-
-
Replying to @NuclearAnthro
I like Bo Jacobs, BUT 1) Hiroshima's "survival lessons" are a bit more complicated. Sheltered vs. unsheltered did have huge mortality differences. And Hiroshima as a city DID survive — was rebuilt, etc. 2) Bravo's fallout plume is irrelevant to present threats.
1 reply 1 retweet 19 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NuclearAnthro
(As you know) I think a mix of Civil Defense plus realistic descriptions of how terrible it would be for such a thing to happen makes for a more effective "message" than "nothing you do would make a difference" (untrue) and "it would be the end of the world" (also untrue)
1 reply 2 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NuclearAnthro
And — should go without saying but I will say it — obviously the totally silly "you can totally ride out a nuclear bomb" versions of CD are no good. I think "it might improve your survival chance from 10% to 30%!" combines desired usefulness with still plenty of horror,
1 reply 4 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @wellerstein @NuclearAnthro
and avoids the fatalism that takes over people's minds when they contemplate such things. (Many, MANY people have said to me: "we'll all be dead anyway so no need to worry about it" — NOT a useful attitude.)
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
Also, I worry that saying, "see, Castle Bravo means this is not survivable" will immediately discredit one with people who know that nobody fields 15 Mt monster bombs anymore, and that the difference between, say, 150 kt and 15 Mt in terms of fallout is massive (left and right)pic.twitter.com/u2QaQx7BTq
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.
