View Single Post
  #3  
Old 11-10-2012, 01:50 PM
Schone23666's Avatar
Schone23666 Schone23666 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia
Posts: 440
Default

Thanks. I imagine by 2000, as you said any effect from bio and chemical weapons will have mostly dispersed under breakdown from the sun, wind, weather, rain and other effects over time. That's pretty much the same story our NBC instructors told us when we practiced MOPP in the Air Force.

UNLESS, and I stress unless, perhaps your PC's happen to run into remnants of a military unit that still has some bio or chemical weapons that didn't get fired off, and god forbid, the weapons may not have been properly maintained and a few of them may be leaking? Or, the PC's find or stumble upon an abandoned munitions depot that still has several chemical weapons stacked somewhere, that may again be leaking or damaged. Unless I'm wrong, some bio and chemical weapons require a bit more careful maintenance than your typical munitions, but again I could be wrong.

Now, radiation on the other hand....yeah, that's a bit of a different story. I'd expect the amount of nasty radiation still around in areas would be dependent on so many different factors. But radiation's nasty regardless, and it doesn't just go away when you're exposed to it after a while, it accumulates.

My guess is if what you say is true, corn and sunflowers would be some /ideal crops to plant in areas that might still have traces of radiation. Ideally, of course. The reality would be whatever plant seeds are at hand and if the climate and soil is suitable enough.

And of course, again, when you have starving soldiers and refugees basically looking for ANY food to eat, they're likely not going to be picky and grab what they can find, and worry about potential sickness from radiation buildup later. My question though, as silly as it may sound, if animals do eat vegetation that's taken up the rad particles into their systems, wouldn't that still be detectable? If so I could see a hunter perhaps wanting to use a geiger counter to check an animal after he's trapped or shot it, assuming he had one.
__________________
"The use of force is always an answer to problems. Whether or not it's a satisfactory answer depends on a number of things, not least the personality of the person making the determination. Force isn't an attractive answer, though. I would not be true to myself or to the people I served with in 1970 if I did not make that realization clear."
— David Drake
Reply With Quote