io9 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #nuclearexplosion more → 
Why An Urban Nuclear Explosion Is "Not Hopeless"
San Francisco, 8:52 PM
Mon Nov 9
25 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
| posts about #nuclearexplosion more → |
Why An Urban Nuclear Explosion Is "Not Hopeless" |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
07/10/09
07/09/09
It takes an extremely short time to receive a lethal dose of radiation. Even worse, as the article points out, most people don't know what to do after such an attack; like many of the worst dangers in our world, radiation is invisible and deadly.
Should I be outside for a short twenty minutes after such a nearby attack, I would need to spend a good hour in the shower scrubbing myself practically until my skin bled to make sure I was clean of all radioactive contamination. Ever seen the movie Silkwood? There's a reason they scrub you down like that. Getting "most of" or "sort of" the contaminiaton off equals: death.
For most people, the water system will probably not going to be working anyway - and it may also have been contaminated.
Nuclear attack equals tremendous suffering and death. I don't know where these articles about "maybe it won't be so bad" are coming from.
07/09/09
President: Well, I, I would hate to have to decide...who stays up and...who goes down.
Strangelove:Well, that would not be necessary, Mr. President. It could easily be accomplished with a computer...programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross-section of necessary skills. Of course, it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition.
Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. Ha, ha. But ah, with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present Gross National Product within say, twenty years
07/09/09
You forgot to over enunciate " Slaughtered" ... lol
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
Since they're in public domain, if you do some searching on the internet, you can usually find some neat old manuals. Many with details of how to construct cheap, but effective, shelters.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/464032/Survival-Under-Atomic-Attack-1951
http://www.survivalring.org/pdf-index.htm
07/09/09
07/09/09
Surviving A Nuclear Attack – Irwin Redlener
http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/344
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
The duck and cover aspect was always to make yourself a smaller target for falling debris from the guaranteed 5.0+ quake that results from a nuclear blast.
07/09/09
07/09/09
07/09/09
Man, the things you learn...
07/09/09
07/09/09
Having lived in California, near the San Andreas fault, nearly my entire life I can tell you that a 5.0 earthquake is not all that. Maybe for the people who've never felt an earthquake it's something to behold, but it barely registers for most people who've lived in Southern California most their lives. Heck, it was probably a couple months ago that we had a 4.7 and a separate 4.6 back to back not far from my house. There was very little structural damage to businesses and residences. A nuclear blast is nothing to sneer at, but you'll have to do a lot better than a 5.0 to pique the interest of most of us in the golden state.
07/09/09
07/10/09
07/10/09
@Citizen Kang: 5.0 is not much for you yes, but California building codes are actually designed around this fact. IF a 5.0 where to happen in say NYC, where not even our skyscrapers have to have earthquake suppression systems, you can be assured SOMETHING is coming down. Likewise 5.0 is on the low end. There where registered 6 and 7 earthquakes from bomb tests, and no one knows if a bomb will set off tectonic plates, though it very well could.
And lastly found another bug, you cant reply to someone, then hit another name to reply to after to reply to a second person. It erases everything you wrote before. How annoying.
07/10/09