Avoid the Apocalypse on the Cheap: Doomdsday Bunkers Go Economical

  • Share
  • Read Later

Freaking out about the end of the world? Then you’re in luck, because a California company now offers space in its “economy class” shelters for under $10,000.

While known for their luxury $35,000 doomsday bunkers, Vivos now allows those scared about crazy “life-extinction events” a more wallet-friendly version of safety for $9,950. This offer comes just in time before killer comets, super volcanoes, pole shift, nuclear war, global tsunamis and more wipe us all out.

(LIST: Top 10 End of the World Prophecies)

Not only will you survive the world ending, but you’ll do so with a community, since members of Vivos sign on for space in these city-like shelters offering everything from bakeries to pet kennels.

To get more people surviving life post epic catastrophe—even though we aren’t sure why when the world is gone, you’d still want to be here to see it—the Vivos 1000 strips out all the bells and whistles of the high-end shelters, but still fits 1,000 people inside a 100,000-square-foot shelter that can withstand a 20-megaton nuclear blast within six miles. Who wouldn’t want that?

“Waiting until the masses realize the end is near will be too late! Ask yourself, which side of the door do you want to be on?” says Vivos CEO Robert Vicino in a statement.

You’ll need a $2,500 deposit to secure a room, assuming, of course, you’ll be able to make it to the Nebraska shelter once the world ends. (Apparently, nothing bad will ever happen in Nebraska.)

Of course, less money spent now may mean less life later. The economy-sized bunkers only sustain autonomous life for sixth months, while the luxury models promise a full year of living.

(MORE: From the Archives: TIME Covers the End of the World)


I'm tired of you slaves. Do e-cigarettes actually help people quit—or are they a gateway for new smokers? How dangerous is liquid nicotine? Are the vaporizers safe? Is propylene glycol dangerous? Can you get addicted to e-cigarettes?

Who cares?

Can people be left alone to make their own decisions?

If you want to use e-cigs; you'll find out the answers. 

If you don't want to use e-cigs; the answers don't matter. Stop being an authoritarian statist and leave us alone.


#1) There have been zero cases of the e-cig being a gateway to regular cigarettes.  An ex-smoker, regular cigarettes make me gag now after having switched to an e-cig.

#2) ... is an incorrect statement.  There were 1351 _CALLS_ to poison control over e-liquid.  To put that into perspective, there were 20,000 calls to poison control for toothpaste.  The "lethal dose" of nicotine that has been quoted was from an outdated study that was challenged in 2013, and the supposed "30-50 mg" being lethal for humans is more like 1000-1500mg.  You would have to drink SEVERAL bottles of e-liquid (which is quite bitter by the way) to get there...

#3) And cell phones explode, and laptops catch fire... cheap batteries and improper charging can do that to anything.  

#4) PG has been studied since 1942.  One study suggested we DO vaporize it and inject it into the air at hospitals because it's a mild germicide.  It kills some strains of pneumonia.  It's GRAS by the FDA.  It has been studied a heck of a lot longer than Chantix.... and it's safe enough for Nicotrol, the e-cig made by Pfizer, available by prescription.

#5) Yes.... same as caffeine... and nicotine has about the same effect.

Once again, these "facts" are skewed.

And, DennisA, it's not big tobacco... they're on board, they realize that this can replace smoking... it's Pfizer, because they want you to buy Nicotrol.  They make millions in contributions to the ALA, and the ALA in turn goes to city council meetings to get them banned.  Pfizer's Nicotrol product is, in fact, an e-cig with MORE chemicals than in mine, including PG, VG, and Nicotine... and it's FDA approved.  Go figure.


Big Tobacco wins.

Big tobacco has been losing smokers to e-cigarette use and more people are ditching regular cigarettes for e-cigs every day - a trend that will cost them millions of dollars. Where most e-cigarette sales are done via small business and new entrepreneurs.

There's also the tax side, the federal government collects nearly $20 million A DAY from cigarette smokers - individual states also get a cut on top of that. If the government can demonize e-cigarettes they can force a tax on the sale of e-cig products. 

With these regulations more people will continue to use traditional cigarettes - exposing more people to the 11,000 Toxins and carcinogens that are prevalent in first and second hand smoke, where studies on e-cig liquids generate TRACE AMOUNTS of only 9 toxins when inhaled directly - with no evidence of second hand exposure.


I know a number of people who have dropped every day cigarette habits for E cigs.  If, at the very least, it's substantially less damaging, isn't this good enough?


I don't understand why we regulate the tobacco industry so thoroughly when there are so many other harmful substances out there that people completely ignore. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, but if I did, it would be an informed decision. At this point, don't we all know that certain things just aren't healthy? Why do we need FDA to take the choice away from us?


@GregDj-g  Agree with most of your points. 

In regards to the article however:

#1, Why even mention a study like this? It has such a small sample size that it makes its findings irrelevant. In effect it presents false information disguised as "scientific". Even the research group said that it's inconclusive, so again why mention it?

Re: #2, In addition, most of the calls regarding e-cigs were INQUIRIES along the lines of "How poisonous is e-liquid?" and were not in connection to actual poisonings.

#3 People mod their devices, use the wrong charger, mistreat their batteries, like you say it can happen to anything that has a battery.

In terms of Big Tobacco. They're on board, defiantly, but they want and indeed hope for strict regulation, like what the FDA has announced. It will enable them to corner the market. Variations in flavorings will become a thing a past and we'll be stuck with BT's cig-a-likes - which are indeed less effective that other, more advanced devices. And if all we have is the unsatisfying cig-a-like then I fear a larger amount of us will return to smoking making the study mentioned in this article a reality.