Talk:Duck and Cover

	This Films related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

Comment

One can make a good case that, as a way of reducing anxiety over something that individuals had absolutely no control over, it did serve a legitimate purpose. Researcher 18:31, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps, but I think one can make a better case that this movie must have done much more to cause anxiety than to reduce it, through its basic message of "The bomb could explode at any time!!!" --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 18:46, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

One can also make a good case that it got people injured due to them suddenly dropping onto the floor after witnessing a camera flash or something. NightFlare Homosexual deception is a notable characteristic of homosexuals.^[1] [1] 18:50, 29 September 2008 (EDT)

To be fair, the technique wasn't totally useless, as while if you're particularly close to the epicenter you are just plain fucked, if you're further away getting down on the ground could help protect you from flying debris. Benmullins 02:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not a bad method if you are outside the main blast radius. If you were past the point were the heat would kill you and you weren't hit by a neutron bomb, it would increase your chances of survival. Mind you you would still need a change of cloths once the dust settled. - π 02:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually what is wrong with the newspaper? It would stop radioactive dust from settling on your personage. - π 02:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the interesting things that came out of investigations of Hiroshima/Nagasaki was how things like white clothing could help to limit the effects of the heat generated by an a-bomb, and how people in the shade close did not burn while people in the clear in the same vicinity did. TheoryOfPractice 02:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but those bombs were firecrackers compared to modern atomic weapons. A lousy 20 kilotons? That is just a camera flash compared to the insane terror of "avoiding" a hydrogen bomb. ħuman 04:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but does Bert the Turtle predate that? TheoryOfPractice 05:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Bert came about right around the time the first hydrogen bombs were developed. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 05:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen bomb or atomic the bomb, getting down low and covering yourself will still improve your survival chances. - π 05:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but only outside of the blast zone. And, even then, minimally against radiation poisoning.Gooniepunk2010 ^{Oi! Oi! Oi!} 05:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hydrogen bombs produce less radiation than most other forms of nuclear weaponry as they are a fusion reaction. Also that is the point of covering yourself so you do not contact with radioactive material that is fulling down. - π 05:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC)Hydrogen bombs are one thing. But gamma radiation from atomic fission bombs is the deadliest radioactive fallout from a nuclear blast, and can go through most thin materials. It may not kill you immediately, but it will cause severe problems down the road. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 05:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You are also aware that a good foot of concrete will stop most common forms of radiation? - π 05:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Who's got a handy foot of concrete just when they need it, though? ħuman 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See above (before you Ec'd me). But, yes, most forms are stopped by thick concrete. But, a newspaper may stop alpha rays and, maybe, X-rays. Beta rays take a little thicker material (like sheet steel) to shield yourself from. But, again, gamma radiation can go through most light and/or thin materials. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 05:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC2x)Gamma radiation is gone almost instantly, it is created only by highly level energy nuclear reactions. The radioactive material that is left produces alpha and beta particles, you can stop that stuff with a plank of wood. After two weeks the the background radiation level would be less 1/1024 of what it initially was. If you survive the initial blast and can find food and water in the intern, your survival chance are pretty good. Duck and cover is a reasonable survival stratergy to survive the initial blast.- π 05:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You kids (pi) have no idea what it was like when the threat of this shit actually happening was imminent. Really? You want to protect yourself from a nuclear bomb with fucking newspaper? Would that have worked in Dresden? London? Come on... I wrote a failed essay about this a while back. ħuman 06:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Compared to getting covered by radioactive dust? Yes. Plastic sheeting would be better, but you have to work with what you have got. Do you know what the first thing you are suppose to do if dirty bomb goes off? Remove you clothing so you are no longer in contact with radioactive material which is now on your clothes. - π 06:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehehe, I have some iodine-based tablets I bought a while back that are an antidote to radiation exposure, just because I could. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 06:45, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You kids, I say again, have no idea. Unless you live in the sticks, you're simply dead. If you live in the sticks, you die later and more slowly. ħuman 08:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Should we "kids" also get off of your lawn? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 08:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say the opposite is true, as we did not live through the hysteria we are objective enough to consider it rationally. When you take into account blast radii, population distributions and such considerations, you can see that the chance of surviving a nuclear war around 90% (depending on where you live). As for nuclear winters and other such hyperbole, you can not say with any confidence those would actually occur. - π 08:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are simply "wrong" on both counts. By the way, "90% (depending on where you live)" is nonsensical. Is it 90%, or does it depend on where you live? ħuman 09:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point then, Π, I must conceed that I know more about nuclear energy than I do about nuclear blasts. Ergo, you are probably right. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 05:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not saying it is a brilliant strategy, but unless you have your own underground full lead lined bomb shelter it is the best you can do. - π 05:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No, good point. I think the difference here is that a nuclear blast will only produce a sustained, albeit uncontrolled, nuclear reaction for a short period of time, so some of the radioactive dangers relative to nuclear power, a long-term sustained reaction, occur for only a shortperiod of time. Whereas, in a nuclear plant for instance, gamma radiation is a constant danger because of the sustained reaction at the nuclear core. The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 06:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

That is why you have a two several meter thick concrete containment vessels around each reactor. What do you think of the Chinese pebble reactors? - π 06:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an idea I've heard of before, and a pretty good idea (in terms of reducing the meltdown risk) if you ask me. Cuiously, my friend Jimmer is researching this concept for the US Department of Energy (as he is a nuclear engineer), and tells me that, if we employed it, it would also reduce the need for a long-term nuclear waste facility in the United States, as most of the radioactice waste is already contained in te graphite. Although, I contend, that the United States should just lift our 50's-era ban on nuclear waste recycling. Punky ^{Your mental puke relief} 06:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Many years ago I was an extra in Wp:Threads. I died twice: once of direct radiation lying in the High street and second of Radiation sickness in a front garden some days later. _& marmite^chat 08:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

You were in Threads? I love that movie, and you, just a little bit more now. TheoryOfPractice 14:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The article at the bottom

Is actually quite good, why don't we mention more about it? - π 06:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Fallout 3

This discussion was moved to RationalWiki:Saloon bar#Video game violence and sex. 08:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that's freaky. That section, of course, says it was moved here. Someone please phone Mobius, I think he's been stripped. ħuman 09:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer is

Construct your own ice house. If nothing happens you have a good place to keep your foodstuffs and ice; if there is 'an event' you have shelter, clean food and clean water. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Do they mean this

I know it is an advert, but [2].

Bear in mind - we are looking at the film with hindsight, rather than how it would have been seen at the time. 86.146.100.0 (talk) 10:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

No, in that instance the duck is the cover. Do you know nothing of science Nog Bogmire (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Presumably reinterpreting the title? 86.146.99.1 (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Links

The South Park 'Volcano' links to the WP page on volcanoes.

Would a duck-feather duvet be particularly effective? Anna Livia (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)