiation.
Why are there so many places selling it if ordinary iodine would do? I'm
pretty sure iodine won't do the trick.

It is also possible to use high doses of regular iodine. The
theory is that the high doses of stable iodine will crowd out the
radioactive. To grossly oversimplify, if your blood is 90% stable
iodine and 10% radioactive, then the thyroid should take up the two
constituents in roughly the same percentages.
Of course, this is only a consideration to the extent that the
exposure is radioactive iodine, thus the "least of your troubles"
comment.
For those interested:
http://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionu...#protectmyself