Talk:Duck and cover

message: "the exact time of arrival being dependent on the speed of sound in air in their area"
A "shock wave" is, by definition, faster than sound.  I'm not sure that the speed of sound has anything to do with how fast the blast from a nuclear explosion reaches you.  
Does the speed of sound really differ that much from place to place? I think that other factors are far more important than the speed of sound in determining how quickly a shockwave will arrive. 198.24.6.155 (talk) 17:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed of Sound? 

message: Duck and cover... glad to see American intelligence was the same back in the fifties as it is now.
-G
It was used more as fodder to keep people from being upset that if a bomb WERE to drop, chances of survival would be pretty slim.
-- Liz
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.207.88 21:12, 13 June 2007  (talk • contribs) 
Oh yeah, G, you think you're all so "superior" over the (U.S.-)Americans, don't you?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.213.0.154 (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact of the matter is, if you have time to react after seeing the flash, then you are most likely *not* in the complete destruction zone, so duck and cover is sound advice. Regardless of liberal spin, it was and still is a worthy idea.  Gigs (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. Most of the reactions to this are demonstrated by the comments, they boil down to European's/G's comment: "Haha, stupid Americans obviously ducking and covering will not save you from an atomic bomb if it lands on your head!! ROFL" (No one said it would) or for the modern American elitist: "LOL look how dumb teh peoples back in 1950s was they think stpuid things lik this will save them" (Learn how to spell). The introduction to the article needs to be changed. It's worthy noting that the idea is now satirized in popular culture, but which experts are saying that it's worthless and served only to spread paranoia? I'd like to see these experts stand with their entire body exposed to even a distant atomic explosion instead of ducking behind a wall. Otherwise the summary should accurately describe the article, because right now the summary says its a silly idea, and the body says it is not such a bad idea 130.71.241.182 (talk) 07:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Those wacky Americans

message: The "assessment" is preposterous. It's entirely a cynical, revisionist, post-Vietnam spin on history. It is indisputable that g, like "Duck and Cover" was part of some insidious plot to instill fear of the ever-harmless Soviet Union and had no practical value, this section needs to be fundamentally changed. --ArminTamzarian 09:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: That's absurd. Cite a single source. Do you even understand basic physics? Shards of glass, flying debris, gamma rays (would be 50% blocked by a brick wall). The basic laws of physics are not cynical propaganda, they are facts. 130.71.241.182 (talk) 07:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Harmless, you say? I've got three words: Cuban. Missle. Crisis. They may have not attacked, but those missles were armed. How could you miss that? I dare you, right now, to find a citation of your statements. Also, define "pointy item", then define "flying at high speeds", and look at your skin after a paper cut. Next, look at a desk or a brick wall and hit it. Hit it hard. Then, should you dare, try throwing glass at it. Then shoot it with a B-B gun. Desks and walls are harder than skin, "ArminTamzarian", that is rather obvious. ----TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm assuming by the phrasing "to instill fear of the ever-harmless Soviet Union", that instead of meaning this sincerely, you are engaging in sarcasm. For myself, while I think this article is a very objective assessment of the potential value of the "Duck and Cover" technique in certain situations, this article did not answer the questions I had which caused me to seek it out. Having first heard of "duck and cover drills" from discussion of the movie Atomic Cafe when it came out, I wanted to find out during what years such drills were carried out in American schools, and in which states. Quadibloc (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: -

message: I grew up on Patrick Air Force Base, the military supply and defense command for Cape Canaveral,  during the Cuban missile crisis.   
One reason the drills were discontinued was that elementary school children could not distinguish between civil defense drills and fire drills.  Imagine a fire where all the kids hid under desks and in bathrooms.  The schools involved were Patrick Elementary School and Spessard Holland Elementary school in Brevard County, Florida.
References to paranoia are wrong.  There was a real threat to the safety of many Americans.  The fear of nuclear attack was not illogical, projective or imaginary to Floridians during the Kennedy administration.  Slang usage of psychiatric terms is best avoided in any case.
There is much opinion throughout that needs to be objectified, linked and sourced.  In paragraph 2, the critics are unnamed yet "paranoia" is no sopressure groups.  --Bonarien 00:09, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD drills vs. fire drills in schools 

message: Anyone want to speak to the merge issue?  Tedernst 22:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge? 

message: If anything, this article is too fair and objective. I grew up in L.A. during the Seventies, and we had these drills quite frequently. As early as in the third grade we knew what a farce it was. One day, I recall, as our teacher was giving us the routine "in the event of an emergency" talk, some kid suddenly yelled out, laughing, "You mean if the Russkies nuke us?" The woman immediately snapped back, "I didn't say that," because of course they were under instructions not to "traumatize" us poor tykes. Complete dissociation from reality. Everyone knew that a nuclear attack would make us instant crispy critters. Hence: "In the event of a nuclear attack, get under the desk, cover your head with your hands, and kiss your ass goodbye."
*Duck and cover makes sense. Of course if you are standing 10' from the bomb you will be disintegrated, but further away it will increase your chances of survival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.134.150 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 June
:: "Everyone" knew wrong then. Kids always think they're so clever and know better then adults, nothing new there. People at my high school had similar attitudes about tornado and earthquake drills "Well if a HUGE tornado comes through here we'll all be dead anyway." 130.71.241.182 (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Highly doubtful that you were doing this drill in the 70s in LA - was abandoned long before that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in Southern California the nuclear era 'desk hiding' was rolled into new earthquake preparedness procedures so it's not uncommon for children to confuse the two. Loud sirens, flashing lights, teachers' raised voices, children under desks, practised quarterly. I was a school child in the 60s and 70s. --Mensch (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inane 

message: I entered first grade in suburban Boston in 1971... to my knowledge, no Boston-area schoolchild ever heard of this in the 1970s.  Surely this was phased out most everywhere in the U.S. by the early 1960s? --Wlindley 23:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  West Coast only? 

message: with those, having one after each sentence. Can we drop at least some of those, please? It's heavily distracting.
In U.S. Army basic training in the 1970s, soldiers were taught to fall immediately down, covering face and hands and using their bodies to shield their weapons from the heat of the blast.[citation needed]
This citation needed should be dropped.  It's still actively taught in Marine Corps Basic Training.  Pick up any Basic Instruction manual and you'll be able to find it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.56.34 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "citation needed" 

message: I'm very surprised by ridiculous claim that this is something "unique" to USA.
I remember vividly "Civil Defense" days at elementary school, when we practiced "lay down and cover" with raincoats and plastic bags (to cover hands and feet). "Remember - always feet towards epicentre!"
Unfortunately, I have no evidence aside my own memory from late 1980s Czechoslovakia.
Podlesh 21:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After the meteor of 2012, a news story came out about Yulia Karbysheva, a fourth-grade teacher in Chelyabinsk, who remembered her old cold war drills. When she saw a bright flash in the sky she had her class take shelter under their desks -- so when the shockwave blew in the windows not a single child was hurt. (Ms. Karbysheva remained standing and took a piece of glass in her arm.) Not only was it taught over there, it worked! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/17/world/europe/russians-seek-clues-and-count-blessings-after-meteor-blast.html?_r=0 Wyvern (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique? 

message: It makes me really sad that people criticize the whole "duck and cover" tactic.
I also think that the "in popular culture" section should be taken down. That, or changed to "list of media spoofs and insults", or something like that. 
I hate that section; it's nothing but a list of people and shows that all call the ideal stupid. It's not informative, it's not very encyclopedic, and it is very Biased. I'm not a politically correct person, but the section in question really does violate the "Wikipedia is Neutral" policy. There is nothing neutral about a list of people and shows calling it stupid. It sways opinions.
Really, all that does is fuel the belief that the whole protection theory is ludicrous, and I hate that. To all of you "superiors" and mockers, I bet that if any bomb, not just a nuclear type, exploded, you too would jump under a desk or cower in your cellar, "ducking and covering" just like everyone else. So, unless you have somehow survived an explosive and seen exactly what happens, I would wait and give criticism when criticism is due. That, or do some serious reading.
This isn't just a paranoid video, either.
In the 1950s, WWII just ended, and the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions were still fresh in every one's minds. Russia (then the USSR) was starting to build its nuke-arsenal, and the Cold War was just around the corner.
People lived in fear that a war might break out at any time, and the Air Raid system was established for this reason. In the Blitz of WWII, people in England often had to duck and cover, be in basements or otherwise, to avoid being blasted sky high by Nazi bombers. This tactic is also employed in tornado drills, and I have actually done it for actual tornado purposes. For your information, I have seen, first handed, people saved by this tactic in severe weather, and I've read about it in earthquakes. I say that you need to read. Also, if you've ever heard of "Cuban Missle Crisis", perhaps it would make sense... especially in Florida, where I happen to have some friends living.
On the subject of nukes, however, you have somewhat of a point. Anyone too close to an Atomic Bomb will instantly be vaporized, with no hope of survival. Anyone near the 
fall-out (the zone where radiation sickness occurs) region will suffer a similar fate of radiation sickness.
Yet, if you have ever watched a video of a nuclear weapon exploding, you will notice how blinding it is, and the wall of dust flying outward. This is where ducking and covering comes in handy.
You see, the "flash" mentioned in this video is in fact the blinding light of the bomb undergoing fission. Though the mushroom cloud itself is huge, the fall-out region is enormous, and the light can be seen for miles. Whenever a massive explosion or collision happens, it will send out a high speed, pressurized wall of air and debris with it. This is called a "shock wave", and its force can literally blow off windows and tear down houses without any actual help from the bomb itself. It comes before the bomb, and extends far from the mushroom cloud's reach. It is highly destructive in its own right.
The "flash" can also blind any of its unlucky viewers. Have any of you ever stared at the sun? If you look at it for too long, you can damage your eyes. Now, a nuclear bomb's flash is much brighter than the sun for an instant or so. It will blind in seconds.
Where does ducking and covering come into this?
Okay. Let's think. 
When a shard of glass comes your way at high speeds, what would happen? 
That's right! It would slice you to bits!
Now, if that same shard of glass hit something thick and/or heavy, say... a wall or a desk you are taking shelter in or under, it would collide with the item, and if it managed to penetrate, said projectile would do less damage than if you were out in the open.
I learned in elementary school that covering your face and neck, as well as putting something heavy on top of you, would prevent the ceiling from killing you instantly, or being guillotined from a beam falling from above. It would hurt severely, and you may lose a hand, a leg, or get paralyzed, but would you rather be in an Emergency Room or in a grave?
By getting away from windows and attempting to seek shelter, your chance of surviving would greatly increase.
In the case of a bomb, it's location, location, location. If you are within the blast range or the fall-out, of course you would die. If you are far enough away to survive vaporization or radiation sickness or cancer, that shock wave could still get you.
Before you criticize it, try using some common sense. Anyone who would want a chance of survival would seek some kind of shelter. It's logic!
I would say "duh", but this is an encyclopedia.
I kind of feel like making a userbox that says "this user believes that ducking and covering may save lives", and link it to the actual article (not the talk page).
I believe I've spoken my point, 
TurtleShroom! :) †Jesus Loves You and Died for you!† 21:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Defense of Ducking and Covering (and other things...) 

message: The radiological defense book I had access to in the late 1950s detailed effects of actual atomic bomb tests (early 1950s 20 kiloton range) on material and personnel. Some of the nukes in todays arsenals are that size down to 0.5 kilotons. Not all nukes are megaton city-busters and those are actually hard to deliver. 
But for 1949 to 1954:
* A nuclear attack on Los Angeles for example would target the military bases, not the elementary schools.
* Schools and similar civilian concentrations would generally be miles from the military targets.
* For blast (flying glass or debris) and heat, duck-and-cover at first flash actually would be a practical defense.
Nuclear explosions in the actual tests were not instant universal destruction. At sufficient distance and sometimes with minimal cover material survived. It seems insane that they had soldiers in some of those tests, but soldiers who ducked-and-covered in trenches surprisingly near the test sites survived. The preferred tactic for maximum material damage--air burst--generally sent the radioactive material into the stratosphere so blast and heat were bigger problems that radioactive fallout. Scoffing at duck-and-cover as a first response to nuclear attack is as unrealistic as saying no point in building a tornado shelter, no one can resist a Force Five tornado. Naaman Brown (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  duck and cover needs a realistic appraisal 

message: The New York Times today has a good article about the current U.S. policy; it's not too far from this one.  Might be a good article to use. --Bobak (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latest U.S. gov't policy: 

message: This article states: "assume the fetal position, lying face-down and covering their heads with their hands" Which is it? The fetal position doesn't even resemble "covering their heads with their hands"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.61.140 (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which is it? 

message: The movie shows intergrated classrooms in 1951 with black and white students in the same classroom.  While this may have been somewhat common in Northern cities, it would be unheard of in Southern cities. I wonder if a different version was produced for showing in the Southern states? Seki1949 (talk) 15:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intergrated classrooms 

message: I came here to mention the fact that a lot of POV-pushers have infiltrated this article in an interesting way. There is a lot of blather and fluff that needs rewriting and purging. But I am torn as to how to see this subject even now.
Not too long ago I was reading up about the effects of nuclear weapons. Add to this the facts versus the inevitable propaganda and hype associated with this topic. Nuclear warfare quickly touches political and conspiratorial views, plus societal and emotional sentiments, with a smattering of logic, scientific debate, and the occasional esoteric platitude thrown in for good measure. Yeah, well, so I am stricken by the latter in this case.
It would seem that regardless of the many things you and I know about the effects of nuclear weapons, the truth of the matter is that they can be a lot more bark than bite. Now, I am not trying to minimize the real danger of them, but I think that there is a legitimate discussion to be had about how a nuclear weapon would damage a modern, industrial target.
Recall that the proponents of the bomb always intended them to be used against industrial targets. Yeah, the silly capitalists wanted to target, uh, the infrastructure of capitalism: the city that manufactures products that are in turn necessary for waging war. In today's world the developed nations are producing most of their products in and around city centers, or at least that is where they warehouse and distribute them. So the Bomb needs to be dropped on a city for maximum effectiveness against an enemy state.
The problem is this. A modern city is made of virtually indestructible buildings... reinforced concrete, blocks, bricks, etc. Obviously there are many steel-framed buildings, too, and some of the concrete is poorly designed, but those are considerable stronger than a typical stick-frame house like the one shown on this page. Keep in mind that hospitals and schools are very likely to be some of the strongest buildings in town.
With that background, understand that a lot of work was done estimating the effects of a bomb blast. Stage left: Enter the films of blast waves hitting mock-up homes, people, animals, and trees. Yea for the scientists, they have their blast curves! Let's print them and give them out to the weapons designers and the folks aiming the missiles. The problem is going to be a shock... The blast curves are not accurate; they overstate the amount of damage done to modern cities because they neglect the shielding effect of structures.
There was really no major push to consider the fortification and protection afforded by modern buildings. The blast curves and practically every bomb that was ever test are geared for deserts, tropical islands, and uninproved land. There is no consideration given for the fact that buildings will tend to shield and protect people inside and people and facilities further from ground zero.
Now, this won't be much of a comfort to anyone directly below a blast or someone outside and within the true kill radius. But there is some unknown factor which will greatly attenuate blasts that are inside a modern city, making the likely effects less severe for a great number of people who might be within the kill radius of a bomb dropped on a desert. And so the bombs are more survivable that the hype would suggest, especially at the fringes.
The issue now becomes how a person reacts to the initial flash of light. As much as I might laugh and wryly joke about Duck and Cover hysteria, I am becoming convinced that it does serve a legitimate purpose in a survivable bomb situation. Yeah, there will be vaporized people, and blown away people, and third-degree burn people, and even a few radiation sick people. But there are going to be those who might potentially survive a blast wave with this type of simple counter-measure.
I just wish the POV was left out of the article. While I may be able to write convincing one way or the other, I know that the issue needs to be scrutinized, even agonizingly so, in a way the permits alternative conclusions. I like to saw logs! (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miscellanea 

message: *"Children were lying around with their hands covering their eyes as if they were playing hide-and-seek." Some mention to flash blindness is needed. Many people who experience a flash may be blinded and thus have to "Duck"/drop flat to the ground while temporarily blind.
*Possibly Isamu Inoue, but definitely Shizue Jinno ran into air raid shelter/blast shelters when they heard the B-29 and/or air raid siren overhead at Nagasaki, and survived.
*http://www.asahi.com/hibakusha/english/shimen/happened/happened-02-2.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.239.213 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: flash blindness & shelter effectiveness

message: http://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearexplosion.htm
According to the above, cloudshine is radiation emitted from the mushroom cloud
178.167.196.163 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: I think skyshine may also be termed cloudshine

message: Drawing by Goro Kiyoyoshi of his memories of the Hiroshima attack. “I got on a streetcar of the Kabe line about 8:10 AM. The door was open and I was standing there. As I heard the starting bell ring, I saw a silver flash and heard an explosion over the platform on which l had just walked. Next moment everything went dark. Instinctively I jumped down to the track and braced myself against it. Putting a handkerchief to my mouth, I covered my eyes and ears with my hands.” 
https://archive.org/details/UnforgettableFireDrawingsByAtomicBombSurvivors1967
::A section that lists these cases would be ideal.
::92.251.232.209 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Another survivor used Duck and Cover

message: http://www.johntreed.com/duckandcover.html
Good summary info on it commonly being ridiculed but that the maneuver and those who advocated it, veterans of WWII to the Korean war, were well aware of its capabilities and the various zones in which the countermeasure would be both useless and effective.
178.167.178.178 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs to incorporate

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.floridadisaster.org/hwa03/drill.htm
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ocw.nd.edu/physics/nuclear-warfare/notes/lecture-14
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1999/00/00_matsubara_spirit-hiroshima.php
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.redcross.org/static/file_cont164_lang0_71.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.engr.psu.edu/cde/Short/MPS_course/newpage/Exp-Dam-Ass-1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195238/http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf to http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013191113/http://www.kombe-jarvis.com/japan.html to http://www.kombe-jarvis.com/japan.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111103357/http://orise.orau.gov/csepp/documents/planning/reports/misc-reports/paperSIP010406.pdf to http://orise.orau.gov/csepp/documents/planning/reports/misc-reports/paperSIP010406.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170207061152/http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf to http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417000807/http://www.cusec.org/earthquake-safety/drop-cover-a-hold.html to http://www.cusec.org/earthquake-safety/drop-cover-a-hold.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514044534/http://pisd.edu/about.us/safety/disaster.policy.shtml to http://www.pisd.edu/about.us/safety/disaster.policy.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221012916/http://www.canada.com/news/Meteor+explodes+over+Russia+Ural+Mountains+injured+shock+wave+blasts+windows/7968297/story.html to http://www.canada.com/news/Meteor+explodes+over+Russia+Ural+Mountains+injured+shock+wave+blasts+windows/7968297/story.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316000711/http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1184.html to https://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1184.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170307092351/http://collections.stanford.edu/atomicenergy/bin/detail?fileID=394848179 to http://www.collections.stanford.edu/atomicenergy/bin/detail?fileID=394848179
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This entire article is an exercise in proving that “scientists” and the US government have little to no understanding of war, weapons, or ballistics. This entire article is cargo cult craziness aimed at the obsessive people who want to try to ensure they will somehow survive a hydrogen bomb going off a mile away from them. The people who survived attacks who are cited in the article are so clearly random as to be outwardly laughable. It is true that at least one person has been in a situation around a nuclear bomb in which ducking and covering likely saved their lives. However the real savior in all those events is not the act of ducking, but rather the topography, the nature of the explosive, and the ballistics of the explosion that put those few people in a position where ducking actually would make a difference. Plenty of people ducked and covered and got cooked like a thanksgiving turkey anyway, because that is how munitions work. It’s like taking examples of air raids in which people saved themselves by crossing the street and changing the ballistic angles of shrapnel and saying that because these people clearly saved their lives everyone should focus first on crossing the street during all potential air raids. If you are close enough to the blast to be seriously imperiled, even the scientists admit that ducking and covering will only change a .01% survival rate into a .02%, while if you are far away ducking and covering changes a 94% survival rate into a 95% survival rate. You can use those statistics as proof that ducking and covering is the most important move you can make, or you can be straight up with people and actually teach them about the weapons we all point at each other. Talk to actual soldiers about the laughable drills for the potential of being on the battlefield during a tactical nuclear weapon strike and you will soon realize how much of this government research is all claptrap. I understand this article is edited by busybodies who desperately want hope and something tangible they can do about a nuclear blast, but you have to understand that this is all an exercise in wishful thinking and a waste of time. If you are going to somehow be close to a nuclear weapon detonation, you are likely dead. That’s why they build nuclear weapons. Superpowers don’t build and maintain them because they are easy to survive. If you are far enough away to not die you will likely not die. If you cannot come to an understanding with those simple facts no pamphlet from 1950 is going to save you. Puma6374 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: AGREED not just foolish but biased in a way which contradicts Wikipedia policy. I added a few facts to back up what Puma6374 mentions: "It's worth noting that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions were "atom bombs" which are much weaker than nuclear hydrogen devices, also known as "H-bombs", by a factor of 1000 or more. The force of the bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was equivalent to 16 kilotons (16,000 tons) and 21 kilotons of TNT, respectively. On November 1, 1952, the US detonated the first hydrogen bomb at Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands. Codenamed "Mike," the bomb produced the energy equivalent of about 10 megatons — or 10 million tons of TNThttps://www.businessinsider.com/how-hydrogen-bombs-work-invented-edward-teller-2023-8?op=1Detonated by the Soviet Union in 1961, the Tsar bomb created a 50 megaton explosion — nearly 1,500 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combinedhttps://www.businessinsider.com/how-hydrogen-bombs-work-invented-edward-teller-2023-8?op=1 I propose most of the references to Hiroshima and Nagasaki be removed as they were very far below destructive nuclear capacities just seven years afterwards. Cuvtixo (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foolish tone.