On the beach, you`ll die in 2 months

[Toaster]

I watched recently the remake of "On the Beach". As with the original, it delt with a nuclear war and the associated radiation that was slowly blanketing the earth and killing all in its wake. In this film, Australia was the "final frontier" where the radiation was to arrive in about 2 months. The peoples of this country were offered a state sanctioned "suicide kit" to forestall the inevitable.
Also in the film, was an American submarine and crew hoping to locate a place where the radiation was at "livable" levels. Alas the sub crew found no such place and the film focused on the remains of the world population (in Australia) and what they would do in their remaining weeks of life. All the people were well aware of their impending doom and the inability to escape this doom.
Were the shoes of these peoples be on your feet, what would you do?


PS. The original film was better but the remake was more indepth. Both were great films and I recommend them to anyone.


..if there were a picture of this near every trigger, this would never have happend. -a person pointing to a 2 year old child playing in the sun-

[StuartW]

Toaster. If you liked the film try reading the original novel by Neville Schute.As to what I would do in their shoes, I am not sure. It is something you will never know unless it happens to you. I suspect that most people would try and carry on normal life as best as they can; although a few people would probably go wild in different ways.Thinking about it, I think I would try and find a cave or somewhere underground, and try and build a shelter. The will to survive is very strong in most of us.I would certainly not commit suicide.

[Toaster]

While suicide isn`t something people even consider for the most part, death by radiation poisoning is a long and very painful death. Not only this, but your family and loved ones will fall by the same fate. Before your eyes, the people you love, would die while you yourself was dying.
Thanks for the tip on the book, i`ll look into it.
I too would seek a way to prolong my existance but i`m not sure how long it would help. In the film, they seem to speak of increasing amounts of radio activity in increments of 50 rads and a "base figure" of 30 rads as background radiation.
Above 50 rads and the liklieness of lukemia is increased exponentially.

A real bad way to go.

[bailey]

great movie, saw it when I was a yongster, the only thing I didn't like about it was the theme song, waltzing matilda al the way through it, to this day I hate that song.

[Toaster]

I remember that song from the original film but NOT the remake. I dont recall hearing that at all in the remake for that matter. The original film was great and the remake was more indepth. I wish the film went into more detail on "how the world killed itself" IE: the mechanics behind the war.

I guess I too would attempt a shelter of some sort. While keeping radiation below 50 rads would be difficult, the time in such a shelter would be long indeed.
After some research, I discovered that indeed "typical" background radiation for most places in the continental US is about 15-25 rads. Radiation above 40 rads has long term effects such as greatly increasing the chances of lukemia.
Radiation in excess of 50 rads virtually guarantees Lukemia in 10 years or less. In excess of 100 rads, lukemia is likely within a few weeks and death in less then 4 weeks.
In a environment of 150 rads or more, acute radiation sickness and lukemia will kill most people within a week or 2.

A side note:
Within the chyrnobyl (incorrectly spelled) plant are, radiation measurements of 80 rads are typical. This is within a 5 mi. area of the defunct plant.

[StuartW]

Providing the radiation levels are not too high, it is possible to build a shelter to escape the worst of the radiation. In the sixties we were given a lot of information on how to do this. The problem will always be a supply of fresh unpolluted water; I think it is this which will finally kill anyone trying to take shelter.

[Toaster]

I`m not sure how deep such a shelter would have to be on average to lessen the radioactivity within the shelter.
True, a rather hearty supply of clean potable water and other conumables is a must let alone a place to store "waste" in a fashion that wouldn`t be self defeating.
My first thoughts are "wheel" weights ground up and mixed with a latex or other "heavy body paint" to offer add`l protection. For the sake of argument, would you think radiation levels would decline to low enough levels any time soon or would you be doomed to life in a shelter?
Lets say a total of a 1 Giga-ton exchange where Australia were not directly attacked but impending radiation from the exchange was to arrive in say 2 months. Furthering this analogy would be that the moving radiation cloud (fallout) was at average 250 rads and only slightly diminishing.
At the point where this fallout reaches Australia, the estimated "potency" of this cloud would be 200 rads.
Lets also assume, that the background radiation is 20 rads and will climb at a rate of 5 rads per day begining on the 60th day.

[StuartW]

A lot would depend on where,when and the type of nuclear device that was exploded.Working backwards, for a chance of survival, those in a cave in Australia would have to have a potential maximum dosage of 250 rems.
Assuming any explosions are going to be in Europe or the USA. If the hypocentre was fairly close to the ground, the burst of a megaton bomb would rise 6,500 feet in the air.As the fireball expands and cools, afterwinds can get up to 200 mph., gaining a height of 14 miles.Depending on location of explosion, the so called nuclear winter might occur, which would reduce photosynthesis, thus effecting the life cycle of the planet.I think it is this that would effect life in Australia, as I am not so sure a cohesive radiation cloud from Europe/USA would get as far as Australia without being dissipated to levels that man could survive.Also, since Australia is an island, the danger of radionuclides migrating downwards and polluting the water course would be negligible.
Of course,all of this would change if the conflict were in Asia; when I would think the USA would be a better place to survive.

[Toaster]

In the film, China and the USA were the "primary" targets.
Maybe in the book you spoke of would give more detail.
I used "1giga-ton" as a simple place holder, the estimate might be substantially higher.
Lets assume "conventional" nuclear devices and not "doomsday" devices. Also, assume arial bursts at 5,000 feet which from what I read is the average "deployment" area.
Were they "ground bursts", things would be different.
The exchange would be limited to mainland China and the USA including Alaska and Hawaii. On the european side, Mainland china and Taiwan. Total Exchange, 500mega-tons for the Mainland China and Taiwan combined and 500 mega-tons for the USA including Alaska and Hawaii.
I would disagree that persons that were exposed to 250 rems of radioactivity would survive for longer then a month.
I would suggest that no one exposed to greater then 100 rems be admitted. Certainly no one exhibiting any type of radiation poisoning.