Talk:Duck and cover

Speed of Sound?

"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)

In response to some of the chatter here, a great many people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki survived. It is not impossible to survive a nuclear attack. Getting behind something as fast as you can is better than doing nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.160.37 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Those wacky Americans

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)

In fact this strategy must works where you will need to improvise. The first danger by a nuclear weapons is the shock effect, if you duck and cover your chances to survives are high, not for the radioactive protection (yes but a little) but for earthquakes, flying debris (mainly glasses and broken windows) and for protect of the shock. Before the shock effect you must look some shelter, you will have from 7h-9h to do it before the fallout... and if you can obtain a secure shelter then you must survive at least 2-3 weeks inside it. This will be the worst part ^__^

The another options is to run (opposing to the wind) and pray for the wind don't change the direction.

Even when duck and cover is a simplist way to say it, it's a effective way to explain the most common oportunity. Of course is way better to be inside a 1meter-leaded shelter with a suply of air, food and such but for many people we will be very short of options.

--Magallanes 01:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ While most people of the world do not consider themselves superior to the people of the USA - your government, MSM and Power Elites clearly do. Otherwise, the powers-that-be would never have produced a film supporting nuclear war. With a very minimum of 20 million dead, does anyone here believe that to Duck and Cover would protect them from the long-term effects of fallout from a 'limited' nuclear attack? 84.13.14.75 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC) ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

-

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)

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)

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)

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)

CD drills vs. fire drills in schools

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)

merge?

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

• No. I created and worked very hard on the film article, and so did many others. If something is important enough to be in the National Film Registry, it deserves its own article. :) -Litefantastic 04:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• True that.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.47.128.202 (talk) 19:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Inane

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)

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)

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)

West Coast only?

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)

"citation needed"

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)

Unique?

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)

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)

Masonic Eye

Just watched this video and was intrigued by the image used after the credits. It's attached. This looks very similar to the All Seeing Eye, which I know is frequently brought up in conspiracy theories and stuff like that. Anyway, is there a spot for this observation on this page? I don't really know anything about it beyond the fact that it is there.

File:Duck and Cover End Title.jpg Hendo1769 20:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The triangle in a circle had been the Civil Defense logo since 1951 and is the international symbol. I wouldn't put that on the page. --GABaker 20:27 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks. Hendo1769 22:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

In Defense of Ducking and Covering (and other things...)

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)

Ok. The assessment is simply misleading. "Within a considerable radius—depending on the explosion's height and yield—ducking and covering would offer negligible protection against the intense heat, shock waves, and radiation following a nuclear explosion." Negligible meaning not practically different than doing nothing. Source here: Real life example Hiroshima destructive radius of total destruction 1 mile, Closest known survivor Akiko Takakura 300M from ground 0 saved by the building she was in. But the entry of Yoshitaka Kawamoto should stand the most testament. He was only a kilometer away from ground 0, well within the total destruction zone, meaning he had approximately 3 seconds between the visible explosion and the arrival of the blast. A number of his classmates survive the collapse of the school. To give you an idea, at 1km radius blast area is about 3km² at 1 mile radius blast area is about 8km² meaning that more of the area WITHIN the radius of total destruction was as far or further out than Kawamoto and his classmates. All of the people in that area potentially benefit from "Duck and Cover". And that is just the total destruction zone, the light damage zone is much much larger such that the entirety of the total destruction zone (less than half of which is practicably unsurvivable) makes up only about 10% of the area of the blast. So think about that, in a dense population center, OVER 90% of the people potentially effected by the nuclear blast would benefit from "Duck and Cover"

Considering the total destruction radius is less than a third of the blast radius, and more than 90% of the effected area benefits from "Duck and Cover" The statement "Within a considerable radius..." is misleading to the point of either being deliberately deceptive or so uniformed about explosions and their effects that they should steer clear of writing about them.

Unless someone responds with a serious, scientifically based cite in the next couple of days, I will change the opening of this assessment to be more realistic. Yes I did work in the nuclear weapons business.

Next, unless someone can cite me a pole showing most people believe that the purpose behind the civil exercises was "less practical use than psychological use to keep the danger of nuclear war high on the public mind" I will change the opening of that sentence from "The exercises of civil defense are now seen" to "Some people now believe the civil defense exercises "

Mikethemoose (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Parody

I can't remeber how it went, but there was a popular parady that ended "and put your head between your knees and kiss your ass goodbye".

It would be interesting to have a section about the paradys in the article.

Wendingwanderer (talk) 07:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)WendingWanderer

I agree. I have two more Soviet jokes:

- What should a Soviet soldier do in an event of a nuclear explosion near?

- To stand up and keep his rifle in front of him on outstretched arms, to prevent the red-hot iron from dripping on his state boots!

and

- What should I do after the blast?

- First duck yourself, cover with a white sheet and slowly crawl to the cemetery!

- Why "slowly"??

- So you wouldn't create panic among others!

--Yuriy Lapitskiy ~ 17:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

duck and cover needs a realistic appraisal

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)

Technically speaking if you are in a tornado shelter and you take a direct hit from a category 5 tornado you are dead no matter what Puma6374 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Latest U.S. gov't policy:

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)

Which is it?

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)

Intergrated classrooms

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)

Miscellanea

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)

Agree with the above, and would like to suggest improvements. I came to the page interested in duck-and-cover in terms of the broader debate on nuclear weapons/policy. I had no idea the technique is useful. At the same time, those who mock the technique have a potentially valid point of view in that the publicizing of the technique may have had some political effects, that is, in discouraging anti-nuclear opinions among some U.S. citizens (and maybe elsewhere). Certainly, the anti-nuclear movement made extensive political use of the matter. I realize wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and pop culture aspects must be controlled. In this case, however, duck-and-cover has had a huge presence in pop culture/politics. For example, I don't remember being taught the technique when in school (1970s New England), and given the info here, I assume that's because the matter had become politicized, thus it was much easier to retire the drills, especially given declining concern regarding nuclear attack (and the lack of tornadoes in that region). Readers who are strongly anti-nuclear weapons might not read the page far enough to learn anything. I'd recommend an earlier statement to the effect that criticism of the technique was partly due to a misperception as to its aims, following by a link to a separate section or page about the contested politics of duck and cover. That section/page should include some of the more prominent pop culture references. ProfessorAndro (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hiroshima Book citation?

I believe the paragraph that mentions the book Hiroshima (John Hersey) is incorrect. I just read through the book and no where does it mention police going to Nagasaki to train them about the duck and cover technique. 2 possiblites...I can't read and it needs a proper citation, or it's not real information and needs to be taken off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.152.127 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, what copy do you have, as there is also the magazine version, maybe the person who wrote that paragraph was referring to that, or maybe they were referring to the USSBS: US strategic bombing survey, reports?

86.44.239.203 (talk) 08:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Shelter in place

Shelter in place (SAME code: SPW) is the use of a structure and its indoor atmosphere to temporarily separate individuals from a hazardous outdoor atmosphere. It entails closing all household doors, windows and vents and taking immediate shelter in a readily accessible location, such as a basement or central medium to small room, and trying to make it as airtight as possible by shutting off all ventilation/HVAC systems and extensively sealing the shelter's doors and windows from all outside air contaminants with damp towels, or if available, plastic sheeting and adhesive tape. Diagrams of what sheltering in place entails following a (CBRN)Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear threat, and how long it is advised to be done for, is provided by the FEMA affiliated website ready.gov.

Shelter-in-place effectiveness has been evaluated and experimental results show that proper sealing can make a substantial difference to a normal home shelter, finding it to be at least twice as effective against a host of airborne substances when compared against simply staying inside and not implementing the countermeasure, and in most airborne contaminant cases, it is usually much more effective, depending on the particle size of the substance in question. If the occupant's breathing produced carbon dioxide is the only consumer of oxygen in the room then carbon dioxide levels would not begin to reach dangerous values until 3+ hours had passed, in all likely, 4 family home, scenarios.

In the military, "Shelter-in-Place" is comparable to "buttoning up" and has proved life saving in many instances.

If an individual finds themselves outside during an emergency that calls for shelter-in-place, then effective but low-tech decontamination is required before entering into the shelter.

In practice, depending on the exact situation, everyone within a specific distance of the airborne incident may be ordered to shelter in place or people within a closer range may be ordered to evacuate while everyone else shelters in place to minimize public exposure as much as possible. Sheltering in place is generally only used for a short period of time, typically a few hours. However it can be extended if the occupants are equipped with common drain cleaner that contains sodium hydroxide- which is an effective carbon dioxide scrubber in addition to self contained oxygen candles or the more common welding Oxygen tanks, both of which also have the added benefit of producing and maintaining a shelter positive pressure which keeps any shelter leaks, leaking out rather than leaking in.

The phrase has also erroneously been used, instead of the more accurate lockdown, to describe precautions to be taken by the public when violence has occurred or might occur (particularly in shootings) in the area and the perpetrator is believed to still be in the area but not apprehended. The public in the area is advised to carry out all the same tasks as a typical shelter-in-place but without the key step of sealing the shelter up to prevent outside air from circulating indoors, in this scenario people are simply urged to lockdown - stay indoors and "close, lock and stay away from external doors and windows."

flash blindness & shelter effectiveness

• "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)

There's been improvements made by various IP users to the Lucky Dragon 5 & Kuwait oil fires articles recently that might be worth considering. 92.251.133.92 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

article suggestions

That duck and cover has its origins in advice given to soldiers and civilians during, and probably prior to, WWII. To reduce the lethality of conventional bombs and bombing, and that just like nuclear bombs, conventional bombs similarly have various probability of killing/lethality zones for standing adult males/soldiers in the open at particular distances.

Although conventional bombs are limited in energy when compared to nuclear weapons, due to the unlikelihood that a nuclear weapon would be detonated directly beside the individual, but some distance away, the duck and cover countermeasure has greater efficacy under a nuclear attack scenario than a conventional strategic bombing - as the space of time between observing first light, being stunned in surprise by the explosion and the arrival of potentially lethal blast and flash burn effects is sufficiently long to permit a slower reaction response time from first light to completing a duck and cover maneuver.

The psychological sense of awe from observing a large, and oft described as beautiful,[chicago ref & others] explosion is chief amongst the distractions that usually prevent individuals from hitting the deck immediately, particularly so for megaton class explosions.

What countries was it taught in, for how long & how frequent?

We have indirect evidence that Duck and Cover was taught at some point in time to those who are 20 and older in Russia, due to the response of Yulia at Chelyabinsk in 2013. There is also a prior Czechoslovakia wiki user here in the talk page archive that describes the advice also being given in that former Soviet republic.

According to this alleged 1950-60s child, the film was shown roughly every year in the 1960s and although he's not very clear on this latter bit, but they appeared to practice fire drills weekly and perhaps rolled duck and cover practice up with the fire drill.[1]

Real aim of Duck and Cover was to protect nuclear policy

“Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb... The *Bomb*, Dmitri... The *hydrogen* bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Dmitri... Let me finish, Dmitri... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Dmitri?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?... *Of course* I like to speak to you!... *Of course* I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call..." (See how long before some nuclear war supporter takes this down)

84.13.14.75 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

A British couple wearing gas masks in their home in 1941

You should really get your head out of the fiction section Dr.Strangelove. Saying that it was to protect US policy is like saying the British were attempting to protect their weapons policy in WWI-WWII when they issued citizens with masks on some occasions & info on how to use them in anticipation of planes bombing them with gas. It appears that only in the area of nuclear matters do you have all manner of wacky ulterior motives being seen by folks like yourself.

178.167.254.79 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Only someone with no understanding of history would think that those gas masks had real world applications. Tell all the british people who died in conventional air raids about the terror of gas bombs. Puma6374 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I think skyshine may also be termed cloudshine

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)

"Skyshine" is a technical term for gamma rays that reach a target from all directions because of scattering in the atmosphere, as opposed to those rays that travel to the target in a straight line from the fireball. See Glasstone and Dolan, Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd ed, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1977, §8.44 and Fig. 8.45a. Jessegalebaker (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Another survivor used Duck and Cover

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)

Port Chicago info removed and supplanted with near identical case

In a rare example of binksternet actually trying to make a productive contribution to articles I have essentially re-written entirely by myself, he removed the following and simply inserted the similar, but less direct halifax story. with one such incident being the 1944 Port Chicago explosion, where about 4,600 tons (4,173 metric tons) of chemical explosive accidentally detonated in a series of events. Survivor, Robert Routh, reported enjoying the sight of the wonderfully bright fireball and then suddenly never seeing anything again, as following the blast arriving, he was permanently blinded by the window he was viewing the fireball from, shards of which pierced his eyes and face. I'll leave his edit there for the time being, although as can be seen, it actually fails in getting the full point across, contrary to Routh's story. I will be summarizing the Halifax story, stating it was known after that, and merging the two stories as time permits.

References

Significant cleanup needed

I tried to clean up this article, but there appears to be a lot of problems with it, some of which may be related to how the article was written and the information therein. The sources being cited may not all be reliable, though most appear to be, and this article may need some review by an expert. I wish I could do more, but this is out of the scope of my expertise. I've added a template header for now, though more may be added in the future if needed. I'll continue to work on this page, but I can only do so much with what little I know, and it'll probably be exclusively copy editing. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits have inserted unreferenced and misleading falsehoods that have included the insertion of this laughably incorrect and totally unsourced statement: "This individual, like many others fully exposed to the blast, were instantly vaporized; many left carbon imprints at the place of their vaporization."

Really, please take a physics class before editing again. I'm sure you could find some basement level reference that says people were insta-vaporized etc. but no physics or educated medical reference will. I could explain to you why this did not happen, and how it could not have happened, but unless you honestly acknowledge "this is out of the scope of my expertise" again, I don't see the point in helping you out.

Secondly, While the reference style is indeed sloppy at times, that does not give you the freedom to remove references entirely. You will hopefully note that were you did improve the way a reference is cited, I have attempted to keep your improved way of citing it. However you unfortunately did more harm than good in a lot of your citations, such as removing time-stamps from referenced videos and in terms of the "Nuclear Matters" & "Planning Guidance" references to specific quotes and figures found in those documents, you also removed them too.

Thirdly, I really mean it when I said that your edits have inserted a myriad of misleading statements that required a total reversion. For example, you don't have to venture far to find the first, in the very intro/lede of this article you also wrote "It is also used during the event of a sudden earthquake or tornado when emergency evacuation is not an option". Yet, not a single reference states "Duck and cover" specifically is used to deal with either of those two things. In my recent edit of the article I am actually careful to state exactly what earthquakes and tornadoes have to do with "duck and cover" and why they're even mentioned in this article to begin with.

I could go on, but this type of thing was really so endemic that a total re-editing was necessary.

31.200.186.10 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have specific instances of this? I have only been removing references which do not comply with Wikipedia's policies on citations. Citing *.GIFs and images are not acceptable, and a lot of the references were to extraneous or otherwise inappropriate and superfluous information. A lot of this content moreover violates WP:NOTHOWTO, among other policies. If you have specific concerns, then please propose them here, or edit them in. Removing all of the work of numerous editors doesn't help. As for the vaporization claim, that was an addition I made from my knowledge about the effects of the fireball during a nuclear explosion, as well as the numerous images depicting so-called "nuclear shadows" of people left when the atomic bomb hit. You don't need to remove that part, since I already have. Please assume good faith, however, and keep in mind that a lot of the work I did was just cleaning up the problems previous editors left. A number of claims, many unsourced, were retain for the time being because they were there previously. I simply reworded them, and have been planning to start searching for references. If I made a mistake, it may have not came from me. Even if it did, I can assure you it wasn't intentional.

Having said that, I've restored the current iteration. Please don't do a blanket revert again. We can discuss this later, after I've had some sleep (I've been up for a long time). There's no rush, especially on such a low-trafficked, low-importance, forgotten article like this. We can continue this together later, alright? I'm glad that you want to improve this article, and I hope that we can accomplish this together. If you'd like, we can collaborate tomorrow (if I'm available, but I'll be busy, so perhaps in 1.5–2 days from now) and ensure that we both improve this article. In the mean time, while I'm away, please refrain from blanket reverts and removals. If you wish to edit the article in its current state, even to the point of adding or removing substantial content, then that is your choice. Keep in mind, however, that disruptive editing is not tolerated. Oh, and maybe consider creating an account (or logging in) so that we can keep better track of each other from hereon out. That's just a suggestion, though, so feel free to ignore that last bit. Have a great day/night! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as you have elaborated, I'll elaborate: I removed some timestamps because they were unnecessary and usually not common practice in citations from what I could see. I did change the video link to actually go to the specific time in question, however, and the conclusion of that section should be obvious from the video's contents. I removed the specific quotes because if I didn't, the same page would have to be cited multiple times, which is incredibly poor practice. I (or you or someone else) could add a separate note where necessary to clarify what passage in particular is important to note, but to do this within the citation itself is problematic because so many different quotations are cited. If we included them all in a single citation, the citation would be so large, obtrusive, and confusing that it would render the citation unwieldy. Thus, it's best to either remove the quoted text and let the reader find it (which is extremely easy), or to add it in a separate note. I opted for the former at that time because I was going to go over and add notes where necessary after I was done with the major revisions, seeing as quotation notes are unnecessary and a lesser priority than actual content revision.

I actually did cite in the body numerous drills and similar procedures used in the event of tornadoes and earthquakes, in Duck and cover § Procedure. I was going elaborate on this later, but was sidetracked to addressing more important matters on far more notable articles (see my contributions). Keep in mind that, as you can see, I never got down to the sections about tornadoes and earthquakes—I stopped just short of it, which was intended for my second "major cleanup" the following day. I intend on expanding on this part soon. You are right on one point, however, namely that the current description in the lead claims that "duck and cover" is a procedure used during earthquakes and tornadoes. This is technically not true; a similar procedure is used. I have corrected the article lead to reflect this.

If you wish to include your content. I recommend merging it into mine and the other editors whose work I haven't touched yet. I don't want you to feel like your work has gone to waste, and I don't want you to feel like your work isn't worthwhile to include. I don't mind you merging it into my work and stitching it together until we can address it more in-depth later. If you encounter a conflict between your work and mine, then use your discretion to consider whether it's necessary to replace your work with mine, or whether it's suitable to keep until we can collaborate. In my opinion, only if one of the claims in the current article is so egregiously bad as to be 100% false, and your replacement claim is vital to the article's contents, then replace it. Otherwise, it's probably best to just leave it for now. We can discuss this matter further, and I can review your changes, tomorrow or in two days.

This article is still a work in progress, after all, and the page isn't viewed very much. (Compare other pages to see how insignificant this is.) I hate to put this all off, by the way, but I am very tired and was just about to go to bed when you showed up on my watchlist. I hope you understand. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You have once again made this article into a shambles. I have already explained to you why I had to do the edits I did. I have also already given you "specific instances of this". My edit broke down the article into headings and subheadings and kept original pertinent content in its place, including gifs made by REMM, a reputable source.

You on the other hand have chosen to delete these reputable sources and have once again put the article into a state that includes totally misleading information, for example again, I didn't have to go past the 2nd sentence of the lede to find your nonsensical unsourced claptrap about duck and cover being used in earthquake and tornadoes scenarios. When it is not. I fixed that, but unsurprisingly once again you've reverted the article back to your error filled mess.

I'm really not in the mood to spell out each case of error on your part, piece-by-piece as we'll be here for days! Moving from the lede into the beginning of the body of the article, I also removed the tag you put in, as it is not needed in my edit etc. I could go on and on ad nauseum. So listen, you know I fixed the vast majority of the errors you have put in, yet you resist the error-free content being visible to readers?

So really what is your opposition to my edit? As you didn't even read my initial edit at 02:20 you just felt it was a "blanket revert" and undid it within 8 minutes, not enough time to even read the new article and compare it to its previous state, so forgive me for seeing your conduct as one of inertia & WP:OWN. Indeed your recent edits would be classed as disruptive editing, and as you can imagine, I won't tolerate them, neither would the dispute resolution board. You're even here admitting that you don't find this article important and you "got side-tracked" with your allegedly exceedingly more "notable" contributions. That's supposed to re-assure me that you're careful with this article, how exactly?

Get some rest, you really aren't thinking straight. I will be here tomorrow night to put the article back into its superior state, without your misleading claptrap sown throughout it.

First, I'd like to apologize for yesterday. I was indeed very tired, and as a result I mistook your edits as massive reversion. Although it is true that you appeared to revert a lot of my work, I don't think that was your entire purpose. You appeared to add a lot of more content. Due to your edit summary, however, I mistook your edit as just a mass reversion. Whenever an IP does add substantial content, I'm suspicious, since vandalism is so common and a lot of the time, it's done by IPs. I decided that it was best to wait until later, and I'm glad you did. I know it must have been frustrating, but I appreciate it. Having said that, I don't mind you adding or removing content, even my content. We need to take things slower, though, since there are now two active editors on this article.

Having said that, your hostile attitude really isn't necessary. I understand that there may be significant flaws in the article, but keep in mind that the majority of my work was simply cleanup. You're blaming me for the past mistakes of others. I normally wouldn't care a whole lot, but seeing as we'll be working together, I'd rather you not continue your collaboration under the impression that I'm some idiot filling this article with unsourced crap. That's how I found the article. I have been cleaning it up, but I haven't been doing much about the article's claims. This is because, first and foremost, I am not very knowledgeable on this topic. Secondly, I thought it would be more important to clean the article first, and proceed to edit the content later. This is because I'm much better at the latter, and it would give me time to research in preparation for the former. Seeing as you noticed some of the changes I made to the article in terms of citation cleanup, however, I don't see why you're still blaming me for the article's contents. Unless you skipped over a vast majority of the changes, or you misunderstood them, you should be able to see that I didn't actually add much of anything, with the exception of content about tornadoes and earthquakes in the lead. Most of my work was deleting superfluous or otherwise unnecessary content.

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here, but like I already said, using images as citations is not common practice, nor is it acceptable. If an image is included, it is included as an image. Many of these images better belong on other articles, such as the ones linked in this article. I removed them because even though they are from reliable sources, you do not cite images except under very specific circumstances. Usually, images are embedded, but not linked to, in an article. As for the tornadoes and earthquakes bit, I've already explained why I kept it above, as well as my rationale for it. It's not "claptrap" or anything of the sort. Did you even look at the sources which were provided?

No, I don't "know" your content fixed errors. All I knew at the time I reverted it was that it as a whole bunch of changes, and a lot of content was removed. Your edit summary didn't help, seeing as you called me "arrogant" and derided my work. If you want to work on this page, then let's work on it together. Treating me like a child, behaving uncivilly, and assuming bad faith won't get us anywhere. So please drop the deprecatory remarks. In the mean time, I'll review your changes and I'll see whether to submit the whole edit, or let you know to only submit some while we discuss the rest. I don't own this article, but I am concerned when an IP comes in and adds 9,036 bytes to an article. Seeing as you seem so versed in Wikipedia policies, however, I don't see why you remain an IP. People would be less suspicious of your intent if you were signed in. My edits have not been disruptive, however, so there is no need to accuse anyone of that. If you wish to take this to an administrator, then feel free to do so. I don't think that admin would approve of your behavior either. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

First review: Lead

I've been reviewing your changes. Some of them are worthy to keep, but a lot of it involves simply reverting my wording and reintroducing extraneous information. For example, Here are the two leads, the first being the current one (mine):

"Duck and cover" is a safety precaution most notably used for personal protection against the effects of a nuclear explosion. Similar procedures are also used during the event of a sudden earthquake or tornado when emergency evacuation is not an option. Ducking and covering is useful in conferring a degree of protection to practitioners outside the radius of the nuclear fireball but still within sufficient range of the nuclear explosion that standing upright is likely to cause serious injury or death. As a countermeasure to the lethal effects of nuclear explosions, it is most effective in the both the event of a surprise nuclear attack and a nuclear attack of which the public has received sufficient warning, typically between a few seconds to minutes before the nuclear weapon strikes, as given by a system such as the Pinetree Line in the United States or the four-minute warning in the United Kingdom. This countermeasure is intended to replace emergency evacuation when the latter would no longer be viable. In the cases of earthquakes and tornadoes, ducking and covering can prevent injury or death which may otherwise occur if no safety precautions are taken.

This is your proposed lead:

"Duck and cover" is a method of personal protection against the near prompt effects of a nuclear explosion. Ducking and covering is useful in conferring a degree of protection to practitioners, unprotected by other means, situated outside the radius of the nuclear fireball but who still are within sufficient range of the nuclear explosion that death or injury would be certain. As a countermeasure to the lethal effects of nuclear explosions, it is effective in the event of both a surprise nuclear attack, which might come at any time without warning, and in the more likely event of sufficient warning of a few seconds to minutes being given by a missile detection system such as the Pinetree Line, time enough to enter a bomb shelter but not enough advance notice to permit an effective evacuation.

These are the problems I'm seeing with your proposal:

• Although you are correct that the original wording of "duck and cover" being a "method of personal protection" as compared to a "safety precaution" is better, I don't see any reason why you're removing the information about tornadoes and earthquakes. Not only is the relevant to the article, and it's true that similar methods are used, but you even kept the sections about "duck and cover" being used in natural disasters. Why is that? If it's in the article, it should be mentioned in the lead. Otherwise, that content should be removed altogether so that "duck and cover" remains as a historical article exclusively about what to do during a surprise nuclear attack.
• You also reverted a lot of the cleanup on wording that I did without any justifiable reason to do so. The wording in the original and in your proposal is poor English and difficult to read. For example, there is no reason to specify "which might come at any time without warning". This sounds like scaremongering propaganda or sensationalist reporting, neither of which belongs in an encyclopedia. The entire sentence in which this clause in situated is poor English, hence why I revised it.
• There is no reason to actually link to Element of surprise. That automatically redirects to Surprise (emotion), a general emotion of no relation to this article. There is no article describing surprise military attacks, let alone nuclear ones, on Wikipedia. The closest is Principles of war and List of military strategies and concepts, neither of which has a section or subsection on surprise attacks. This is why I removed it from the article, and this is why it shouldn't be re-added per your proposal.

What is your rationale for these changes? Why did you remove the content about tornadoes and earthquakes, while keeping it in the article (which is not how it works)? Why did you arbitrarily change the sentence structure to be worse? You added some important information which could be added to the lead, but the way you did—along with your deletion of otherwise important information—renders your lead inferior. I can continue reviewing your proposal, but let's start here. Your other changes are more substantial, and will require more discussion. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to respond anytime, 31.200.186.10 (talk). Meanwhile, I guess I'll review your other changes and continue working. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 12:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not too concerned with the rejigging of sentences as long as the message, in its entirety, remains present. One man's "poor English" is another's "clear and all-encompassing". So knock yourself out in that respect. In response to your query about why I removed the tangentially related material on Earthquakes & Tornadoes from the lead, well I wonder if you've caught it yet, it is tangentially related and as we do not have any reliable sources that mention Duck & Cover along with Earthquakes or Tornado(E&T) countermeasures in the same breath, they should not be in the lead of an article about Duck and Cover, as that truly is bad practice. It would be great if we did have a reliable reference that did link the two, but as it stands now, the E&T material just about warrants being in the body of the article, but definitely not in the lede, not least because we have far more important and fully referenced material to get across in the lead, instead of that stuff on E&Ts. Do you disagree?

Secondly, with respect to Surprise, there is a reason to link to Surprise (emotion), as that is exactly the feeling one would be experiencing in the event of a surprise nuclear attack, and it is the exact emotional state one would find themselves in during the crucial few seconds that they must complete the Duck and Cover maneuver, which is, the subject of this article. Not so much about the military tactic of surprising someone offensively.

Thirdly you have written - If an image is included, it is included as an image. Many of these images better belong on other articles, such as the ones linked in this article. I removed them because even though they are from reliable sources, you do not cite images except under very specific circumstances - My primary concern with your edits is this removal of well referenced material. While you say there is some sort of golden wikirule about not citing images, in a technical article such as this, citing images of graphs is fundamental, do you disagree? So you'll have to come up with a better reason why you've blanked all these references to pertinent graphs provided by REMM/Radiation Emergency Medical Management www.remm.nlm.gov etc. Moreover you'll also have to give me a reason why you went to the extent of not only doing the above, but once you were finished whittling the ref list down in support of the fact in the article's sentence, you took the truly incoherent step to ascribe the once well cited fact as some kind of fringe "Theoretical physicist" opinion, rather than the well established fully corroborated by REMM etc fact, that it is.

Fourthly what you have communicated in your People would be less suspicious of your intent if you were signed in paragraph, is that, you are telling me you just assumed bad faith because I was an IP editor, and that because I am an IP my motives are suspect. I find that this is just another example of the unwarranted prejudice IP editors routinely confront on a daily basis on this site. Believe me, if you spend long enough on this side of the fence, you'll soon find that it is the registered users who are the most biased and destructive to this project. As the juvenile vandalism perpetrated by IPs is automatically fixed by BOTs, so the true destruction is therefore that of motived editing. So as you can imagine, the most effective at ensuring that their bias edits go unrectified are those very registered users who are in the Gentleman's club so to speak. Believe me, try being an IP for a while, you'll see what I mean.

I recognise that you may, despite your aforementioned prejudices, have good intentions. However I still find it incomprehensible why you're even editing on an article that you are openly unfamiliar with? While you know that I have recognised, and therefore kept in, every instance that your edits sentence construction is superior to what was there previously in the article. I strongly feel it would best serve this article if you simply stayed to that realm, and just didn't go near the reference deleting arena. Is this unreasonable? If we could agree on the above, I think we could genuinely improve the article with your flair for sentence composition.

31.200.157.49 (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I also see that since your review of the lead above, that you have finally acknowledged that the longer procedure section that I penned, was superior to your own and you used my edit for this section to improve the article. I appreciate this new found display of professionalism on your behalf. As prior to this edit you had simply blanked this edit of mine without rhyme or reason. " 23 April 2015‎ Nøkkenbuer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (72,137 bytes) (+2,129)‎ . . (fixed next section using the edit provided by IP) "

31.200.163.187 (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm the same IP as above and re-wrote the lead again. Let me know what you think?

92.251.190.243 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It appears Nokkenbuer is no longer interested, that's a shame I was looking forward to collaborating as I noted above.

178.167.206.134 (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Refs to incorporate

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)

"See also" and "See related" sections

Hello 185.51.***.***

In early December I spent about an hour going through the "See also" and "See related" sections. I checked to see if any of the links in those sections were present in the body of the article. There were many, and as those two sections were excessively-large, I removed the duplicates per WP:SEEALSO. Once the duplicates were removed, I replaced redirects with their targets, then placed the remaining items in alphabetical order. Dawnseeker2000 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, but the articles linked in the see also were arranged together in related categories, and injecting an alphabetical order simply destroys that arrangement.

109.125.16.122 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

These "See also" sections have a tendency to grow. The same is true for the "External links" sections. Many editors add to these sections, but few take on the task of reducing items, even if they're not operational. The sections often get to the point where it seems like it's a good idea to create subsections and/or group by category. Look, if the article's "See also" or "External links" section needs subsections, that's the point where we should realize that the quantity is just excessive. At that point, work needs to be done to integrate the items into the article with the section "See also" templates or into the text. Dawnseeker2000 03:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Reaction times

"R. A. Langevin and others in 1958 compared the ability of trained troops and the untrained civilian population to duck and turn away, covering exposed skin (Operations Research, vol. 6, p. 710). Trained troops duck and cover in 0.75 second when a very bright flash occurs. The untrained civilians fared less well: 2% protected themselves within 1 second, 15% by 2 seconds, 50% by 3 seconds, 70% by 4 seconds, 80% by 5 seconds, 90% by 7 seconds, but 7.5% are still fully exposed at 10 seconds after detonation. The young and the old react most slowly if they lack clear simple knowledge of the dangers. Langevin shows that even this untrained protective reaction increases the amount of energy required to cause burns to an exposed population, especially in the case of high-yield weapons which expose the most people." Boundarylayer (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you best sign in, self.

185.51.75.43 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} 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 {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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:

• 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 {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Foolish tone.

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)

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 TNTDetonated 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 combined 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)

• The entire article is a rambling mishmash. EEng 00:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)