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
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 “stay tuned” advice actually does bother me (not the go inside, stay inside). Because the chance of any comms working may be low. And then pandemonium
Right. Which is why I tend to emphasize the benefits of the get inside, stay inside advice. My version of this is basically: "Get inside, stay inside... for a couple of days, unless someone who knows what they are doing otherwise communicates to you what else to do."
And I think most people don't realize that even a very crappy shelter (protection fact or of 3 or so) can put a big cut in the amount of radiation you absorb over the crucial 36 hours or so of the first, intense fission products.
(And the "Stay Tuned" is meant to indicate that in some cases, evacuation MAY be a better idea, but it is going to depend on a lot of circumstances that individual people aren't going to be able to evaluate on the fly.)
None of the above, obviously, should be read to imply that this wouldn't be a HUGE deal no matter what. And I wish the feds were able to admit the scale of the thing — it's my biggest issue with how they give nuclear information.
Their advice is actually evidence-based and solid, based on about a decade of research on the question of best practices for 21st century threats (singular nuke detonations in the kiloton range). But when it seems overly saccharine, it is easy to discount as inadequate.
I have talked with reps from DHS, FEMA, LLNL, about this issue. They feel quite limited by the fact that people freak out no matter what they say. It's a tricky situation for them, and one that often results in practically no messaging at all.
Which I would argue (and do, frequently!) is actually a very dangerous state of things. Because you and I both know that the possibility of something like this happening is non-zero.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
