4 ms·

That is actually reasonably well-established - check out this: http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/58cc34b9112f7043268b4bb4-1151 http://static3.businessin

by f- 9y ago

That is actually reasonably well-established - check out this: http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/58cc34b9112f7043268b4bb4-1151 http://static3.businessinsider.com/image/58cc34b9112f7043268... Not common knowledge, though, in part because nuclear hazards have been painted in an exaggerated light by Hollywood (basically, no point in trying to survive, because everybody is going to die and what's going to be left is a 1,000-year lethal nuclear wasteland), and in part because we stopped worrying after the end of the Cold War. Despite the goofy title, this is a remarkably good book from the 1960s, citing some actual science, that helps grasp the actual dangers and the survivability of nuclear attacks or accidents: http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf PS. For folks interested in less apocalyptic emergency preparedness tasks, I maintain a handy guide: http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/ http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/

jimhefferon 9y ago
Thank you for this. Any idea if the videos are easily viewable?
Hasz 9y ago
Off topic, but the same guy (Michal Zalewski) has an absolutely amazing guide to his CNC work. http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/gcnc/ http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/gcnc/ For something a bit less depressing.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Note the "I maintain a handy guide" in the comment you replied to.
  - Hasz 9y ago
    Ah, my bad. I figured the /prep/ guide and the /gcnc/ guide were distinct, but I see how you could take it a different way.
- wglb 9y ago
  The same guy being f- above
eesmith 9y ago
I live in a 5 story apartment with two basement floors, exactly as shown in the image. The bottom floor actually has a bomb shelter, in the area rated "200". I've often wondered, what does "protection" mean if the building has collapsed around us, so we're now 20 feet below ground, with a pile of rubble on top, and no way to get out? I don't think you should direct your ire towards Hollywood, at least not in any significant way. I don't think it was until "The Day After" (1983) that any movie showed anything like a realistic depiction of the aftermath of a nuclear war, and even that was deliberately downplayed. It surely wasn't a Hollywood depiction which caused Dorothy Day and others in 1955 to protest the "Operation Alert" drill, saying: > We will not obey this order to pretend, to evacuate, to hide. In view of the certain knowledge the administration of this country has that there is no defense in atomic warfare, we know this drill to be a military act in a cold war to instill fear, to prepare the collective mind for war. We refuse to cooperate. This "The Heritage Foundation" report from 1984 titled "The New Case for Civil Defense" also doesn't mention anything about Hollywood depictions. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-new-case-civil-defense https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-new-case-civil-d... Finally, the NWSS book you cited says "American official policy, or at any rate the implementation of that policy, is based on the assumption that civil defense is useless." Again, I don't think that policy was influenced by Hollywood. (BTW, it's funny that Teller says "With the use of American automobiles an evacuation could be faster and more effective than is possible in Russia." - I guess he never saw a city trying to evacuate from a hurricane. Or the plans to evaluate NYC should there be a major disaster at Indian Point.) Instead, NWSS and The Heritage Foundation (and an essay I read by Freeman Dyson) all say the US policy of MAD was a much bigger influence. (I'm not going to get into a discussion of the validity of MAD. I only want to point out that I disagree with the idea that Hollywood depiction had much of a role.)
- f- 9y ago
  I'm not trying to establish the origin of this narrative; but most people on HN were almost certainly exposed it through pop cultural portrayals of the nuclear apocalypse. In some cases, these were inaccurate simply because it resulted in a better movie or a novel; but in many other cases, they were probably informed by anti-war or anti-proliferation sentiments. I don't think this deserves any special ire, TBH; it's just our reality. I loved Dr. Strangelove, but it sure affected public perception in a particular way.
justin66 9y ago
> http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf That is classic cold war stuff. Before you even get to the foreward by Edward Teller you get a preface stressing (among other things) that low doses of radiation are "healthful."
- eadmund 9y ago
  It's just an attempt to defuse the sort of kneejerk reaction which thinks that all radiation is harmful.
  - justin66 9y ago
    If you say so. small doses of radioactivity are hormetic, healthful because they stimulate the immune system. This was proven in laboratories as far back as the 1920's. With the advent of the A-bomb almost all the hormetic research stopped. And only in the last decade has it resumed on a serious scale. I wonder who they experimented on and whether that stuff is written up somewhere. Ionizing radiation is okay in my book, how about yours? is not exactly a common theme in modern medicine.

by f- 9y ago

jimhefferon 9y ago

Thank you for this. Any idea if the videos are easily viewable?

Hasz 9y ago

Off topic, but the same guy (Michal Zalewski) has an absolutely amazing guide to his CNC work. http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/gcnc/ http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/gcnc/ For something a bit less depressing.

maxerickson 9y ago
Note the "I maintain a handy guide" in the comment you replied to.
- Hasz 9y ago
  Ah, my bad. I figured the /prep/ guide and the /gcnc/ guide were distinct, but I see how you could take it a different way.
wglb 9y ago
The same guy being f- above

eesmith 9y ago

I live in a 5 story apartment with two basement floors, exactly as shown in the image. The bottom floor actually has a bomb shelter, in the area rated "200". I've often wondered, what does "protection" mean if the building has collapsed around us, so we're now 20 feet below ground, with a pile of rubble on top, and no way to get out? I don't think you should direct your ire towards Hollywood, at least not in any significant way. I don't think it was until "The Day After" (1983) that any movie showed anything like a realistic depiction of the aftermath of a nuclear war, and even that was deliberately downplayed. It surely wasn't a Hollywood depiction which caused Dorothy Day and others in 1955 to protest the "Operation Alert" drill, saying: > We will not obey this order to pretend, to evacuate, to hide. In view of the certain knowledge the administration of this country has that there is no defense in atomic warfare, we know this drill to be a military act in a cold war to instill fear, to prepare the collective mind for war. We refuse to cooperate. This "The Heritage Foundation" report from 1984 titled "The New Case for Civil Defense" also doesn't mention anything about Hollywood depictions. https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-new-case-civil-defense https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-new-case-civil-d... Finally, the NWSS book you cited says "American official policy, or at any rate the implementation of that policy, is based on the assumption that civil defense is useless." Again, I don't think that policy was influenced by Hollywood. (BTW, it's funny that Teller says "With the use of American automobiles an evacuation could be faster and more effective than is possible in Russia." - I guess he never saw a city trying to evacuate from a hurricane. Or the plans to evaluate NYC should there be a major disaster at Indian Point.) Instead, NWSS and The Heritage Foundation (and an essay I read by Freeman Dyson) all say the US policy of MAD was a much bigger influence. (I'm not going to get into a discussion of the validity of MAD. I only want to point out that I disagree with the idea that Hollywood depiction had much of a role.)

f- 9y ago
I'm not trying to establish the origin of this narrative; but most people on HN were almost certainly exposed it through pop cultural portrayals of the nuclear apocalypse. In some cases, these were inaccurate simply because it resulted in a better movie or a novel; but in many other cases, they were probably informed by anti-war or anti-proliferation sentiments. I don't think this deserves any special ire, TBH; it's just our reality. I loved Dr. Strangelove, but it sure affected public perception in a particular way.

justin66 9y ago

> http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf http://www.madisoncountyema.com/nwss.pdf That is classic cold war stuff. Before you even get to the foreward by Edward Teller you get a preface stressing (among other things) that low doses of radiation are "healthful."

eadmund 9y ago
It's just an attempt to defuse the sort of kneejerk reaction which thinks that all radiation is harmful.
- justin66 9y ago
  If you say so. small doses of radioactivity are hormetic, healthful because they stimulate the immune system. This was proven in laboratories as far back as the 1920's. With the advent of the A-bomb almost all the hormetic research stopped. And only in the last decade has it resumed on a serious scale. I wonder who they experimented on and whether that stuff is written up somewhere. Ionizing radiation is okay in my book, how about yours? is not exactly a common theme in modern medicine.