10 ms·
Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas
- IronWolve 2y agoDriving in montana before the state implemented a max speed, I'd have my cruise control set at 100 mph. I remember seeing limos pass me like I was sitting still. I miss those days.
- ajmurmann 2y agoVisit Germany. The right stretch of Autobahn at the right time and you can still experience this. I just did two days ago.
- timeon 2y agoIt depends where in Germany. Many parts of Autobahn have local speed regulations.
- Archelaos 2y agoTo be exact: Out of 25,758 km Autobahn in Germany 18,115 km have no speed limit (70.4%) and another 1,608 km (6.2 %) have gantries without speed limit under favourable conditions (construction sites not taken into account).[1] There are also some other roads that are not included in these figures because they are not classified as Autobahn, but Autobahn-like carriageways. Germany has around 3,350 km of them, a few without speed limit.[2] [1] Source: ADAC report from 2024-04-22 (in German), see https://www.adac.de/verkehr/standpunkte-studien/positionen/tempolimit-autobahn-deutschland/ https://www.adac.de/verkehr/standpunkte-studien/positionen/t... [2] For examples see the German Wikipedia article "Autobahnähnliche Straße" at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn%C3%A4hnliche_Stra%C3%9Fe#Deutschland https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn%C3%A4hnliche_Stra%C3%...
- ajmurmann 2y agoThat's actually a much higher percentage without speed limit than I expected. I wonder if the stretches without speed limit are usually order traveled and thus less experienced. Anecdotally I used to drive between Bonn and Paderborn a lot and the speed limit would only go away once out of the densely-populated Ruhr area.
- baq 2y agoNote insurance companies can not pay out if you drive too fast even if there’s no limit.
- magneticnorth 2y agoDriving through Montana is how I discovered my current car won't let me set the cruise control higher than 90 mph. Probably for the best, they do have 80 mph speed limits now, but lots of drivers there still drive like there's no speed limit.
- AcerbicZero 2y agoReasonable and prudent is objectively the best speed limit. Going 110 on a dry empty highway? Carry on. Going 110 on I-90 right outside of Billings? Pull over young man, its time for the highway patrol to have a philosophical discussion with you on the side of the road.
- hobobaggins 2y agoThe problem is that it's literally subjectively the best speed limit, at least from the standpoint of that young man outside of Billings.
- foxyv 2y ago110 MPH is never a safe speed for a car on a highway. Crash rate increases exponentially with speed. At 110 MPH you are placing your life and the lives of other road users at risk for no real good reason.
- AcerbicZero 2y agoThis is cringe, and I refuse to engage with it further.
- foxyv 2y agoUh, you just did?
- kimixa 2y agoThe #1 thing for driving safely is being predictable. Too many people seem to think "driving safely" is mechanically being able to control your car on the road, but that's the easy part. The difficulty is there are other people on the road all taking their own independent actions. On a US highway you can glance in the mirror and see a vehicle, and you can work on the assumption that it's not going (much) more than 65mph. Or see a gap and have a general idea of how long you know it will still be a gap. Having a massive variety in possible speeds harms that. I think many people seem completely unaware about how fast a car at 110mph (for example) can appear. It's in the order of time it takes to check your blindspot and other mirror - there's a hard limit to how many directions you can be looking at one time after all. No amount of "Personal Driving Skills" or "Being More Aware" can help that if the timing is unlucky.
- LeftHandPath 2y agoWhat a perfect invitation to get on one of my favorite soapboxes. Spoiler: I'm a big fan of Brock Yates. Speed limits are an imperfect tool for an important problem. They were generally much higher, or nonexistent, on US highways before the 1973 oil crisis [0]. They were intended to save fuel, but weren't very effective. Nowadays, most people discuss them as a safety tool. They aren't great for that, either. Speed disparity is the best way to cause an accident, with those going at least 5MPH under or 15MPH over the 85th percentile speed being the most dangerous drivers on the road. Limits force people to choose between going a comfortable speed and following the rules. When the difference between comfortable and legal speed is too high, you get situations where raising the limit can reduce the rate of accidents (citation discusses stats, my suggested reasoning is more speculative) [1]. There are still of course many cases where setting a slower speed limit has reduced accidents [2], but that effect is not universal. Also worth considering is that, even if higher limits reduce the rate of accidents, accidents at higher speeds are almost universally more severe. Consider long, straight, flat roads with 2+ lanes on each side, a median, no sidewalks, infrequent turn and/or merge lanes, with ample room to speed up or slow down, and speed limits of 50 MPH or lower. There are several near me. They are painful to drive, because they breed traffic tickets, tailgating, and accidents. Hell, the people on either side of the "go a comfortable speed" and "go a legal speed" even fight each other, making rolling roadblocks to slow traffic, or giving way to road rage. Either raise the limit, or add curves, trees, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc to convince people to slow down. I tend more towards the "I can't drive 55" side [3] because I think it's generally better for the economy when people and goods can move faster. Edit: For a specific example, from Kansas City, the 9+ hour drive to Colorado Springs or Denver (at 70MPH) makes it nearly impossible to go there. There's very little traffic on I70 past Topeka. Without a speed limit, I could easily do the trip in a little over 4 hours in my C350. That would be FANTASTIC for the economies on either side of that stretch (not to mention along it). If you're not familiar with Brock Yates and his influence, check out [4, 5, 6]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law [1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212135021.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/12/181212135021.h... [2]: https://jalopnik.com/iihs-finds-that-lowering-speed-limits-actually-does-mak-1850278929 https://jalopnik.com/iihs-finds-that-lowering-speed-limits-a... [3]: https://youtu.be/RvV3nn_de2k?si=mLYQIkwlHCDPr6ec https://youtu.be/RvV3nn_de2k?si=mLYQIkwlHCDPr6ec [4]: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a15143608/the-cannonball-baker-sea-to-shining-sea-memorial-trophy-dash-archived-feature/ https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a15143608/the-... [5]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9fZI3wBA1o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9fZI3wBA1o [6]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTT1_JZp2Sg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTT1_JZp2Sg
- linsomniac 2y agoI never really got to enjoy those days. The path I'd typically take through Montana had a speed limit: 90 was about as fast as I could go and still get good enough MPG to make it to the next gas station...
- TacticalCoder 2y ago[dead]
- vikingerik 2y agoTo save you a click on this clickbait: the sign is "Maintain Top Safe Speed", and the intent is to tell you to spend minimum time on this road to get out of this area as soon as you can because of nuclear contamination.
- tantalor 2y agoOn a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- zzgo 2y agoI am Jack's irradiated spleen.
- takk309 2y agoThis sign is still available per the 11th edition of the MUTCD but under a different designation, EM2-3. Section 2N.06
- mugwumprk 2y agoWeird. I wonder how those signs were supposed to be installed. So dangerous you need to blow through at 120mph, but safe enough for a worker to stand there for awhile installing a new sign.
- boomboomsubban 2y agoWorse, they mention supervised traffic, so presumably at some point people standing outside next to speeding traffic and radiation. Also, how fast is "safe" when seemingly you'll regularly be encountering crashed cars from people who didn't make it?
- thfuran 2y agoWhat do you mean crashed cars from people who didn't make it? The sign is basically a "minimum speed 40 mph" sign routinely seen on the interstates but with a bit more teeth. The sides of highways aren't usually lined with crashed cars (except occasionally when winter gets feisty).
- boomboomsubban 2y agoI understood it as "this level of radiation could kill you in hours, but this is the only way to a fallout shelter." Reading other posts made after mine I appear to be mistaken.
- myself248 2y agoIf I have permission to do 150, you bet I'm going to do 150. Even though I don't exactly have a ton of experience doing it. A fair number of people are going to misjudge, overcontrol, suffer equipment failures, etc.
- thfuran 2y ago>If I have permission to do 150 Doing ~100 over the speed limit probably isn't considered safe, so I'd guess you don't.
- 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dangoodmanUT 2y agoEveryone who doesn't see this sign is also going to die
- danillonunes 2y agoprobably
- qgin 2y agoSo far so good
- JSTrading 2y agoAnyone know where there any installations of these signs?
- boomboomsubban 2y agoThe events leading to their installation never happened, so I'd assume nowhere.
- SoftTalker 2y agoI remember seeing FALLOUT SHELTER signs around as a kid.
- theandrewbailey 2y agoI still see them on some old buildings with thick stone or brick exteriors like town halls and post offices.
- Ccecil 2y agoThe "evacuation route" and crossbars guiding you through can be seen (at least last time I looked) in Umatilla, OR. US Army chemical weapons depot...they are disposing of some nasty stuff there. If there is a leak they shut down certain roads apparently.
- loosescrews 2y agoSimilar signs were installed near highly contaminated parts of Russia, specifically Chelyabinsk near lake Karachay, one of the most contaminated places on earth. https://www.damninteresting.com/in-soviet-russia-lake-contaminates-you/ https://www.damninteresting.com/in-soviet-russia-lake-contam...
- maxwellg 2y agoWho would be willing to take the risk to do road maintenance in a radiation zone? Hitting a pothole at 120 mph would be devastating.
- karamanolev 2y agoDepends on the pothole, but for some, driving at a higher speed is actually better than lower speed (short and deep ones) - the wheels just don't have enough time to fall significantly.
- 0xbadcafebee 2y agoI believe the wheels still fall the same amount (the springs are pushing them down) but the suspension works faster/more efficiently. Once the wheel either bottoms out in the pothole or hits the trailing edge, the spring sends the wheel up faster due to the energy from the impact. The shock is thus pushed up faster, and upon reaching its full contraction, settles back down into position to level the suspension on the road. The car ends up moving less in space and the suspension regains its position faster. If the car were moving slower, gravity, momentum and the inefficient suspension would end up moving the car itself more which has a larger impact on the ride.
- wiseowise 2y ago[flagged]
- hardibro 2y agoHey, publisher here. We tend to look at our competition and do half or less the number of ads. That means there's an ad unit every sixth node, not every two paragraphs (so three paragraphs, two images an embed or five paragraphs or whatever). The video player doesn't stick if you're a member, because we are partially member-supported. If you'd like to see fewer ads you can become a member!
- batch12 2y agoOr use reader mode and/or an adblocker
- karamanolev 2y agoI appreciate the comment. FWIW, I understand you need to survive and I also think it's not the worst I've seen.
- hardibro 2y agoThanks, it's tough being a small publisher. Many of our competitors use a ton of ads, which screws with ad rates, and we use the usual off-the-shelf tools, but people still get mad that we have any ads. It's exciting.
- wiseowise 2y agoThanks for taking time to reply. Taking another look at your website - it does behave differently compared to websites that abuse ads. I’ve spent too much time with abusive pages which triggered the overreaction. Judging by active discussion in comments and loyal followers, the website is a loved one. Kudos for keeping good community alive. Apologies for inappropriate comment.
- pessimizer 2y ago> Autoplaying sticky video Not only autoplaying, but I've got my browser settings so screwed with and tuned that I haven't had a video autoplay on me in at least a year, and this one broke right through. They should be proud. It's probably the most invasive ad on the web.
- redox99 2y agoThe title and some of the comments assume it would be something like if you take 15 extra minutes you would just die. When in reality it would just be an increase in cancer risk. If it were THAT contaminated they'd use the AREA CLOSED the article mentions anyways. To be fatal within days you need about 10,000 mSv of exposure. Even with heavy fallout, exposure would probably be around 10 mSv per hour.
- somerandomqaguy 2y agoI'd imagine the concern is the radioactive dust / fallout getting stuck onto the vehicle, clothes, and hair which would increase your exposure time; getting through that zone as quick as possible could limit that dust sticking. But that's just my guess.
- titzer 2y agoThis is the problem. It's not just being in the area, it's inhalation/ingestion and direct exposure to radioactive dust. If you look at [https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Quick%20Reference%20Guide%20Final.pdf https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Quick%2...], the levels just from increased radiation from a single detonation there are certainly not fatal in a few minutes, but with multiple detonations it's not difficult to get a lethal dose in a few or hours or a day or two. Couple that with the inhalation/contamination issue, and yeah, be afraid. If I saw that sign I'd be a hell of a lot more concerned than "oh, miniscule cancer risk later in life, meh, I guess I'll just slowboat this one".
- jcgrillo 2y agochanging engine and cabin air filters would become an extremely hazardous affair
- adamredwoods 2y agoSome Chernobyl radiation levels recorded in 2009, were not this high. (They were higher in the blast, though.) https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/ https://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiatio...
- teractiveodular 2y agoInterestingly enough, the Fukushima exclusion zone has roads that pretty much fit the bill. They're the pink lines on this map (PDF), with the exclusion zone in gray: https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/roadmap/pdf/20210518_02.pdf https://www.meti.go.jp/english/earthquake/nuclear/roadmap/pd... You are permitted to drive through but not stop or get out of your car. I presume ordinary speed limits apply though, so no exciting post-apocalyptic signage.
- XorNot 2y agoThat's likely because alpha and beta emitters are trivially blocked by common car materials, but getting your skin covered in them or inhaling them does much more damage (this is actually what killed a lot of Chernobyl firefighters: they wore their dust covered coats for hours, and died of sepsis from extensive beta burns. Had they been decontaminated quickly, they would've survived).
- bpye 2y agoI’m not 100% convinced by that as motorcycles are also permitted in some cases?
- XorNot 2y agoIt's more the dust issue. Like, someone on a motorcycle who doesn't stop isn't going to pick up an appreciable amount from the road way. But if you pull over, get out, stroll around in the dirt in your boots etc.?
- hobobaggins 2y agoAs you'd find if you drove a motorcycle fast enough in the rain, a motorcycle with a fairing and windshield will sweep the rain (or dust) over and past you and you only get wet when you stop at a light. Perhaps that's the case here as well.
- baxtr 2y ago[flagged]
- killjoywashere 2y ago> engineers mused over whether there was anything to be done top stop a torrent of enemy missiles falling across the nation. These superweapons seemed to promise destruction on an overbearing scale, threatening the very existence of human civilization itself. THEY STILL DO!!!! This is what drives me nuts about our politics: so many people seem to think we can flirt with the sort of nationalism (1) that led us into WWI and WWII. But, friends, that road leads to your death in every direction. Mutually Assured Destruction is still a thing. Nuclear peace only works as long as all parties persistently work toward de-escalation, which can be measured by adherence to consensus and norms. Nationalism is antithetical to that posture. The iconoclast leaders of national populism are rooted in rulebreaking. They also tend to embrace strong foreign policy talk as a short term bolster to domestic support, again, antithetical to de-escalation. (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism
- matthewdgreen 2y agoThe current government is going to weaken Western alliances. China is going to take Taiwan. Japan and South Korea are going to rapidly develop nuclear weapons programs. North Korea will increase the range of its missiles to reliably hit the entire US. The entire Middle East is going to nuclearize, with Iran first and then Saudi Arabia (the Trump white house was trying to arrange this last term, I suppose they'll succeed this time.) You cannot have a world where every single nation has nuclear weapons mounted on ICBMs and not have a war in the medium term.
- monero-xmr 2y agoHong Kong was very different than Taiwan would be. Taiwan will be a bloodbath as an armed, diehard anti-communist population fights to the death. And if China just wants to blow it all to bits, what was the point? They want to dominate the country and its people, not own a smoldering ruin.
- actionfromafar 2y agoThat notion didn't stop Russia from scorching Ukraine, can't see why it would stop China.
- naming_the_user 2y agoWouldn't a higher speed turn up more dust and make things worse in general if your aim is to prevent the effects of radiation, given that inhaling alpha/beta is worse than the effects of gamma?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- nanomonkey 2y agoMy mind kept reading the sign as "Mountain Top", which would have likely caused me to pull over for a looksee. I'd be the guy that reads, "This place is not a place of honor..." and think, good enough place to dig an outhouse as any then.
- matthewmorgan 2y agoPages like this are completely unusable on mobile without adblock, and Google recently killed my ad blocker. Time to break this company up.