When I was a kid they told us to put our head between our legs and kiss our ass goodby.

*related=https://videosift.com/video/Duck-And-Cover-1951-Bert-The-Turtle-Civil-Defense-Film

Also works for lava
*related=https://videosift.com/video/South-Park-Volcano-PSA-Duck-And-Cover

Duck And Cover (1951) Bert The Turtle Civil Defense Film has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

South Park Volcano PSA - Duck And Cover has been added as a related post - related requested by newtboy.

Maybe should've added "don't use conditioner" to that step about washing. That shit will actually trap radioactive particles.

A car would be a perfect place to shelter:

1. The windscreen blocks UV light.
2. A car isn't going to collapse on you.
3. The car has actual shock absorbers to absorb the ground shock.
4. The car isn't innately flammable and even has a thermal barrier in the paint, metal and insulation.
5. The car has a radio.
6. The car is mobile and can (to whatever degree roads are passable) get you out of danger.
7. The car has a trunk to hold containers of water safely (double-safely if they're inside an ice chest inside the trunk)
8. You can sleep in a car.
9. In any circumstance in which a car was destroyed by the blast/heat, you were fucked anyway.

Not so according this article

https://www.businessinsider.com/survive-nuclear-attack-fallout-shelter-cars-2017-5?op=1

Sad that the article and @StukaFox both forgot the emp, that kills all electronics, making your car your tomb if it was made after 1980.
A car is only a decent shelter if it’s at the bottom of an underground parking structure that doesn’t collapse in the blast.
Cars are not escape vehicles in this scenario. There won’t be many erratic drivers, like the article claimed, because any car with a computer chip will be dead.

I immediately wondered that; a low yield dirty bomb, at say, the UN on the Upper East Side would be a different EMP profile, I presume, from a higher yielded ship born bomb inside, say, a container which had cleared customs in Pakistan, and that would be different from a high altitude air burst, right? So, and the physics seems calculable if annoyingly in my past--you should be able to calculate a range of EMP from various yields?

The "Quora" answers are: a ground-based (ship based?) lower yield weapon has EMP effects of note to the 3 mile range.

An airburst would be a different issue. "Starfish Prime”. In this high altitude nuclear test, carried out in 1962, a 1.44 Mt warhead was detonated at a height of 400 km. Electrical damage, including burning out hundreds of street lamps was caused in Hawaii - about 1500 km from the point of detonation.

By contrast there was no direct blast damage at all at that range.

The maximal electric fields induced in the Starfish Prime EMP in Hawaii were estimated at 6 kV/m. At high latitudes the value could easily be ten times higher.

For electrical equipment to be damaged by an EMP from a nuclear detonation, the detonation point must be above the visual horizon.

A large yield weapon detonated 400 km above Kansas would have an EMP that extended across the entire continental US, but the ground intensity pattern of that EMP would be peaked towards the South of ground zero, it would not be symmetrical."

I was flattered until I noticed this at the top.

luxintenebris jokingly says...