4 ms·
> In the end I rushed to the rooftop, scared as f I'm glad that you were ok. I would probably have over-reacted by diving under the bed. The lesson that I took
by SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago
> In the end I rushed to the rooftop, scared as f
I'm glad that you were ok. I would probably have over-reacted by diving under the bed. The lesson that I took from the footage of the Chelyabinsk meteor (1) is this:
When people see a sudden bright light in the sky, the usual reaction is for them to go to the window to see what it is. So then the blast wave arrives in time to give them a face full of flying glass shards. (2)
Don't do this! Doesn't matter if you're being nuked or if it's only a meteor, get down and stay away from the windows! Nothing good will come of having a look-see.
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor#Injuries_and_damage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelyabinsk_meteor#Injuries_an...
- stephenr 8y ago> Nothing good will come of having a look-see. I dunno. Might increase the average IQ in the gene pool?
- sjwright 8y agoI don't see why IQ would necessarily correlate with knowledge about meteor strike safety best practices. On the other hand, if innate curiosity about environmental phenomena is at all correlated with IQ, it could result in a lowering of the average IQ instead.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y ago> meteor strike safety best practices Which are similar (for the first minute anyway) for nuclear strike best practices. You would hope that there is still some knowledge of these. The probability of nuclear strike is low at any given time, but at the moment that you experience a unexpected extremely bright light in the sky it's higher.
- rurp 8y agoIf nukes are going off in a major US city it probably doesn't matter much where a person is standing.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y agoI'm not in a US city of any kind, but YMMV. It might be pointless knowledge, but there it is FWIW: Duck and cover.
- Casseres 8y agoYou don't have to be very far from the epicenter to survive a nuclear blast.
- vkou 8y agoA 500 kt warhead will kill most people within 3 miles of it, and will continue killing people up to ~6 miles. These days, a single missile carries 5-10 warheads. They split and spread out over the strike area a few seconds before detonation. One missile can, thanks to this, kill most of the people in a multi-million-person metro area. Between the two of them, the United States, and Russia are currently pointing 4,000 nuclear weapons at each other, on hair-trigger alert. With another 8,000 in reserve. It is not clear to me how a scenario where a single nuclear warhead exploding in <wherever you live> is not either a part of, or an immediate trigger for all-out nuclear war. You tell me how survivable that is.
- dragontamer 8y agoSuperpowers aren't going to use nukes on each other, due to the threat of MAD. Terrorists may be able to steal a nuke and deploy one for their nefarious reasons. Lets say a terrorist group gets a briefcase nuke from somebody, then blows it up in a major city. 500+kt is strategic level, if superpowers used it we're all screwed. But the typical nuke is tactical-level, or ~10kt or so. And tactical-level nukes could be theoretically stolen by groups (there are way more tactical nukes than strategic ones). We're looking at ~half a mile radius that's blown up, but otherwise a survivable blast. There are rumors that as the USSR collapsed, it lost track of a number of their small tactical-nukes (even if they kept good tabs on their strategic nukes). It seems far more likely that the next nuke to be used will be a smaller tactical nuke, probably in the hands of terrorists.
- Wiles_7 8y agoSame thing happened with the Halifax Explosion. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-explosion-canadian-national-institute-for-the-blind-imo-mont-blanc-1.3878921 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-explosion...
- dr_orpheus 8y agoYour comment also reminded me of the Halifax harbor explosion [1]. A ship in the harbor collided with a cargo ship carrying explosives. A fire started and everyone came to their windows to look. Then the cargo ship exploded sending the shockwave through the city. In addition to the people who died in the initial blast another 5900 had eye injuries, mostly from shattered windows. [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion#Disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion#Disaster [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion#Destruction_and_loss_of_life https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion#Destruction_...
- bayouborne 8y agoI thought your comment was going to be about UV concerns..
- ip26 8y agoKnowing what's going on kind of dictates your response. If it's a forest fire, for example, swift action is much preferable to hiding under the bed. Hence looking out the window.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y agoHow swift? It can't be more than 15 seconds between flash of light and shockwave. Staying down for that long in case there's a shockwave seems reasonable. Also, forest fires are not typically sudden flashes of light or found in urban areas. Context matters.
- BerislavLopac 8y agoAccording to the experience in Halifax explosion, a blast wave travels at 1000 m/s; so you get 15 seconds if the blast happens 10 miles away from you.
- SideburnsOfDoom 8y agoGood to know. In the unlikely event etc, I'll give it 20 seconds or so then.
- stickfigure 8y agoWhen people see a sudden bright light in the sky, the usual reaction is for them to go to the window to see what it is. Also, the lights my blind you. Then the carnivorous plants come.