4 ms·
Even that nasty a situation is survivable with sufficient strength shelters, luck to avoid a random direct hit, and enough food and water/water supply to wait o
by hga 12y ago
Even that nasty a situation is survivable with sufficient strength shelters, luck to avoid a random direct hit, and enough food and water/water supply to wait out the longer period required before evacuating the indeed "devastated landscape".
What I find weird is the attitude that it's better to die than survive with most all of your loved ones and friends, albeit at a reduced quality of life for a long time. A rather ultimate materialistic attitude, or perhaps it's as Dean Ing put it in Systemic Shock:
The American public had by turns ignored and ridiculed its cassandras: city planners, ecologists, demographers, socialists, immigrants, who had all warned against our increasing tendency to crowd into our cities. Social stress, failure of essential services, and warfare were only a few of the spectres we had granted only a passing glance. We had always found some solution to our problems, though: often at the last moment. Firmly anchored in most Americans was the tacit certainty that, even to the problem of nuclear war against population centers, there must be a uniquely American solution; we would find it.
The solution was sudden death. A hundred million Americans found it.
- VLM 12y ago"What I find weird is the attitude" Its a manifestation of binary thinking. Well, either we "must" have no nuclear attack, or it "must" be post apocalyptic. Not allowed to be just one shipping container in LA or one maintenance accident at a missile field. A good analogy is often heard for bicycle helmets. I'll either be squashed underneath the wheels of a bus or I won't get into an accident, either way the helmet doesn't matter so I won't wear one. Even if slipping on gravel and hitting your head on the curb is about 100x more likely than either of the binary options.
- wtbob 12y agoWell, with bicycle helmets in particular the odds of the particular type of injury they are effective against are very low, while wearing the helmet itself is risky (cars drive closer to people wearing bike helmets), and the helmet costs money, and it looks bad. My judgement is that the helmet's cost outweighs its benefit in most circumstances, just like walking helmets (yes, they exist!).
- brianlweiner 12y agoDo you have a citation for "the odds of a particular type of injury [helmets] are effective against are very low"? Studies seem to suggest that helmets reduce the risk of a head injury by as much as 85%. In 2012 for nearly 2/3 of bicycle accident fatalities the rider was not wearing a helmet. This used to be an even higher percentage but fortunately the # of fatalities has decliend signficantly in the last 20 years. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists/fatalityfacts/bicycles http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/pedestrians-and-bicyclists...
- wtbob 12y agoCheck out http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ > In 2012 for nearly 2/3 of bicycle accident fatalities the rider was not wearing a helmet. That's irrelevant, since it indicates nothing about what fraction of those 2/3 would have survived if they'd been wearing helmets (as an example, if someone is hit my a truck at 50 mph, it really doesn't matter if he's wearing a helmet or not). Also, what fraction of cyclists wear helmets? I'd be surprised were it so much as 1/3; if it's less, then that would indicate that helmet-wearers are more likely to die than non-helmet-wearers (due to risk-tolerance on the part of both cyclists and drivers, c.f. http://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing-cycle-helmets/ http://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-weari...). There are three types of head strike injury: those with so little force that no death or severe injury would occur, with or without a helmet; those with sufficient force to inflict death or serious injury without a helmet, but which a helmet would prevent; and those with so much force that a lightweight foam-and-plastic helmet wouldn't help. > This used to be an even higher percentage but fortunately the # of fatalities has decliend signficantly in the last 20 years. It looks to me from that IIHS graph that it merely reflects the fact that more people are wearing helmets now than previously.
- ghaff 12y agoThere's apparently some controversy on the point. I don't personally have an opinion but this link has some discussion of the 85% stat among others. [EDIT: Oops. Link: http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html http://bicyclesafe.com/helmets.html ] The effect of helmets on skier injuries is also ambiguous--presumably because the widespread use of helmets has at least correlated with more risky behaviors.