• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    Norway also advises residents to stock up on essential medicines – including iodine tablets, in case of a nuclear incident – and, like Sweden, recommends that people have several bank cards and keep a ready supply of cash at home.

    Iodine is something that’s hard to get in modern diets, which is why salt is iodized.

    Our body uses it in our thyroid, and atomic weapons send out a shit ton of fallout. A significant amount is radioactive iodine, which is going to be hanging around for a while.

    If your body picks it up, you now have a radioactive element accumulating in your throat, which is a pretty bad place to store a radioactive mass.

    If you don’t have iodine tablet, eat a crazy amount of iodized salt. You want to make sure if your body runs into radioactive iodine, it’s already full up and can’t hold anymore.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        55
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        You could just buy iodine tablets now…

        But the high blood pressure from salt might kill you decades later.

        A radioactive thyroid would make you wish for death as your lower jaw rots away and eventually falls off.

        Don’t half ass it because of a fear of heart disease. A large dose kills cells in your thyroid (still terrible) a moderate dose wouldn’t kill the cells but almost guarantee rapid onset cancer.

        It’s why the tablets aren’t “enough that your body needs” they’re “a literal insane amount”. Like take your daily requirement times 3-5 years level of crazy.

        • catloaf@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          16 days ago

          Also, I’m pretty sure they have an expiration date. If it’s life or death, I would not trust them very far past that date. I don’t think they’d be harmful, just less effective.

          • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            14
            ·
            15 days ago

            Iodine like salt is a mineral. It won’t ever “go bad” but the USDA requires that you put expiration dates on consumables.

            I have several packets of iodine pills they don’t cost much and I keep them with my bug out bag.

              • Dead_or_Alive@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                14 days ago

                Here are the pills.

                https://a.co/d/cxMjVpR

                I also have a few vials of liquid iodine. But it is harder to dose properly.

                Unless you are directly in the path of very recent fall out (within 8 days) as an adult those pills probably won’t do much for you. By the time you start seeing the effects of radiation you’ll be in your 70s.

                If you have to ration iodine pills prioritize kids and teenagers and young adults. They would live long enough after the event to deal with cancer and its affects.

            • cabron_offsets@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              11
              ·
              16 days ago

              Iodide ion, as present in KI, does not decay. Period. It’s that ion that your body requires. The tablets would serve their purpose for long after they are purchased.

            • catloaf@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              16 days ago

              I don’t know, I’m not any kind of chemist. I trust the actual chemists to tell me how long the pills will be trustworthy.

              • PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                9
                ·
                15 days ago

                As a chemist, I will go ahead and inform you confidently that Potassium Iodide in a dry place will outlast you by a significant margin. It’s very chemically stable.

              • leisesprecher@feddit.org
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                16 days ago

                Idiodin itself can’t get “bad” in any way. The carrier material might go bad, but that’s also just starches and a few mineral compounds. At worst, you get powder instead of a pill.

                The expiration dates on medication are intentionally extremely conservative.

    • Akasazh@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      15 days ago

      If you have enough radiation to ever need iodine tablets, there’s probably a hundred other reasons that threaten your livelihood.

      • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        15 days ago

        That’s not true at all. Fallout can be carried by wind over very long distances. And even a small amount of radioactive iodine accumulative in the body can be an issue.

        • Akasazh@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          15 days ago

          It’s more the fact that a war situation where nuclear weapons are used so frequently that the average person will need tablets will also see shortages of food, water and created large flows of refugees.

          Basically every bit of modern infrastructure would collapse, which would be far more impactful and urgent than iodine pills.

          • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            15 days ago

            Again, you have it wrong.

            where nuclear weapons are used so frequently that the average person will need tablets

            All it takes is one nuke to go off and winds to carry the fallout to relatively stable countries far away.

            But let’s say that you are dealing with some level of societal collapse from nuclear war. You still need iodine. Without it, it won’t matter if you secure food, water, and shelter, because you’ll get some aggressive cancer and die anyways.

            Regardless of the specifics, iodine is important.

            • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              14 days ago

              I think they are saying the odds are low that it will be just one nuke. More likely none, several, or a lot than just one.

  • fatalicus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    75
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    Should be noted that in Norway it is not just for war, but rather any emergency like natural disasters or someone takes out critical infrastructure in a digital attack etc.

    You can see all the information that is sent out here: https://www.sikkerhverdag.no/en/

    • bean@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      Wow. A new account with a history of negative posts. Color me shocked.

        • OwlPaste@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          Without looking at posters history, he is kinda right (about the gas guzzling, not fear mongering)

          EU had years to start to diversify/start goverment run energy supply from a) polluting and b) “come on, look what laws they were implementing at home” Russia.

          Could have put two and two together and realise that funding Putin might not be the best idea…

          But no, let’s just keep buying things from obvious dictators…

          • Paragone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 days ago

            This, above-me, is more important than its score is indicating:

            “unconscious at the wheel” is humankind’s default “governing”, evidence now proves.

            NOBODY’s been doing proper dimensions-by-dimensions orthogonal-sets of scenario-planning,

            & that means nobody’s got actual strategy.

            Just moderating the status-quo isn’t strategy, it is committee-negotiating.

            There are people who played the Risk boardgame…

            having a MMPORPG ( or whatever the hell they’re called ) with the correct divided-by-dimensions representation of our world,

            & using it for scenario-planning, could really put a dent in the wildcard-dictator-sadists of this world’s plans!

            Simply by discovering their leverages, & systematically-extinguishing them, more-moderate-path could be enforced, strategically…

            Mind you, it’d also discover our weaknesses, which we’ve ignored-too-long, & … to great political-difficulty … suddenly now have to be dealing with, of course…

            but better to have a shored-up immune-system ( at the national level ) before a pandemic hits, than to have a rotted-out one in the same pandemic, isn’t it?

            _ /\ _

  • index@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    73
    ·
    16 days ago

    Governments are preparing for war because they want one. Cut the military budget to 0 and drive off lunatic politicians before it’s to late.

    • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      15 days ago

      Unfortunately a strong military is necessary to maintain peace

      It might sound contradictory at first but you should consider that people will always disagree. And if you and your neighboring country disagree and they have 20x more military power than you, they might be inclined to use force to solve your differences

      The only thing that allows you to have a civil and diplomatic discussion is the assurance that war is the worst of the options. As we see today, strong military nations are not afraid to abuse weaker military powers.

      I understand the hate towards the production of weapons, and I’m with you. But defunding the military is a simplistic, utopian argument that unfortunately would not work in the present time

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Unfortunately a strong military is necessary to maintain peace

        Peace is maintain by seeking peace and avoid conflict not by spending billions of dollars in weapons that in most cases are designed to attack and kill other people.

        they might be inclined to use force to solve your differences

        And that’s why you want to cut the military budget to 0 so that there’s no leverage to use force against others. According to your logic people will always disagree? So ban nukes and weapons before everyone kill each others, putting a gun in everyone hands is going to lead to a bloodbath not to peace.

        As we see today, strong military nations are not afraid to abuse weaker military powers.

        Again cut the military budget to 0 so that your nation doesn’t abuse weaker military powers.

        I understand the hate towards the production of weapons, and I’m with you. But defunding the military is a simplistic, utopian argument that unfortunately would not work in the present time

        You sound like you are making an apology to war and authoritarian nations. You are not with me and you are not with the human race, you are against it. What’s utopian is to believe that you can achieve peace by spending Trillions of dollars in war. What’s simplistic is to believe that you can’t do without a government tossing billions of public money into military weapons.

        • evergreen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          I’m very curious as to what your suggested course of action would be if you were to “cut the military budget to 0”, and then another nation with a strong military uses their military to abuse or murder the citizens of your nation because they disagree with your nation in some way…

          • index@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            15 days ago

            You don’t need military budget to defend yourself. Governments need military budget to gain power and attack others.

            • Whelks_chance@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              15 days ago

              If your country has zero weapons and my country has some weapons, what’s your plan for stopping your country becoming an extension of mine, and your culture, language and history becoming lost forever?

            • Paragone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              13 days ago

              Sorry: I’d mistaken you for a person using considered-reasoning.

              Ideology doesn’t reason.

              Its symbols are comforting substitutes for reason, & they’re enough, for it, right?

              _ /\ _

        • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 days ago

          Brother, I respect your principles but you’re not understanding the issue with having no military.

          First you would have to convince all countries in the world to cut all military budgets. Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

          And once all countries have 0 military, there is an incentive for aggressive leaders to produce weapons since it would be easy to win a war against an unarmed country

          Disarming a country is an impossible mission because it only works if the entire world agrees to it, and because it makes everyone vulnerable once someone decides to break the agreement.

          I hope you can see it clearly now. Unless you have a proposal that fixes the two points above, your 0 military plan would not work

          I’m happy to discuss more if you’d like

          • index@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 days ago

            Including convincing countries that would suffer economically from the extinction of the arms industry.

            This highlight that you are thinking only according to how the system currently work (or how you are told it works). No country would actually suffer economically if they cut off the arms industry because they can use the money and resources for something else.

            Countries are populated by people and humans can defend themself even without stealth planes or nuclear submarines. It’s the government that needs asset to exercise their power be it machines or people.

            • Shampiss@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              12 days ago

              Sorry but you don’t understand how this works.

              It doesn’t make sense when you say:

              they can use the money and resources for something else.

              For example. The US arms industry exports were worth 238 Billion $ in 2023. That means that the arms industry brought 238 billion from outside the US to inside the economy

              Because the money is coming from outside. If the industry stops, the US will lose this money.

              You are putting your convictions above logic. It doesn’t matter how hard you believe in something, if it is not practical it won’t work.

              If your suggestions really make sense you should be able to convince at least a few people. But look at the responses you’re getting. How can you convince all the world leaders to change if you can’t convince a few people in the comments?

              At some point you have to consider that you might be in the wrong. Admitting your mistakes makes you a better person and allows you to grow in character. I kindly ask you to consider that.

              My guy, I’m going to finish this conversation here. I hope this was useful. Cheers!

      • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        15 days ago

        You chickenhawks are always so loud and self-righteous, until someone wants to force you or your kid to actually go fight in the war.

        • AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 days ago

          On the contrary, I would rather NOT go to war. You know what’s the best way to get that to happen? Have a strong enough military that bullies like Putin and Xinnie will think very very carefully before launching a ‘special military operation’ into your country.

          • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            15 days ago

            You know what’s the best way to get that to happen? Have a strong enough military

            History, at least in the US, does not support your position on this. Hell, the US has rebranded what war means so we can get involved in even more foreign conflicts and kill more civilians. (“Enemy combatant” and “peacekeeping actions”)

            At one point under Obama and Trump the US was at war in seven different countries. (Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen.)

            And people call it a bad thing that Trump got us out of Syria and Afghanistan, lol.

            Our military is not a tool of peace. It’s a weapon for corporate interests to brandish throughout the world.

            • Paragone@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              13 days ago

              Oversimplification:

              Actually, it’s both, at different times, in different places, sure, but it isn’t just-1 or just-the-other.

              Never has been.

              Politics has ALWAYS been this way, through millenia.

              Read Sunzi ( formerly Sun Tzu, aka Master Sun ), about how the supreme general never has to get into battle,

              simply because the entire region’s too busy prospering, for anybody to be digging-into battle…

              As machiavellian as some of that book is, that final principle’s right right right.

              _ /\ _

      • index@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        29
        ·
        16 days ago

        Don’t forget the postcard to Russia inviting them over for tea

        You must have confused me for a german politician

    • FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      15 days ago

      There’s some truth to this. One does need a military, but you don’t need one that costs 2T a year. Canada and Mexico, combined, spend around 35 billion a year on war material, and both have universal health care.

      • Paragone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        13 days ago

        I’m Canuck, so this issue is of central concern for us, ongoingly…

        The reason we’re able to spend so-little on military, per GDP,

        is because of the excessive expenditure by the US.

        Pretending that these expenditures are “independent” of the US’s expenditure, is intellectually-dishonest.

        I’m not saying that was your intent, I’m saying that’s what the result misrepresentation is…

        _ /\ _

    • Paragone@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      13 days ago

      "people take anti-cancer drugs because they want war-with-cancer:

      simply by stopping all war-with-cancer, & stopping all the anti-cancer-drugs,

      then everybody won’t having malignant-tumors killing them!"

      False reasoning.

      WHEN there are truly-rabid people with armies,

      THEN defense is a SANE investment, if the truly-rabid could affect one’s country’s life.

      Lethal-self-defense is exercised within your body by your own immune-system, all the time.

      Whatever health you’ve got, it’s because of that!

      Countries are the same as individual-organisms, in terms of being killable-by-pathogens & killable-by-cancer.

      Destroy both, & live healthy.

      You CANNOT give your body to pathogens/cancer & be healthy: that’s just delusion.

      _ /\ _