• eestileib@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    12 days ago

    Duck and cover was supposed to reduce casualties in the relative outer regions of the blast damage area (which are by far the largest).

    • booly@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      12 days ago

      Yeah, a nuclear blast is gonna be totally deadly within a particular radius, no matter what you do. And then at some larger radius, everything outside that radius will be safe, regardless of what you do. So the area in between is going to be the area where the response can make a difference.

      And as you mention, the area of the “can actually make a difference” zone is much larger than the “dead-no-matter-what” zone, because it scales by the square of the distance. So if the outer safe radius is twice the inner death radius, the area of the in between zone is gonna be about 3 times the size of the death zone (π(2r)^2 - πr^2 = 3πr). If it’s 3 times the radius, it’ll be 8 times the area.

    • Randelung@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      12 days ago

      People only think about extremes. Why do we need seatbelts on a plane? Well, not for the crash, for the tons of turbulence you don’t think about because you’re wearing your seatbelt when they happen.

    • Mostly_Gristle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      12 days ago

      Just keeping people away from the windows could potentially prevent hundreds of thousands of injuries from burns and flying glass in the survivable area of the blast radius. It’d be really hard to overstate what a massive difference that could make when it comes to allocating medical resources in the aftermath.