Alex WellersteinVerified account

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..