4 ms·

The FEA images seem to show that the best place is to huddle right below or beside the window/door, and the blast will largely pass you by. Considering it is a

by toss1 4y ago

The FEA images seem to show that the best place is to huddle right below or beside the window/door, and the blast will largely pass you by. Considering it is a shock wave, best to be sure to open your mouth slightly and not hold your breath, so as to not trap pressure differentials This is a good thing to publish, because most people seem to casually think nuke=dead, period. But the fact it that the simple geometry means that the areas of medium and lower damage are more than 10X the area of extreme damage, so any random location is much more likely to see effects that are survivable depending on your actions. Lets hope it never comes to that

User23 4y ago
Contrary to what the RAND corporation would have had us believe, there are significant steps that can be taken to improve survival odds. Oak Ridge published a nice handbook[1]. I strongly recommend getting a hard copy, because duh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills
sklargh 4y ago
I mean, depending on the scale of the conflict and explosion, nuke generally does equal dead. The variable is just how proximate to the explosion your death is going to be.
- echelon 4y ago
  Stores of food, water, fuel, and the means to defend oneself can also increase odds and duration of survival. Food scarcity will place survivors into an unpleasant dog eat dog world. Zombie and disaster films are probably not far off in their portrayals of these apocalyptic survival scenarios. All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving. I hope this never comes to pass.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy since the dawn of the human species has been the rapid establishment of as large a tribe as possible. Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.
    - ggm 4y ago
      I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality. I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm. Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
      - toss1 4y ago
        Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc. (Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- jillesvangurp 4y ago
  There's a sweet spot where you have a few moments to reflect on the shockwave that is heading your way after you see the bright flash of the explosion (and are probably blinded by that). Far enough away that you can still dive into a corner for protection and survival. Anywhere too close and it won't matter what you do. But there's an appreciable range where the shock wave is going to do significant but potentially survivable damage and where you might have a couple of seconds to do something.
AYBABTME 4y ago
This is all conditioned on a concrete building. Forget about it in a typical North American stick construction.
TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
I am not at all reassured by the suggestion that hiding to one side of a door will help. I don't understand the details of the simulation, but I would have guessed incoming pressure waves would bounce off back walls and create a turbulent mess of forces in the areas hidden from the initial pulse. Also ignored was the solidity of the walls. Concrete might survive, brick could possibly survive. But a partition wall with a couple of sheets of thin plasterboard nailed to weak wooden supports would be unlikely to offer much protection.
- toss1 4y ago
  Solidity of the walls is definitely an issue. But if the walls are sufficiently solid (they were talking about concrete buildings), the velocities were orders of magnitudes lower just to the sides of the doors and windows, so hugging the adjacent wall or just under the window will keep you from being picked up and flung downwind, as well as having the shrapnel flying past you and not into you. Big difference. I saw one post from a medic in the Ukraine war. He said 80%+ of the injuries he treated were because people didn't get flat on the ground fast enough. He then demonstrated how to do it correctly. Most people, when trying to get on the ground will first kneel, then lie down. He demonstrated how to do it in one motion, either straight like an inverse push-up or burpee exercise, or with a twist. Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here. That's also why I mentioned opening your mouth, since the shockwaves bouncing around can damage tissues if air can't escape, but if it can, it just goes by. Nothing is a guarantee, but taking measures increased your odds a lot, which was the point of the study. May we never need it.
  - htag 4y ago
    > Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here. If you have less than 2 seconds of warning of a nuclear blast while within ~5psi shockwave distance then your warning is probably a very bright light from your window. I'd hope for several minutes of warning via public alerting.

by toss1 4y ago

User23 4y ago

Contrary to what the RAND corporation would have had us believe, there are significant steps that can be taken to improve survival odds. Oak Ridge published a nice handbook[1]. I strongly recommend getting a hard copy, because duh. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_War_Survival_Skills

sklargh 4y ago

I mean, depending on the scale of the conflict and explosion, nuke generally does equal dead. The variable is just how proximate to the explosion your death is going to be.

echelon 4y ago
Stores of food, water, fuel, and the means to defend oneself can also increase odds and duration of survival. Food scarcity will place survivors into an unpleasant dog eat dog world. Zombie and disaster films are probably not far off in their portrayals of these apocalyptic survival scenarios. All of the niceties of modern civilization - friendly and neighborly coexistence - will likely be replaced with the desperate animal need to eat and survive. And without a central governing authority, or aid or help of any kind, the new social order will be brutal and unforgiving. I hope this never comes to pass.
- XorNot 4y ago
  The people who are going to die in the aftermath are going to be those who don't have any plan to play nice with others. The only practical survival strategy since the dawn of the human species has been the rapid establishment of as large a tribe as possible. Which is to say: the guy who decides to sit in place on a pile of resources is already dead, it's just a matter of when: if you're not establishing relations and trade, then you're just delaying the inevitable.
  - ggm 4y ago
    I think this is an underappreciated viewpoint. Survivalists simply look like well guarded stores for everyone else, and sooner or later there's something missing which demands barter or cooperation with those outside the fence. It's like settling for the lowest achievable short term peak for a small team rather than boosting the entire surface to a lower maximum of wider reach, or some gradient to a higher peak closer to normality. I won't be storming the bunkers, I'll be asking scientists at the university campus what support role lets them get on with highly productive labour, or helping at a hospital or sewage farm. Looking at postwar recovery in Germany, food for labour cleared the bombed streets (mainly women too) and we'll see a lot of that, followed by more complex labour. Hunkering behind a wall with ammo and batteries won't get there. They're going to have to come to an accommodation with society at large and assuming guns equals boss is silly. Boss of what? A slave culture? The city state next door looks better and better.
    - toss1 4y ago
      Yup, I read an account of a man who survived for a couple of years in the hellscape of Sarajevo during the war. He had a lot of detail, but the big points were that you needed a group. "A lone wolf is a dead wolf", he said. The key to survival was your group, being able to pool resources, watch each other's back, go out in groups, negotiate, etc. (Sorry I've not got a link right now.)
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
jillesvangurp 4y ago
There's a sweet spot where you have a few moments to reflect on the shockwave that is heading your way after you see the bright flash of the explosion (and are probably blinded by that). Far enough away that you can still dive into a corner for protection and survival. Anywhere too close and it won't matter what you do. But there's an appreciable range where the shock wave is going to do significant but potentially survivable damage and where you might have a couple of seconds to do something.

AYBABTME 4y ago

This is all conditioned on a concrete building. Forget about it in a typical North American stick construction.

TheOtherHobbes 4y ago

I am not at all reassured by the suggestion that hiding to one side of a door will help. I don't understand the details of the simulation, but I would have guessed incoming pressure waves would bounce off back walls and create a turbulent mess of forces in the areas hidden from the initial pulse. Also ignored was the solidity of the walls. Concrete might survive, brick could possibly survive. But a partition wall with a couple of sheets of thin plasterboard nailed to weak wooden supports would be unlikely to offer much protection.

toss1 4y ago
Solidity of the walls is definitely an issue. But if the walls are sufficiently solid (they were talking about concrete buildings), the velocities were orders of magnitudes lower just to the sides of the doors and windows, so hugging the adjacent wall or just under the window will keep you from being picked up and flung downwind, as well as having the shrapnel flying past you and not into you. Big difference. I saw one post from a medic in the Ukraine war. He said 80%+ of the injuries he treated were because people didn't get flat on the ground fast enough. He then demonstrated how to do it correctly. Most people, when trying to get on the ground will first kneel, then lie down. He demonstrated how to do it in one motion, either straight like an inverse push-up or burpee exercise, or with a twist. Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here. That's also why I mentioned opening your mouth, since the shockwaves bouncing around can damage tissues if air can't escape, but if it can, it just goes by. Nothing is a guarantee, but taking measures increased your odds a lot, which was the point of the study. May we never need it.
- htag 4y ago
  > Flat in <1sec instead of ~2-3 seconds makes the difference between "whew" and metal embdded in your body. Same can be true here. If you have less than 2 seconds of warning of a nuclear blast while within ~5psi shockwave distance then your warning is probably a very bright light from your window. I'd hope for several minutes of warning via public alerting.