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?

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)

-

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)