homehome Home chatchat Notifications


How to survive a nuclear attack: mathematical model gives you some options

The first moments following a nuclear attack are crucial. If you’re right in line of the blast, well … you’re pretty much toast. For people out of the initial blast’s way, but still subjected to lethal fallout, making the right steps can mean the difference between life and death. Not satisfied with the official government […]

Tibi Puiu
January 15, 2014 @ 10:57 am

share Share

The first moments following a nuclear attack are crucial. If you’re right in line of the blast, well … you’re pretty much toast. For people out of the initial blast’s way, but still subjected to lethal fallout, making the right steps can mean the difference between life and death. Not satisfied with the official government recommendations in case of nuclear fallout, Michael Dillon, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, proposes a mathematical model that looks at a few important scenarios and tells you when and how you should leave your house in search for better shelter.

Dilon started exploring the topic some 5 years ago after the U.S. government called out for more research into nuclear sheltering. After being asked by family members what they should do in case of a nuclear emergency, the scientist was struck by the fact he didn’t have a definite and satisfying answer. There’s clearly no ONE way to handle this sort of stuff. The dread alone in face of such an incident is enough to petrify most people. In some standard cases, and if the person in question manages to keep his reason, lives can be saved.

The official government notice is seek shelter and stay put! In California, where Dilon is from, there aren’t really that many basements, though. So, he decided to make a mathematical model in which he looks at a couple of situations in which people need to move while nuclear fallout is still infesting the atmosphere. A nuclear event similar to the one that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki was chosen for his calculations. Although nuclear power states today have thousands time more power in a single warhead, the assumption is that a nuclear attack would be more likely coming from a terrorist threat, which would typically use a low-yield warhead.

The key variables are:

  • exposure time to radiation outside
  • precise timing with initial blast, since radiation intensity decreases over time
  • distance from detonation
  • environmental shielding from radiation

Now, there are a lot of things that can happen after you find your dear home ripped to shreds and, crumbling out of the rubble, you leap out through your ragged doorway. For the sake of simplification, Dilon made some assumptions:

  • you are totally exposed while running to safer shelter
  • there’s enough room for everybody in the shelter. Put otherwise, he ignores how the beast in men comes out in life and death situations.

He’s conclusions are summed up in the image below. It all boils down to this, though: the ratio of the time you spend hunkering down in your first shelter to the time you spend moving to the high-quality shelter.

Photo: Michael Dillon/LLNL

Photo: Michael Dillon/LLNL

Surprisingly enough, the best course of action would be not to stay in your initial, poor shelter but to run to your nearest safe shelter – preferably somewhere with very thick concrete armor. This goes against the official recommendation that says you should stay sheltered no matter what for the initial 12 hours following the nuclear blast. n. If you have poor shelter but higher quality shelter is available farther away, you should get to that high-quality shelter no later than 30 minutes after detonation.

His paper published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A, claims that between 10,000 and 100,000 could be saved. The figure themselves are arguable, considering a number of assumptions have been made and far more have been ignored totally. Lawrence Wein, an operations research scientist at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California says “He fails to account for several important issues that are vitally important for policy recommendations.”

Nevertheless, the model serves as a good starting point for what’s useful and what’s useless to do in case of a nuclear attack, although it has yet to be cleared by a government body.

share Share

Ozempic Users Are Seeing a Surprising Drop in Alcohol and Drug Cravings

Diabetes drugs show surprising promise in reducing alcohol and opioid use

Swarms of tiny robots could go up your nose, melt the mucus and clean your sinuses

The "search-and-destroy” microrobot system can chemically shred the resident bacterial biofilm.

Herpes Virus Hijacks Human DNA Within Just an Hour of Infection

Billions carry herpes simplex virus 1. New research reveals it hijacks human genes with eerie precision.

Programs delivering fluoride varnish in schools significantly reduce cavities in children

A simple swipe of fluoride varnish in schools is emerging as a powerful, cost-effective tool to fight childhood cavities and reduce health disparities.

Your Brain on Stress Is Worse Than You Think, Especially If You’re Depressed

Acute stress disrupts key mental skills tied to emotion regulation, a new study finds.

Scientists uncover anti-aging "glue" that naturally repairs damaged DNA

Researchers have newly found a very important function for a well-known enzyme.

Why Bats Don’t Get Cancer—And What That Could Mean for Us

Bats can live up to 40 years without developing cancer. Scientists now know why.

This Star-Shaped Pill Stomach Could Transform Schizophrenia Treatment

A once-weekly oral capsule offers new hope for patients who struggle with daily medication.

Scientists Get Closer to Growing Real Teeth in the Lab

Lab-grown teeth could one day replace fillings and implants entirely.

Outdoor physical activity is better than indoor for your brain

Let the kids run outside.