You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It actually does work out a lot better than any alternatives one might consider, at least according to all of the models that have been run.
I think one has to take into account the fact that they can't say, "obviously a lot of people would just get killed." That's not really in their vocabulary for a lot of reasons, though they all know this.
With that out of the way, you have to look at ways of limiting the preventable casualties. Being inside is better than being outside by a LONG shot, both for the initial effects (blast, heat, acute radiation), and DEFINITELY for the delayed effects (fallout).
Absolute worst-case scenario in all of these models are people trying to haplessly flee the area, either before or after, and clogging the roads. Cars give no protection from anything, and clogged roads hinder all emergency activity.
I was sort of being facetious. I know the line and the models. I’m just confused why they are referring to a nuclear yield event euphemistically here. And following a yield event, it’ll be utter pandemonium and my instinct is to account for that rather than hope ppl will stay in.
I don't think we have good models for what people will actually do in this situation. (Or, at least, I don't trust any of the assumptions made by the models out there.) But I do think we can think about what we'd like them to do — and work on that behavior modification.
I don’t disagree. But trivializing the magnitude and significance of the event makes behavioral modification difficult
I agree. But trivializing the recommendations doesn't help, either, is what I'm saying! My approach is to do both at the same time. "Get inside, stay inside" is actually good advice. But also emphasize what the reality would look like, simultaneously. Which NNSA *can't* do.
No disagreement. It’s a tough messaging problem because no one will know or wants to explain how horrific it would be
They are more interested in people having a realistic understanding than you would think. So they will say privately. But again, they are constrained in their role as they understand it. I don't blame them for this — it's just how things are. But you and I are not constrained..
The production of sanitized & fantastical products (partly) out of an unwillingness to bluntly engage (for, as you point out a variety of reasons) with actual consequences of a nuclear attack is, I would argue, counterproductive to actual preparedness & mitigation.
It may be — that's the tricky line to probe. (We are doing research on this very question over here as part of the RCD project.) The question is, if they are unable to do less sanitized work, is this better than nothing on their part? B/c nothing is irresponsible, too.
....and the industrial, electrical, transportation and agricultural infrastructure that the modern world is predicated on is gone, they can’t say that either....
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
