A nuclear attack is a little more than a “radiation emergency.” Just saying... Not sure Go Inside, Stay Inside, and Stay Tuned is the best advice for 20kT (or 200kT) incoming.https://twitter.com/NNSANews/status/1040285990538158082 …
-
1:35Show this thread -
Replying to @NarangVipin
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 11 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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.
3 replies 1 retweet 9 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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).
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
(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.)
2 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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.
1 reply 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
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.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NarangVipin
Perhaps unfairly from Cold War days, I think many of us also have a kneejerk sense that promotion of CD is part of a larger package of making nuclear war "thinkable".
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I think having it be "thinkable" for the population is a better situation than it being "unthought," which is what the alternative appears to be. There is no evidence that CD programs made *any* gov't more willing to undertake risky activity, as an aside.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.