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

151–160 of 188 posts

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#151

Post by dev_tty01 »

kragen wrote: post #45
tshaddox wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? In relative terms, yeah, obviously, but a respiratory virus breakout in a fallout shelter certainly isn’t any less troubling than a respiratory virus breakout at a workplace or music festival.

A covid outbreak in March 02022, when everyone is already vaccinated and the dominant strain of covid is the omicron strain (which, even without vaccination, is only as fatal as the regular flu instead of an order of magnitude worse), is dramatically less troubling than a covid outbreak six months ago, and it isn't worth mentioning in the context of fallout safety rules, except to say not to worry about covid.

Average flu deaths in the U.S. for the last decade are about 35,000 per year. In the U.S., even with vaccines and Omicron, we still had over 70,000 covid deaths in the last 30 days. Given that a typical flu season is 4 to 6 months long, I would say even the last month Covid has been much worse than a typical flu season. So, a covid outbreak in a fallout shelter would still be very difficult in that environment. There will be many older and otherwise immune-compromised people in a crowded shelter who are susceptible to a still highly contagious virus. It is completely reasonable to at least attempt to be cautious in the short term.

By the way, "everyone" is not vaccinated. Only 65% of Americans are fully immunized at this point. I'm not saying Covid is the threat it was a year ago, but some prudence is still reasonable.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#152

Post by XorNot »

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?

A metal box.

EMP isn't magic: it's an induced electric field in any long conductor from the a broadband intense burst of electromagnetism - basically any conductor turns into an antenna.

This sucks for transistor electronics because they're tiny, and the induced current can easily damage and blowout MOSFETs.

But any sealed metal container is a Faraday cage: the net electric field across it is zero. Same story for anything buried underground - the ground is conductive and zeros out the induced field almost immediately.

So pretty much a metal box is high likelihood, a buried metal box guaranteed.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#153

Post by throwawaylinux »

whatshisface wrote: post #125
zionic wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they though? I’m not exactly confident those work anymore. Our subs keep crashing in to underwater mountains.

That's not the fault of the subs, it's the sleep deprived and overworked crews, and inexperienced and also sleep deprived officers manning them. Our ICBMs will work perfectly when they are accidentally launched.

Or it may be because the military has shrewdly shifted their priority from operational capability to ensuring peoples' feelings don't get hurt.

Maybe the technology will work a little too perfectly so the generals will helpfully circumvent the civilian government and phone their friends in the CCP to warn them ahead of time so they won't feel offended.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#154

Post by ihumanable »

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…

It appears from the wayback machine that they added the COVID precautions on or around November 11, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201111235211/https://www.ready...

A reminder that at that time there were no vaccines available, and the US was seeing a fairly large increase in both cases and deaths.

So someone was tasked with adding COVID precautions to this document then, and they have not been removed.

The idea that disease is a non-issue during a disaster (nuclear or otherwise) seems rather myopic. After a disaster, resources will be scarce, people may have to fend for themselves for a while or travel because they've been displaced. Why you wouldn't take reasonable and simple precautions to not throw disease on top of that is beyond me.

It also mentions not using disinfectant wipes on your skin, which is likely because it can cause irritation. Skin irritation also seems like an "absolute non-issue" and yet you aren't taking umbrage with that.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#155

Post by ozten »

eggsmediumrare wrote: post #3

Seems weird to be concerned about social distancing in the event of a nuclear explosion.

+1 Also, this isn't a new threat vector. It's not like someone who hasn't heard of COVID-19 is going to discover this amazing survival tip here for the first time. Probably the doc change was proposed 2 years ago and finally shipped.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#156

Post by coenhyde »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #71
coenhyde wrote: post #15

tbh I am more worried of an EMP nuke detonated high in the atmosphere than localized nuclear explosions. An EMP would lead to famines and total chaos.

Do we know that to be a fact?

It has never happened, so the best we can do is speculate with what we know. The US and Russia did conduct some atmospheric nuclear detonations that unintentionally created EMP's. And determined yes it would be a bad day.

From https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/19_030...

  "The critical national infrastructure in the United States faces a present and continuing existential threat from combined-arms warfare, including cyber and manmade electromagnetic pulse (EMP) attack, as well as from natural EMP from a solar superstorm. During the Cold War, the U.S. was primarily concerned about an EMP attack generated by a high-altitude nuclear weapon as a tactic by which the Soviet Union could suppress the U.S. national command authority and the ability to respond to a nuclear attack—and thus negate the deterrence value of assured nuclear retaliation. Within the last decade, newly armed adversaries, including North Korea, have been developing the ability and threatening to carry out an EMP attack against the United States. Such an attack would give countries that have only a small number of nuclear weapons the ability to cause widespread, long-lasting damage to critical national infrastructures, to the United States itself as a viable country, and to the survival of a majority of its population." [Assessing the Threat from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), Executive Report, July 2017]

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#157

Post by mauvehaus »

XorNot wrote: post #152
mauvehaus wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

A metal box. EMP isn't magic: it's an induced electric field in any long conductor from the a broadband intense burst of electromagnetism - basically any conductor turns into an antenna. This sucks for transistor electronics because they're tiny, and the induced current can easily damage and blowout MOSFETs. But any sealed metal container is a Faraday cage: the net electric field across it is zero. Same story for any…

Ok, this covers my end. What about the broadcast end? It's not like they can collapse down the antenna and bury the transmitter in an ammo can when the antenna is a couple hundred feet tall and permanently attached to the transmitter.

Is there some kind of national contingency plan for this or something whereby there's a a way to get critical radio infrastructure back up after a nuclear exchange?

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#158

Post by throwawaylinux »

ihumanable wrote: post #154
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…

It appears from the wayback machine that they added the COVID precautions on or around November 11, 2020. https://web.archive.org/web/20201111235211/https://www.ready... A reminder that at that time there were no vaccines available, and the US was seeing a fairly large increase in both cases and deaths. So someone was tasked with adding COVID precautions to this document then, and they have not been removed. The idea…

Again, see my previous post. Putting covid 8 times there (and no mention of any other disease or infection) is stupid and wrong.

Bleeding control, preventing infection of open wounds, and basic splinting of broken bones etc are all far higher priority on the medical scale anyway.

Why are you making excuses for this absurdity?

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#159

Post by jillesvangurp »

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…

I live about 1300km away from Kiev in Berlin. Any fallout cloud might head my way if the winds are from that direction. Putin is right now leveling cities with heavy artillery and massacring civilians at a scale not seen since WW II in Europe.

So, the chances are he'd actually use a small nuclear weapon to make the point that the Americans are not the only ones who get to level cities with nukes (Nagasaki, Hiroshima). The main point of those attacks was to bomb the Japanese into submission. It worked.

All of the obvious targets for a Russian nuclear attack are cities in the Ukraine. It doesn't have any deserts. It's not a NATO member and his issues are with the Ukrainians and getting the rest of the of the world off his back. Such an attack wouldn't trigger any immediate retaliation from any NATO country. A first strike on the US or NATO member on the other hand would be suicidal as it pretty much would guarantee at least a response in kind and probably more. However, taking out Kiev or a smaller city elsewhere in the Ukraine, would be a desperate move of course but he might get away with it and it would probably lead to capitulation by the Ukrainians.

If he goes there, most of Europe is going to be worrying about fallout. Chernobyl fallout is still a thing in some places. A full nuclear blast, even a small one, might produce a lot more of it. Scary thing that such a thing is even conceivable right now.

Re: Updated rules on preparedness for nuclear explosion

#160

Post by kragen »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #151
kragen wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A covid outbreak in March 02022, when everyone is already vaccinated and the dominant strain of covid is the omicron strain (which, even without vaccination, is only as fatal as the regular flu instead of an order of magnitude worse), is dramatically less troubling than a covid outbreak six months ago, and it isn't worth mentioning in the context of fallout safety rules, except to say not to worry about covid.

Average flu deaths in the U.S. for the last decade are about 35,000 per year. In the U.S., even with vaccines and Omicron, we still had over 70,000 covid deaths in the last 30 days. Given that a typical flu season is 4 to 6 months long, I would say even the last month Covid has been much worse than a typical flu season. So, a covid outbreak in a fallout shelter would still be very difficult in that environment. There…

Hmm, I guess you're right. Still, it doesn't seem like the same order of magnitude risk as fallout, civilizational collapse from nuclear war, or foreign invasion, and it's still much lower than the death rates from previous variants.

Presumably the people who aren't vaccinated are the ones who are choosing to take on higher covid risk because they think the vaccination isn't worth it.

Post reply on HN