The real Vault-Tec: VIVOS

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by TheUnwashed, Mar 29, 2011.

  1. TheUnwashed

    TheUnwashed First time out of the vault

    69
    Feb 28, 2008
    meet Vivos, reality's answer to fantasies of Armageddon, nuclear holocaust and the likes.
    http://www.terravivos.com
    Stupid yes, interesting for us fallout fans, definitely right?
    Check the 3d design for the shelters! They are for real?
     
  2. PainlessDocM

    PainlessDocM Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 5, 2010
    Approved by mad Glenn:

    [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tWjwWRCmY[/youtube]


    Imagine having to share a vault with that guy for eternity. :|
     
  3. Dalex

    Dalex First time out of the vault

    51
    Mar 26, 2011
    Well that is something.
    But I would still rather believe in my gov shelters.
    I know it may sound crazy but Im not going to rely on some sort of 2012 freaks. :wink: :wink:
    But its definitely interesting.
     
  4. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    I love how they show an episode from the twilight zone to prove how useless it would be to have a personal backyard shelter.

    Otherwise... cool! I think I'm still going to build my own hole in the ground.
     
  5. Korin

    Korin So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
    Admin

    Aug 6, 2010
    I have to admit, the idea of living in one of these is pretty intriguing.
     
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    living inside a shelter ? For how long though ? 30 days ? 4 Months ?

    One cant really call that a life though. Bunkers cant be solutions for long terms.
     
  7. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    They say it's supposed to work for a year. By then radiation levels would definitely be low enough.

    Though a couple of months would be sufficient.
     
  8. Starseeker

    Starseeker Vault Senior Citizen

    Jul 25, 2003
    It's pretty old news. I think I watched a CBC doc zone special on the 2012 doomsday sayers and how much money they are making.
     
  9. Verevoof

    Verevoof Cryptid oTO Orderite Board Cop oTO [REDACTED]

    Jul 12, 2009
    Well, the vaults true purpose was for experimentation...
     
  10. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Low enough to walk around maybe. Also I doubt that it is that simple.

    Would be nice to talk about the "kind" of radiation first. Caesium ? Iodine ? Plutonium ? Then from which source. Nuclear warheads ? Or if all nuclear reactors go of at the same time (highly unrealistic though ...).

    Thing is that radiation alone from the impact isn't so much the issue as you are correct that certain isotopes will dissapear quite fast some with a few days others will take some years though (but some more then 250 000 years!). The real problem is and the japanese population will realize that soon enough the food chain and the unpredictable nature of radioactivity. Particularly Caesium can hold it self for a very long time here as it happens to stay in the muscles of animals and even small amounts of it once inside the boddy will cause serious issues. Plants and the ground keep those radioctive particles for a long time as well. With each year the radioactive isotopes penetrate the ground by approximately 1cm. So even after more then 25 years many parts of Chernobyl are still radiated and people living in those areas suffer very much from it because they consume it with the food. Now I have no clue if what I have heard from some interview in a report about Chernobyl with Gorbatschow is true (and I am not a scientist) but since he was the founder of the green cross which is one of the few organizations that help the people in those areas and educate them how to handle the radiation I think it has some relevance. And he mentioned the Soviet leadership thought about the accident and a study about their R-36M „Wojewoda" nuclear warhead would show that it was eventually very similar in the effects.

    I remember German studies about a nuclear war (hard to say how accurate they are though) and the question was with direct impacts on Germany and the chance to survive for the government. The chance to survive the war directly was pretty good for those politician. And they would have no problem to survive approx 6 weeks in the bunkers. The question was what to do after the 6 weeks would be over ? The answer from them was "dieing herr Bundeskanzler (chancellor)". I mean one of the reasons which spared us from a nuclear war was the fear of the effects. Surviving the war directly probably wasn't even the real issue. But the chance to survive the effects of the war. And those have never been really clear. Nor really predictable I guess. And it is not like there have not been calculations. Like what a first strike would have meant in casualties. 60% for your population. 80% for the enemy ? After 1945 there has been a study about the effects of nuclear bombs on the Soviet industry. And it was expected that within already 2 or 3 months the Soviet Union would regain it's military and industrial capacity like before the bombing so the use on the economy of the Soviets was more or less out of the question (with the limited numbers they had at that time in nuclear warheads). That was with the end of the 40s though. And the US had only nuclear weapons of the size and design similar to Hiroshima and Nagazaki. But it might have been one of the reasons why the Nuclear bomb didn't played a much biger role in US politics during the 1940s - Not for the foreign affairs or regarding the relation with the Soviets more for the decisions inside the politics and military as it was seen as pretty high gamble to start a War with them. Even though it was a shock for the US when the Soviets tested their first nuclear weapon in 1949 since it was expected they would still need a few years. Though spies like Theodore Alvin Hall or the Rosenberg couple which worked on the first US bomb made sure the Soviets had almost as much knowledge about the programm like the US government.

    So if your either dieing from the radiation and explosion directly ? Or slowly from the pollution in the food afterwards ? lets face it. The usual guy of the street has not much chance to survive. Be it in a bunker or outside of it. Maybe slightly better chances after the war. But in what kind of world ? Or with what kind of chances. Dieing on cancer isn't the best way to go. Particularly when you consider how bad the medical support will be after such a devastating event.
     
  11. .Pixote.

    .Pixote. Antediluvian as Feck
    Modder

    Sep 14, 2009
    I read somewhere (A Short History of Nearly Everything - Bill Bryson) that if a meteor was to strike the Earth, and it was large enough, and fast enough it would compress the atmosphere in front of it, as it entered the Earth, at temperatures in the 10s of thousands, within a second or so...so you would be scorched a split second before being obliterated. And the Earth would probably have about 2 seconds warning before the event. So unless your already living in your Vault 24 hours a day, you would have no chance of survival...actually if it struck while you're in your Vault you wouldn't survive the shock wave.

    So these Vaults are only useful for man made disasters. :roll:
     
  12. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    if an giant rock hits the earth it really isn't that important if you're sitting in your bunker or somewhere else. Chance is high you're screwed either way. Instead of building your self a shelter you should try to make the best out of your life. Because coincidence is when you really NEED that bunker. You probably will not be inside it somewhere at work, visiting your parents/holidays what ever. Unless like you said you spend 24 ours a day in it like a turtle in a shell. Living with fear isn't a good thing. If you die you die. That's how it goes. Till that point. You should enjoy your life.
     
  13. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    If a rock were big enough or moving fast enough it could impact and tear off a big section of crust and you'd be fucked.

    However a smaller rock might be survivable in a shelter. <,,< Alzo! 2 seconds or 20 years. We have hundreds of telescopes around the planet looking for rocks and we've found and plotted several, 1215 earth threatening asteroids to be exact and we are expected to find more.

    Fallout from a nuclear bomb is generally very radioactive and has a short half life. Generally speaking anything that is highly radioactive has a short half life. This means it reduces to lead much much faster than the thousand year predictions for radioactive waste. In fact radioactive waste from nuclear power plants in the US could have a reduced half life to hundreds of years if it weren't illegal to reprocess the fuel.

    Sure life would suck and cancer would be rampant, but life would continue on. Nature built her babies tough.

    It's my guess life expectancy would be reduced by 20-40 percent depending on where you live and how much radiation is in your area. Birth defects would be high and horrible.

    It would be like the 1800's all over again! Except with computers and modern medicine!

    Biggest problem I see with a shelter like this is that it's not where you need it when you need it. You may know it's coming or you might see the flash and need to hide your ass in a sewer. Become a mole people and such.
     
  14. SuAside

    SuAside Testament to the ghoul lifespan
    Admin

    May 27, 2004
    In case of nuclear attack, 2 weeks is the widely accepted minimum for remaining in a shelter. In that time, most of the most dangerous and powerful radiation will have decayed.

    Of course, not all of it will be gone and fallout will remain and issue, but unless you live at ground zero, chances are pretty decent.

    Now, 2 weeks is the minimum. Plan for longer if you can.


    That said, I doubt we'll see nukes flying anytime soon, but having food, water & shelter around can't be bad in other scenarios.
     
  15. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    yes but that again begs the question how do you want to be warned ? You said it by your self that a nuclear war is an unlikely event. But what else is left ? Terrorist attacks ? Well those aren't really known for their premonition. Or any natural disaster ? Look over to Japan and see how much warning they had in the case of the tsunami and earthquake. Though what ever scenario we choose be it the nature or terrorists they definitely will not time the event with your life so the chance being big that it might happen any time regardless if you are sleeping or outside of your home at work or a friends place watching a movie in the cinema.

    I am not saying that a shelter will NEVER protect you. I just question how useful it might be really. I mean one should not forget that there are many people which make a lot of money with it. The rather "irrational" fear people have. It is the desire of the people to have control over their life and any event regardless what it is. But truth is that since no one can really know what happens in the future control is just an illusion. Would it not be quite ironic if you have some bunker in your backyard just to die at work from some terrorist attack with some biological/chemical weapons.
     
  16. DarthBartus

    DarthBartus It Wandered In From the Wastes

    134
    Mar 11, 2011
    @Crni: People living (illegaly) around Chernobyl are not suffering. Life in mildly radioactive areas, such as around Chernobyl actually prospers. Don't get me wrong, radiation doesn't magically cure organisms, it just eleminates fetuses strong and well developed enough to othervise survive, but weak and worse fitted than any else when grown.

    @Ah-Teen: NEO (Near Earth Orbit) is not necesserily "Earth treathening".

    @Pixote: you'd be scorched only if close to ground zero (unless we're talking about moon-sized planetoid).


    Radiation doesn't cause that much mutations, unless fetus is in early development, otherwise it will either die or survive largely intact. Mutated gametes either don't usually form fetus, and if it actually forms, it is most likely to die quickly afterwards. However, increase in number of cancer cases would probably be large.
     
  17. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    Uhm no ?Just because it isn't really much in the news and media doesn't mean it is not a problem. I am not talking about the "zone" but the area around it. There are many people suffering from it. It is about the food chain. I am not an expert. And I can't say how many people are actually affected. But The Ukraine is not a very rich nation. And I doubt people have much choices but to stay in the dangerous areas. Even if save to be there. Is it save to consume the food ? The issue with the fetus isn't something that only affects "unhealthy" or "weak" ones. It affects them all. It is just random. There have been studies with mice and there was no indication that only weak fetus would be affected.

    When even "mild" radiation has an effect on "healthy" people. Why should it not affect the fetus? The effects of radiation are very problematic. You can't say "at this point you will be sick" or "here you are save". Sometimes you can get a high dose of it and never suffer many issues. Other times already low doses will mean serious problems like cancer or other issues. Remember from the more then 500 000 people which have worked at Chernobyl after the accident not all have suffered issues. Some (albeit rare) are healthy. But that doesn't mean much. Of course at a certain level of radiation it is absolutely lethal because it is literally like burning. But the danger of radiation is actually counted in percentage which are many times measured by experience I think 1 Millisievert of radiation per year is seen as average for every human without any issues. At Chernobyl it was not rare that people would face much more then 1000 Millisievert in one hour. Something they did in Chernobyl after the accident was simply increase the maximum level of radiation at which point they expect some damage to a human. And suddenly the numbers of victims dropped a lot. Well one example of how one can tweak statistics.

    As said. The real problem with those events actually are the years after some of the radiation disappeared but it started to get in to the food chain. Because here you will have problems for a very long time. Maybe for ever depending on the radioactive particle. And this affects healthy and unhealthy people alike.
     
  18. .Pixote.

    .Pixote. Antediluvian as Feck
    Modder

    Sep 14, 2009
    The meteor that struck the Earth 65 million years ago was 10 to 12 km in size and...

    Code:
    Impact specifics
     
    The impactor's estimated size was about 10 km (6 mi) in diameter and is estimated to have released 4×1023 joules of energy (95,602,294,455 kilotons of TNT on impact). By contrast, the most powerful man-made explosive device ever detonated, the Tsar Bomba, had a yield of only 50 megatons, making the Chicxulub impact 2 million times more powerful. Even the largest known explosive volcanic eruption, which released approximately 1021 joules and created La Garita Caldera, was substantially less powerful than the Chicxulub impact.
    
    Effects
    
    The impact would have caused some of the largest megatsunamis in Earth's history, reaching thousands of feet high. A cloud of super-heated dust, ash and steam would have spread from the crater, as the impactor burrowed underground in less than a second. Excavated material along with pieces of the impactor, ejected out of the atmosphere by the blast, would have been heated to incandescence upon re-entry, broiling the Earth's surface and possibly igniting global wildfires; meanwhile, colossal shock waves would have effected global earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.The emission of dust and particles could have covered the entire surface of the Earth for several years, possibly a decade, creating a harsh environment for living things. The shock production of carbon dioxide caused by the destruction of carbonate rocks would have led to a sudden greenhouse effect. Over a longer period of time, sunlight would have been blocked from reaching the surface of the earth by the dust particles in the atmosphere, cooling the surface dramatically.
    
    Ouch...

     
  19. DammitBoy

    DammitBoy Carbon Dated and Proud

    Feb 23, 2006
    People used to make fun of me for having 3 weeks of food and water stored in my home, before katrina.
     
  20. Ah-Teen

    Ah-Teen Vault Senior Citizen
    Orderite

    Jun 21, 2007
    HAHA DB you're so paranoid! *looks at his three months of food storage*

    Almost everyone in Utah(at least all the mormons) have tons of food stored up. Everything from 72h kits to months of storage. I think the LDS church told everyone who could to have 6 months to a year of storage and they encourage people to grow their own food, even if it's just a window garden.

    Actually there are a shit ton of birth defects as well as cancers in the immediate area and at least as far away as Uzbekistan that can be linked to Chernobyl.

    If we look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki again we have an increase in the amounts of cancer in the population that lives in those cities.

    That said people DO live there. They are thriving cities that have a slightly elevated radiation count.