Alex WellersteinVerified account

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.

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.)

“Stay tuned,” how? To what? What’s going to be broadcasting within the immediate fallout zone? What’s going to be receiving? EMP? Power?

Depends on the situation (EMP is not going to be as big a deal as people think), but yes, I agree, the ability of the infrastructure to still be operating is a huge assumption. Esp. in a world where FM radios are more and more scarce.

Depends on burst and yield. But modern electronics aren’t exactly “hardened” against EMP, and ionizing radiation isn’t exactly friendly to microprocessors in, I don’t know... everything.