Today on Blogcritics
Home » Nuclear War Survival Skills

Nuclear War Survival Skills

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I just finished this book, by Cresson H. Kearny, last night.

Kearny authored the original 1979 Oak Ridge National Laboratory edition, and then updated and expanded it for a new 1987 edition and added yet another section on hormesis (the positive effects of low-level radiation on the human body) in 1999.

For $19.50 (at amazon), you get a plain-spoken, clearly written, how-to guide to shelter and protection before, during, and after an all-out nuclear exchange.

Written at the height of the Cold War, this book was intended for average Americans who believed it not only possible but desirable to ride out a nuclear exchange with “The Evil Empire” and then emerge weeks or months later into a Mad-Max-like world to rebuild.

The matter-of-fact prose about the millions of dead and maimed is compelling.

Even more so, however, are the pictures of what happens to structures and shelters after being exposed to a nuclear explosion at close range.

For example, one simple underground wood-framed shelter survived completely intact 300 yards from ground zero at Hiroshima.

Writes Kearny, “Although the shelter itself was undamaged, its occupants would have been fatally injured because the shelter had no blast door.

“The combined effect of blast waves, excessive pressure, blast wind, and burns from extremely hot dust blown into the shelter (the popcorning effect) and from the heated air would have killed the occupants.

“For people to survive in areas of severe blast, their shelters must have strong blast doors.”

What with our post 9/11 world, and the apparently endless war on terror that appears to be a major underlying theme of the early 21st century, I expect that sales of this book will steadily increase in years to come.

If an “event” occurs, look for an inflection point in the sales curve.

Powered by

About bookofjoe

  • Gary Williams

    How thrilling! A name check that may prove worthy of an article in itself.

    It occurred to me to investigate a claim by a small Oregon Lab that global warming is a fraud, and they have 19000 names of top scientists to back them up. When a look at their main website revealed that they also say there’s no evidence of its occurrence, and that even were it really true, that increased Co2 is actually good for plants, ergo life on earth.

    Interest piqued, a check of their funding reveals the double-speak of their proud claim of independance due to the fact they take no money from the government. Of course this leaves us to speculate who and what interests their private donors may have with regards to their research findings. This last question has already revealed with the very first of the 19000 names picked at random, to be Frederick Schultz PhD, past VP for Lorrilard
    the tobacco giant. Didn’t they once claim that tobacco was good for you as well?

    The second name I see on their website wasn’t even one of the “petitioners”, but a name from their lab. In a section dedicated to public safety, specifically “Nuclear Survival Skills“, the name of a Cresson H. Kearney features prominently. He turns out to be a career militarist-patriot who spent a great deal of time explaining how nuclear war is actually overblown and more survivable than people think. This is fascinating stuff! From his site I then see another name of someone he worked with on something called “hormesis”.
    Now, at this point I shouldn’t have been surprised by anything. And yet here was another guy with a study telling us that radiation itself is actually good for us too. Indeed, a few more rads in the environment may actually prevent cancer!

    Oh, this may be the holy grail I’ve long been looking for. Right-wing lunacy in such abundance that noone can deny that the thought process is actually more of a matter of a mental disorder than mere simple ideological difference.