3 ms·

Nuclear survivability is weird. See Akiko Takakura who survived the Hiroshima bombing with essentially nothing but minor cuts, bruises, and burns (requiring min

Nuclear survivability is weird. See Akiko Takakura who survived the Hiroshima bombing with essentially nothing but minor cuts, bruises, and burns (requiring minimal medical intervention) due to the pressure wave and heat despite being less than 1/4 mile (300m) from the center of the Little boy explosion and well within the supposed "lethal range". What she had going for her was that she was inside a reinforced concrete structure (in the lobby of the bank of japan) and not standing directly near any windows or doorways. That she wasn't crushed or injured by damage to the structure was the true stroke of luck. The people who were inside and away from windows or doors were largely safe from the unique threats of the bomb (fire, radiation, pressure wave) but were still subject to the extreme lethality of being inside a large stone or concrete building that has been largely destroyed by a bomb. Also she limited her exposure to radiation contamination by getting out of the city ASAP and not drinking the contaminated water. As a result she didn't even suffer radiation poisoning I believe. With modern knowledge of nuclear attacks, the survivability seems a lot better. If you happen to be in a good, sturdy concrete building (which many are nowadays) at the time of the blast and you don't succumb to mechanical trauma that renders you unable to escape, your odds are quite good if you follow some basic rules: 1. Cover your airways with a mask or at least a rag to reduce dust and particle inhalation. 2. Avoid drinking or eating from unsealed sources where possible. Doubly so for uncovered sources. i.e. bottled water (or anything else sealed) is best. Liquid in an unsealed container is OK even if it isn't ideal and water from open bodies of water or the rain is very very bad. 3. Get out of the immediate disaster area and find a gathering point for medical attention, evacuation, and relocation. 4. Maybe keep some iodine tablets on you to help protect your thyroid (however this is really only a concern for reactor failures and only minimally so for bombings). Take within less than 4 hours and once every 24 hours after that. If you are in a good position at the time of the blast and you can do those big 3, you have really, really good odds for survival. If you are lucky enough to be able to check box #4 as well that's just a nice bonus.

maxerickson 2y ago
If you aren't young or breastfeeding, iodine tablets don't particularly matter. https://dsa.no/en/preparedness/taking-iodine-tablets-in-the-event-of-a-nuclear-accident https://dsa.no/en/preparedness/taking-iodine-tablets-in-the-...
randomtoast 2y ago
The Hiroshima bomb, which killed about 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly, was relatively small compared to today's standards. Currently, the most likely threat to a major Western city is from a Russian ICBM. On average, a Russian ICBM warhead has a yield of about 400 kilotons, which is approximately 26 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. While survival in a strong concrete building, such as a bank, is possible, it's important to consider how many people in a city are actually in such fortified structures at any given time. Realistically, a very small percentage of the population would be in such strongholds during an attack. But okay, I have a few iodine tablets in the cupboard.
- CuriousCosmic 2y ago
  While yes modern weapons have higher yield, the point still generally holds the same. If you are in a heavy concrete structure, you actually have pretty decent odds. Now what access people have to that depends on where they live. From my experience on the east coast, a lot of the office buildings, etc in the DMV are mid 20th century brutalist concrete structures. So like even if you were in DC proper, your odds are surprisingly good as long as you are inside a building or in a metro station. My point wasn't so much that it's easy to survive. It's very much not. However it's not the guaranteed death a lot of people assume. Rather to quote, it's an earthquake, a tornado, and a wildfire all in one (plus radiation). If you are inside you lose the risk of radiation from the blast so now you just have to contend with the threat of 3 natural disasters at once. So if where you work is well suited for safety from a fire, from a tornado, and from an earthquake, you'll probably be in a reasonably safe space.
  - randomtoast 2y ago
    We both agree that there's a chance of survival. However, an unresolved question remains: is it really better to survive, or would it have been better to have died instantly? If most of my friends and family have died, then I would rather chose the latter.

maxerickson 2y ago

If you aren't young or breastfeeding, iodine tablets don't particularly matter. https://dsa.no/en/preparedness/taking-iodine-tablets-in-the-event-of-a-nuclear-accident https://dsa.no/en/preparedness/taking-iodine-tablets-in-the-...

randomtoast 2y ago

The Hiroshima bomb, which killed about 70,000 to 80,000 people instantly, was relatively small compared to today's standards. Currently, the most likely threat to a major Western city is from a Russian ICBM. On average, a Russian ICBM warhead has a yield of about 400 kilotons, which is approximately 26 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. While survival in a strong concrete building, such as a bank, is possible, it's important to consider how many people in a city are actually in such fortified structures at any given time. Realistically, a very small percentage of the population would be in such strongholds during an attack. But okay, I have a few iodine tablets in the cupboard.

CuriousCosmic 2y ago
While yes modern weapons have higher yield, the point still generally holds the same. If you are in a heavy concrete structure, you actually have pretty decent odds. Now what access people have to that depends on where they live. From my experience on the east coast, a lot of the office buildings, etc in the DMV are mid 20th century brutalist concrete structures. So like even if you were in DC proper, your odds are surprisingly good as long as you are inside a building or in a metro station. My point wasn't so much that it's easy to survive. It's very much not. However it's not the guaranteed death a lot of people assume. Rather to quote, it's an earthquake, a tornado, and a wildfire all in one (plus radiation). If you are inside you lose the risk of radiation from the blast so now you just have to contend with the threat of 3 natural disasters at once. So if where you work is well suited for safety from a fire, from a tornado, and from an earthquake, you'll probably be in a reasonably safe space.
- randomtoast 2y ago
  We both agree that there's a chance of survival. However, an unresolved question remains: is it really better to survive, or would it have been better to have died instantly? If most of my friends and family have died, then I would rather chose the latter.