I'm prepping for almost everything. As I've said on the main site when you prep for one scenario you have also prepped for many others. Then adding in a few extras can cover other scenarios. Some scenarios are simply not survivable, such as long term radiation, supernova.
Clearly the biggest risk atm imo is societal collapse.
whatever the event is societal collapse will be the result.
I'm not knocking general prepping but it could have limitations. For example what would the plan be if we had a melt down at a nuclear power plant, would general preps include the ability to monitor radiation levels ?
What if you lived in an area prone to flooding, you might have a kayak or rowing boat.
If you lived in the back of beyond and it was prone to heavy snow you might want a 4x4 with suitable tyres.
I try to quantify the threat and risk mainly because I don't have the budget to prep for everything, I can't see myself spending 50k on an underground bunker but I might be able to prep for most of the likely threats.
any prepping should include threats and risks specific to the area one lives in.
Joe, General prepping won't include a radiation monitor. However, adding one and some basic protective clothing, sheets, etc. will. However as you are basically locked indoors you need to have enough food for however long it lasts. As I said for most of us long term radiation isn't survivable.
Joe you are thinking about prepping for an event that experience has shown can not be survived. A radiation monitor is not a piece of survival equipment, it is a time to death estimation device. If you are measuring the dosage of radiation you are experiencing all you can use the information for is to estimate how long it will be before you die. 2 weeks or two months or two years when the cancer get done with you.
The human race has already been there and done the meltdown thing!
The exclusion zone at Chernobyl is the size of Kent. We will never know how many people died at Chernobyl. They will never release those numbers, they can't for reasons of national security.
Fukashema exclusion zone is not as big but they can not spare the land. That and they were on the east coast of Japan and the winds were in their favor.
Your preps for nuke meltdown can only be plotting the best route north or south, out of the prevailing winds, for the most rapid evacuation possible. This is the part where never letting your vehicle go below a half tank becomes important.
In most nuke events over the last 30 years it is relatively easy to survive if you can leave the affected area safely. If you end up driving into a hotspot then it could be game over but if you have monitoring available and you know the wind direction then you are at a significant advantage.
Not all nuke incidents involve Armageddon, some are easily managed.
like all evacuations one needs to know where they are going IN ADVANCE of any event, most do not and wait until the event actually happens.
Chernobyl and Fukishama werent supposed to happen.
MB, Not exactly true. It will help you avoid setting up or staying in certain area. Knowledge is power.
Interesting about the sizes. Land is cheap near Chernobyl, that is why the plant was built there, so they can play safe with the levels, while land is expensive in Japan. Did they lower the acceptable levels there. I don't know but I do know that having a monitor can help you make that call. Live closer to radiation or stay away if you have kids for arguments sake.
one of the reasons we moved from Somerset was because they were going to build another nuclear reactor at Hinckley Point, we were 15 miles down wind in Glastonbury and no high ground in between, we knew by weather patterns how quickly that 15 miles could be covered, so we moved back home to Devon.