Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

ready.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 188 posts

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#111

Post by Trasmatta »

colanderman wrote: post #90

[2021], except for: $ diff -u 1.txt 2.txt --- 1.txt 2022-02-28 23:02:05.000000000 -0500 +++ 2.txt 2022-02-28 23:02:41.000000000 -0500 @@ -98,11 +98,10 @@ Nuclear Explosion Information Sheet (PDF) Download the FEMA app Centers for Disease Control - Health and Human Service Get inside, Stay inside, Stay Tuned Video (English) Get inside, Stay inside, Stay Tuned Video (Spanish) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Corona…

Yes, seems like just a related page was removed, and any page that referenced it was automatically updated. I think the "Updated rules" in the title of this post is unnecessary and probably causing needless concern for people. None of the content in the page seems to have changed in at least the past year.

Given that nothing has actually been updated in the rules, maybe a mod should update the title of this post?

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#112

Post by kmonsen »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #21
pbourke wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An N95 mask might help with inhaling irradiated dust. But yeah, COVID would be rather low on the list of concerns.

imagine the bad luck if that’s when you contracted it?

Seriously, Covid is extremely low on my list of worries if I am close to a nuclear explosion. Like so far down that I can't see why it should be mentioned at all.

Radiation, access to food/water and breakdown of society are the only realistic concerns I can think of right away.

And I am not really sure if preparing is all that helpful, at least not the kind of preparation that is mentioned here. What I need is a way of providing food long term (years), and be able to defend it. In a place without radiation.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#113

Post by hedora »

daenz wrote: post #38

1952 - "Duck and cover" 2022 - "Mask and distance"

Duck and cover; still laughable after all these years:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IKqXu-5jw60

"Fallout" is far more useful than current covid information sites. It's sad how far the US gov't has fallen in 70 years:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GFmy55rPrT0

Remember: In case of nuclear blast, stick your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye!

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#114

Post by willismichael »

javajosh wrote: post #87
willismichael wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad spent his career processing nuclear waste as chemical engineer. I called him over the weekend to ask about the prospects of surviving a nuclear strike. We had a good long chat about it, but the summary is that if you can avoid direct exposure to the initial gamma ray burst, and then avoid the fallout for at least a few hours (ideally longer if you can), you actually have a sizable chance of survival. After tha…

What did he have to say about decontaminating top soil?

We didn't get into that specifically, but the part that struck me as hopeful is that the most dangerous fallout also inherently has the shortest half-lives. Of course you wouldn't be able to completely avoid exposure, but with small enough doses you can survive for quite a long time.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#116

Post by zionic »

esrauch wrote: post #105
zionic wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, a government that takes 50%+ of my income producing this kind of garbage-level content scares me more than COVID ever did. What the fuck am I/are we paying for?

The maximum tax bracket is 37%

[flagged]

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#117

Post by whatshisface »

fastball wrote: post #35
moron123 wrote: post #10

I thought this was satire, but then I saw the .gov We are living in a satire universe folks.

The US govt is literally adopting the dumbest takes on Twitter[1] as official policy. [1] https://twitter.com/DanaHoule/status/1496723469890949127

That's not such a dumb take, diseases and wartime conditions go hand in hand.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#119

Post by Sosh101 »

titzer wrote: post #64

If you're warned of an imminent nuclear attack, be sure to move towards the expected epicenter of the blast. You'll want to be vaporized rather than cooked alive or suffer fatal radiation sickness (over the period of days or weeks). You'll want to be spared the horror of watching others die and society quickly unravel. You'll want to avoid being a burden on the non-existent safety net that won't survive. Watch "The D…

I'm not sure advocating suicide is the best advice.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#120

Post by anamax »

geraldalewis wrote: post #46

The comments here are silly. You can absolutely prioritize your risks, which means you’re not precluded from taking sensible precautions if you’re able to. This isn’t rock/paper/scissors. If you’re far enough away from the point of impact and the winds are right, Covid might be more of a threat than a nuclear bomb. If you’re two states away from where a bomb goes off, and insist on open-mouth kissing strangers as the…

> If you’re two states away from where a bomb goes off, and insist on open-mouth kissing strangers as they cough on you, that’s up to you.

Which states? Two states away can be 500, even if we ignore Alaska and Hawaii.

As to "open-mouth kissing strangers" after a nuke, that's a rational way to build the social structures that you're going to need to survive. Stand back and be the creepy guy. That difference trumps whatever "little safer" you think that you're getting.

Post reply on HN