4 ms·
I think it's heartening, in a sense - and this goes beyond nuclear weapons - that as close as we are to danger, dangerous events are pretty rare. Of course, wh
by tfigueroa 13y ago
I think it's heartening, in a sense - and this goes beyond nuclear weapons - that as close as we are to danger, dangerous events are pretty rare.
Of course, whenever I have that thought, part of me fears that I'll ironically be vaporized by an errant nuclear weapon, moments later. I reassure myself that, at least, it will be a quick end.
- bo1024 13y agoSurvivorship bias. The people who were wiped out by dangerous events aren't around to tell us how dangerous they were.
- throwaway_yy2Di 13y agoNot at all! Most deaths would be slow and horrific, from radiation burns (thermal or ionizing), radiation sickness, or blast effects like being crushed in a collapsed building. Only a lucky few would be vaporized instantly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bombs_and_health https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_bombs_and_health And you haven't considered the risk of not dying! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MCbTvoNrAg ("Threads redefines the word grim...")
- fennecfoxen 13y agoThis is also why the old advice of "duck and cover" was actually very relevant and good advice. If you're not vaporized, you'd prefer to avoid the oncoming blast as much as possible (and yes, even the flimsy newspaper-over-the-head helps reflect thermal energy and could seriously mitigate your burns).