1 Comment
⭠ Return to thread

The movement is to move people away from the specific areas they think would be subjected to blast/fire damage, and extreme fallout. The remaining people would then have to be sheltered. Even then (as the report makes clear) there are areas where people would still die in a pretty good (PF = 50) fallout shelter. But the idea is that you'd minimize death that way.

All of which is, I think, true in the sense that, yeah, if you could do all that, and said people had access to food and security and medical care and so on, you'd get that result. Whether any of that relocation and access to necessary facilities is itself plausible is, well, debatable. To say the least.

The report in question goes into EXTREME Ohio-related detail, if you are curious about it. It is an interesting study, and one sort of wishes similar studies existed for other states: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/tr/ADA080063

Expand full comment