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

171–180 of 188 posts

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#171

Post by ncallaway »

mauvehaus wrote: post #139
ncallaway wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have a battery powered portable radio! I’ve read that the amount of fallout that comes down (and thus the amount of time you’ll want to wait in shelter to avoid the initial fallout) can vary dramatically depending on yield, blast location, wind speed, etc. A battery powered portable radio will let you access the information you need to know if you should be sheltering for 2 hours, 2 days, or a week. Also, a battery p…

Dumb question that's going to reflect a lot of basic ignorance about hardware, electricity, and magnetism: how do I protect this radio from EMP? Similarly, what's going to ensure that the broadcast infrastructure survives the blast and EMP to disseminate information to the people with radios?

My answer is: I wouldn't go out of my way to. For me, a nuclear disaster is pretty low on my list of scenarios, so it's not worth the extra effort to shield it.

Maybe the blast is further away, and the EMP isn't strong enough to harm your radio. Maybe while it's off without batteries the EMP doesn't induce enough current to harm the radio.

Maybe the EMP destroys your radio entirely, and you have a non-functional radio. Then you're not really worse off than if you didn't have the radio to start with.

For the transmitter: obviously nothing you can really do there to prepare yourself. Again it depends on where the blast is, and where the transmitter(s) are. Also, transmitters can obviously be moved around, so it's possible that the stationary transmitter near you is destroyed, but 24 hours later someone has set up a portable transmitter and started broadcasting (very likely for any disaster that has some semblance of emergency response after the fact).

And remember: this is going in your emergency preparedness kit, not your "nuclear blast" kit. Your radio is unlikely to suffer an EMP in the event of a hurricane, earthquake, extended winter storm power outage. In many of those scenarios, the radio would be useful for locating emergency response.

So, having a portable radio in your emergency kit isn't a guarantee that you'll have a portable radio in a disaster (it may get damaged in flooding, for example), but rather a gamble that in a disaster you'll have a 95% chance of having a workable radio.

I'm by no means an expert on nuclear blast survival, and what to do after the fact, but I do know that radios are a useful part of a disaster preparedness kit, that'll be useful in almost every disaster scenario.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#172

Post by t0bia_s »

zionic wrote: post #70
throwawaylinux wrote: post #9

If you have just survived a nuclear explosion and find yourself in need of assistance, call 911 and be sure to let the operator know if you have or believe you may have COVID-19. Absolute insanity.

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?

For example for experimental vaccines with uknown contracts.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#173

Post by timbit42 »

vlunkr wrote: post #136
creativeCak3 wrote: post #30

I am genuinely asking; how worried should we be? I'm really freaking out about this...

I'm no military expert, but it seems like common sense to assume that if the Russian government gets a single nuke off the ground it will be the last thing they ever do.

True, but are you willing to bet Putin isn't that crazy?

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#174

Post by Sebb767 »

Johnny555 wrote: post #74
hammock wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.

Yes. If there's a nuclear explosion close enough that you need to take shelter, 911 isn't coming whether you tell them you have COVID or not, assuming you can even reach them, which is dubious.

> If there's a nuclear explosion close enough that you need to take shelter, 911 isn't coming

Not necessarily true. Even if you are quite far away, going inside to avoid the fallout is a very strategy and 911 will (most likely) at least be available.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#175

Post by allturtles »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #69

The "Soviet surprise attack" model was always a joke. I can't believe people don't see that. If nukes are used in this war, almost certainly the first ones dropped will be warning shots, detonated underwater or in an uninhabited desert. Just to let the world know that you're serious. There would be plenty of time to try to get away from the major cities and military bases. Of course, those of us who aren't millionair…

Where are you imagining that all the people in the cities would go, and how would they get there? You should look at what the partial evacuation of Houston from Hurricane Rita was like [0]. It took people over a day to get to Dallas. And that was just one city partially emptying, mostly going to other cities.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Rita#Mass_evacuation

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#176

Post by dwaltrip »

zionic wrote: post #70
throwawaylinux wrote: post #9

If you have just survived a nuclear explosion and find yourself in need of assistance, call 911 and be sure to let the operator know if you have or believe you may have COVID-19. Absolute insanity.

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?

What's your BATNA? Hmm?

Edit: I just skimmed the document. It's really not that bad.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#178

Post by edanm »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #141
ihumanable wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember kids, the best time to needlessly contract a disease is right after a nuclear blast has rendered any aid completely inaccessible. Also considering that one of the parts that suggests hand sanitizer says the following If you are able to, set aside items like soap, hand sanitizer that contains at least 60 percent alcohol, disinfecting wipes, and general household cleaning supplies that you can use to disinfect…

Again, COVID is just not that high a concern to mention it 8 times on a short page that is supposed to be giving advice about surviving a nuclear explosion. You also don't want to light yourself on fire if you're cold, slit your wrists to drink the blood if you get thirsty, or try to loot the nearest gun store for protection. Bringing hand sanitizer with you is stupid and ridiculous, and so is social distancing from…

You're being incredibly hyperbolic with the "8 times" you keep saying. Only like 2 of those times are actually instructions about what to do if you have COVID.

The other are actually useful things, like: "While commuting, identify appropriate shelters to seek in the event of a detonation. Due to COVID-19, many places you may pass on the way to and from work may be closed or may not have regular operating hours."

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#179

Post by wanderer_ »

kmonsen wrote: post #86
wanderer_ wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am rather experienced. Eagle scout, that sort of thing. Maybe I should have been more clear: That wasn't advice, just what I think I would do.

I was a ranger in the army, during survival exercise they said the techniques we learned would only apply to surviving during a war. For all other purposes seek civilization as humans are almost unable to survive in the wild anymore. It is very hard to spend less calories trying to get food than what the food you find contains. I think you are wildly overthinking your ability to survive in the wild. Of course I know…

Well, I wouldn't be going anywhere with no supplies at all. Considering that just one cooler's worth of food can last me at least a week but almost certainly longer, I wouldn't be really 'roughing it'. I could take a fishing pole, I suppose, but that would really just be amusement and the occasional snack - not a viable source of food.

Probably the one of most useful survival skills I learned in my days as a scout was how to survive off of the shitty food one's patrol cook prepared :)

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#180

Post by throwawaylinux »

edanm wrote: post #178
throwawaylinux wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, COVID is just not that high a concern to mention it 8 times on a short page that is supposed to be giving advice about surviving a nuclear explosion. You also don't want to light yourself on fire if you're cold, slit your wrists to drink the blood if you get thirsty, or try to loot the nearest gun store for protection. Bringing hand sanitizer with you is stupid and ridiculous, and so is social distancing from…

You're being incredibly hyperbolic with the "8 times" you keep saying. Only like 2 of those times are actually instructions about what to do if you have COVID. The other are actually useful things, like: "While commuting, identify appropriate shelters to seek in the event of a detonation. Due to COVID-19, many places you may pass on the way to and from work may be closed or may not have regular operating hours."

You think that's bad, it's nothing compared with how hyperbolic the idiotic website is being about the danger of covid during a nuclear attack.
Post reply on HN