You start. ;)

>>17741
is this still top of the line or have we advanced again that i did not know about?
http://www.galls.com/cgi/CGBCSTYL?PMSTYL=TE057

There was a really good thread on this back in the day. Think it was under outdoor/survival sadly. Long thread short, detection was the hardest part. Then followed by maintaining a decontamination/clean room.

Makes me wonder, in this age of worrying about flus, ebola, nuclear metldowns, dirty bombs, etc. (Sorry NSA) Where's our detection equipment? Sure, you can buy a gas mask, even a hazmat suit with it's own air supply. Unless you're intentionally going to expose yourself to danger or attending a rave. How would you know ahead of time to bring, or wear this gear?

Is there anything available to the public to detect these invisible threats?

  >>17817

Geiger counters, survey meters and dosimeters are a dime a dozen. The Gamma Scout seems to be quite popular.

As for detecting chemical and biological threats there's probably litmus paper type detectors available but I don't know how useful such a thing would be without protective kit and atropine.

>>17818
>>17817
Gas analyzers and tests exist, usually to indicate a GTFO type situation, though usually you are already in mopp before you go in so if you happen to detect exposure, you can protect yourself.

you can commercially buy
>multi gas analyzers
>radiation detection keychains (beep with dangerous levels)
>CBRN detection paper

but unless you dish out big bucks, you wont have passive air monitoring equipment unfortunately

even then, knowing the threat is there and being able to survive it are two different things. even if you are able to escape the immediate effects of the hazard, the damage may be done

another chemical threat that is not often discussed are civil unrest and pacification chemicals, OC spray and CS gas might be a threat if you live in a big city and there happens to be a riot. I like the creativity of south American protesters in their improvised and modified gas masks.

>>17817
>>17818
>>18307

I imagine that from a practical standpoint, the best detection feasible for the average Joe would be to live sufficiently far away from the nearest population center to use the denizens as canaries. "Outrunning the bear," etc.

>>18397
You're not wrong. At this point, only a goddamned fool would live in or go into an urban area willingly for any reason if he didn't absolutely have to.