Talk:Duck and cover

Shelter in place (SAME code: SPW) is the use of a structure and its indoor atmosphere to temporarily separate individuals from a hazardous outdoor atmosphere.^[2] It entails closing all household doors, windows and vents and taking immediate shelter in a readily accessible location, such as a basement or central medium to small room, and trying to make it as airtight as possible by shutting off all ventilation/HVAC systems and extensively sealing the shelter's doors and windows from all outside air contaminants with damp towels, or if available, plastic sheeting and adhesive tape.^[3] Diagrams of what sheltering in place entails following a (CBRN)Chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear threat, and how long it is advised to be done for, is provided by the FEMA affiliated website ready.gov.^[4]

Shelter-in-place effectiveness has been evaluated and experimental results show that proper sealing can make a substantial difference to a normal home shelter, finding it to be at least twice as effective against a host of airborne substances when compared against simply staying inside and not implementing the countermeasure, and in most airborne contaminant cases, it is usually much more effective, depending on the particle size of the substance in question.^[5][6][7] If the occupant's breathing produced carbon dioxide is the only consumer of oxygen in the room then carbon dioxide levels would not begin to reach dangerous values until 3+ hours had passed, in all likely, 4 family home, scenarios.^[8][9]

In the military, "Shelter-in-Place" is comparable to "buttoning up" and has proved life saving in many instances.^[10]

If an individual finds themselves outside during an emergency that calls for shelter-in-place, then effective but low-tech decontamination is required before entering into the shelter.^[11]

In practice, depending on the exact situation, everyone within a specific distance of the airborne incident may be ordered to shelter in place or people within a closer range may be ordered to evacuate while everyone else shelters in place to minimize public exposure as much as possible.^[12] Sheltering in place is generally only used for a short period of time, typically a few hours. However it can be extended if the occupants are equipped with common drain cleaner that contains sodium hydroxide- which is an effective carbon dioxide scrubber in addition to self contained oxygen candles or the more common welding Oxygen tanks, both of which also have the added benefit of producing and maintaining a shelter positive pressure which keeps any shelter leaks, leaking out rather than leaking in.

The phrase has also erroneously been used, instead of the more accurate lockdown, to describe precautions to be taken by the public when violence has occurred or might occur (particularly in shootings) in the area and the perpetrator is believed to still be in the area but not apprehended. The public in the area is advised to carry out all the same tasks as a typical shelter-in-place but without the key step of sealing the shelter up to prevent outside air from circulating indoors, in this scenario people are simply urged to lockdown - stay indoors and "close, lock and stay away from external doors and windows."^[13][14]

• "Children were lying around with their hands covering their eyes as if they were playing hide-and-seek." Some mention to flash blindness is needed. Many people who experience a flash may be blinded and thus have to "Duck"/drop flat to the ground while temporarily blind.
• Possibly Isamu Inoue, but definitely Shizue Jinno ran into air raid shelter/blast shelters when they heard the B-29 and/or air raid siren overhead at Nagasaki, and survived.
• http://www.asahi.com/hibakusha/english/shimen/happened/happened-02-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.239.213 (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

There's been improvements made by various IP users to the Lucky Dragon 5 & Kuwait oil fires articles recently that might be worth considering. 92.251.133.92 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

That duck and cover has its origins in advice given to soldiers and civilians during, and probably prior to, WWII. To reduce the lethality of conventional bombs and bombing, and that just like nuclear bombs, conventional bombs similarly have various probability of killing/lethality zones for standing adult males/soldiers in the open at particular distances.

Although conventional bombs are limited in energy when compared to nuclear weapons, due to the unlikelihood that a nuclear weapon would be detonated directly beside the individual, but some distance away, the duck and cover countermeasure has greater efficacy under a nuclear attack scenario than a conventional strategic bombing - as the space of time between observing first light, being stunned in surprise by the explosion and the arrival of potentially lethal blast and flash burn effects is sufficiently long to permit a slower reaction response time from first light to completing a duck and cover maneuver.

The psychological sense of awe from observing a large, and oft described as beautiful,[chicago ref & others] explosion is chief amongst the distractions that usually prevent individuals from hitting the deck immediately, particularly so for megaton class explosions.

“Now then, Dmitri, you know how we've always talked about the possibility of something going wrong with the Bomb... The *Bomb*, Dmitri... The *hydrogen* bomb!... Well now, what happened is... ahm... one of our base commanders, he had a sort of... well, he went a little funny in the head... you know... just a little... funny. And, ah... he went and did a silly thing... Well, I'll tell you what he did. He ordered his planes... to attack your country... Ah... Well, let me finish, Dmitri... Let me finish, Dmitri... Well listen, how do you think I feel about it?... Can you *imagine* how I feel about it, Dmitri?... Why do you think I'm calling you? Just to say hello?... *Of course* I like to speak to you!... *Of course* I like to say hello!... Not now, but anytime, Dmitri. I'm just calling up to tell you something terrible has happened... It's a *friendly* call. Of course it's a friendly call..." (See how long before some nuclear war supporter takes this down)

84.13.14.75 (talk) 16:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You should really get your head out of the fiction section Dr.Strangelove. Saying that it was to protect US policy is like saying the British were attempting to protect their weapons policy in WWI-WWII when they issued citizens with masks on some occasions & info on how to use them in anticipation of planes bombing them with gas. It appears that only in the area of nuclear matters do you have all manner of wacky ulterior motives being seen by folks like yourself.

178.167.254.79 (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Only someone with no understanding of history would think that those gas masks had real world applications. Tell all the british people who died in conventional air raids about the terror of gas bombs. Puma6374 (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

http://www.remm.nlm.gov/nuclearexplosion.htm According to the above, cloudshine is radiation emitted from the mushroom cloud 178.167.196.163 (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

"Skyshine" is a technical term for gamma rays that reach a target from all directions because of scattering in the atmosphere, as opposed to those rays that travel to the target in a straight line from the fireball. See Glasstone and Dolan, Effects of Nuclear Weapons, 3rd ed, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1977, §8.44 and Fig. 8.45a. Jessegalebaker (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Drawing by Goro Kiyoyoshi of his memories of the Hiroshima attack. “I got on a streetcar of the Kabe line about 8:10 AM. The door was open and I was standing there. As I heard the starting bell ring, I saw a silver flash and heard an explosion over the platform on which l had just walked. Next moment everything went dark. Instinctively I jumped down to the track and braced myself against it. Putting a handkerchief to my mouth, I covered my eyes and ears with my hands.” https://archive.org/details/UnforgettableFireDrawingsByAtomicBombSurvivors1967

A section that lists these cases would be ideal.

92.251.232.209 (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

In a rare example of binksternet actually trying to make a productive contribution to articles I have essentially re-written entirely by myself, he removed the following and simply inserted the similar, but less direct halifax story. with one such incident being the 1944 Port Chicago explosion, where about 4,600 tons (4,173 metric tons)^[1] of chemical explosive accidentally detonated in a series of events. Survivor, Robert Routh, reported enjoying the sight of the wonderfully bright fireball and then suddenly never seeing anything again, as following the blast arriving, he was permanently blinded by the window he was viewing the fireball from, shards of which pierced his eyes and face.^[2] I'll leave his edit there for the time being, although as can be seen, it actually fails in getting the full point across, contrary to Routh's story. I will be summarizing the Halifax story, stating it was known after that, and merging the two stories as time permits.

I tried to clean up this article, but there appears to be a lot of problems with it, some of which may be related to how the article was written and the information therein. The sources being cited may not all be reliable, though most appear to be, and this article may need some review by an expert. I wish I could do more, but this is out of the scope of my expertise. I've added a template header for now, though more may be added in the future if needed. I'll continue to work on this page, but I can only do so much with what little I know, and it'll probably be exclusively copy editing. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Your edits have inserted unreferenced and misleading falsehoods that have included the insertion of this laughably incorrect and totally unsourced statement: "This individual, like many others fully exposed to the blast, were instantly vaporized; many left carbon imprints at the place of their vaporization."

Really, please take a physics class before editing again. I'm sure you could find some basement level reference that says people were insta-vaporized etc. but no physics or educated medical reference will. I could explain to you why this did not happen, and how it could not have happened, but unless you honestly acknowledge "this is out of the scope of my expertise" again, I don't see the point in helping you out.

Secondly, While the reference style is indeed sloppy at times, that does not give you the freedom to remove references entirely. You will hopefully note that were you did improve the way a reference is cited, I have attempted to keep your improved way of citing it. However you unfortunately did more harm than good in a lot of your citations, such as removing time-stamps from referenced videos and in terms of the "Nuclear Matters" & "Planning Guidance" references to specific quotes and figures found in those documents, you also removed them too.

Thirdly, I really mean it when I said that your edits have inserted a myriad of misleading statements that required a total reversion. For example, you don't have to venture far to find the first, in the very intro/lede of this article you also wrote "It is also used during the event of a sudden earthquake or tornado when emergency evacuation is not an option". Yet, not a single reference states "Duck and cover" specifically is used to deal with either of those two things. In my recent edit of the article I am actually careful to state exactly what earthquakes and tornadoes have to do with "duck and cover" and why they're even mentioned in this article to begin with.

I could go on, but this type of thing was really so endemic that a total re-editing was necessary.

31.200.186.10 (talk) 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Do you have specific instances of this? I have only been removing references which do not comply with Wikipedia's policies on citations. Citing *.GIFs and images are not acceptable, and a lot of the references were to extraneous or otherwise inappropriate and superfluous information. A lot of this content moreover violates WP:NOTHOWTO, among other policies. If you have specific concerns, then please propose them here, or edit them in. Removing all of the work of numerous editors doesn't help. As for the vaporization claim, that was an addition I made from my knowledge about the effects of the fireball during a nuclear explosion, as well as the numerous images depicting so-called "nuclear shadows" of people left when the atomic bomb hit. You don't need to remove that part, since I already have. Please assume good faith, however, and keep in mind that a lot of the work I did was just cleaning up the problems previous editors left. A number of claims, many unsourced, were retain for the time being because they were there previously. I simply reworded them, and have been planning to start searching for references. If I made a mistake, it may have not came from me. Even if it did, I can assure you it wasn't intentional.

Having said that, I've restored the current iteration. Please don't do a blanket revert again. We can discuss this later, after I've had some sleep (I've been up for a long time). There's no rush, especially on such a low-trafficked, low-importance, forgotten article like this. We can continue this together later, alright? I'm glad that you want to improve this article, and I hope that we can accomplish this together. If you'd like, we can collaborate tomorrow (if I'm available, but I'll be busy, so perhaps in 1.5–2 days from now) and ensure that we both improve this article. In the mean time, while I'm away, please refrain from blanket reverts and removals. If you wish to edit the article in its current state, even to the point of adding or removing substantial content, then that is your choice. Keep in mind, however, that disruptive editing is not tolerated. Oh, and maybe consider creating an account (or logging in) so that we can keep better track of each other from hereon out. That's just a suggestion, though, so feel free to ignore that last bit. Have a great day/night! ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as you have elaborated, I'll elaborate: I removed some timestamps because they were unnecessary and usually not common practice in citations from what I could see. I did change the video link to actually go to the specific time in question, however, and the conclusion of that section should be obvious from the video's contents. I removed the specific quotes because if I didn't, the same page would have to be cited multiple times, which is incredibly poor practice. I (or you or someone else) could add a separate note where necessary to clarify what passage in particular is important to note, but to do this within the citation itself is problematic because so many different quotations are cited. If we included them all in a single citation, the citation would be so large, obtrusive, and confusing that it would render the citation unwieldy. Thus, it's best to either remove the quoted text and let the reader find it (which is extremely easy), or to add it in a separate note. I opted for the former at that time because I was going to go over and add notes where necessary after I was done with the major revisions, seeing as quotation notes are unnecessary and a lesser priority than actual content revision.

I actually did cite in the body numerous drills and similar procedures used in the event of tornadoes and earthquakes, in Duck and cover § Procedure. I was going elaborate on this later, but was sidetracked to addressing more important matters on far more notable articles (see my contributions). Keep in mind that, as you can see, I never got down to the sections about tornadoes and earthquakes—I stopped just short of it, which was intended for my second "major cleanup" the following day. I intend on expanding on this part soon. You are right on one point, however, namely that the current description in the lead claims that "duck and cover" is a procedure used during earthquakes and tornadoes. This is technically not true; a similar procedure is used. I have corrected the article lead to reflect this.

If you wish to include your content. I recommend merging it into mine and the other editors whose work I haven't touched yet. I don't want you to feel like your work has gone to waste, and I don't want you to feel like your work isn't worthwhile to include. I don't mind you merging it into my work and stitching it together until we can address it more in-depth later. If you encounter a conflict between your work and mine, then use your discretion to consider whether it's necessary to replace your work with mine, or whether it's suitable to keep until we can collaborate. In my opinion, only if one of the claims in the current article is so egregiously bad as to be 100% false, and your replacement claim is vital to the article's contents, then replace it. Otherwise, it's probably best to just leave it for now. We can discuss this matter further, and I can review your changes, tomorrow or in two days.

This article is still a work in progress, after all, and the page isn't viewed very much. (Compare other pages to see how insignificant this is.) I hate to put this all off, by the way, but I am very tired and was just about to go to bed when you showed up on my watchlist. I hope you understand. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You have once again made this article into a shambles. I have already explained to you why I had to do the edits I did. I have also already given you "specific instances of this". My edit broke down the article into headings and subheadings and kept original pertinent content in its place, including gifs made by REMM, a reputable source.

You on the other hand have chosen to delete these reputable sources and have once again put the article into a state that includes totally misleading information, for example again, I didn't have to go past the 2nd sentence of the lede to find your nonsensical unsourced claptrap about duck and cover being used in earthquake and tornadoes scenarios. When it is not. I fixed that, but unsurprisingly once again you've reverted the article back to your error filled mess.

I'm really not in the mood to spell out each case of error on your part, piece-by-piece as we'll be here for days! Moving from the lede into the beginning of the body of the article, I also removed the^[who?] tag you put in, as it is not needed in my edit etc. I could go on and on ad nauseum. So listen, you know I fixed the vast majority of the errors you have put in, yet you resist the error-free content being visible to readers?

So really what is your opposition to my edit? As you didn't even read my initial edit at 02:20 you just felt it was a "blanket revert" and undid it within 8 minutes, not enough time to even read the new article and compare it to its previous state, so forgive me for seeing your conduct as one of inertia & WP:OWN. Indeed your recent edits would be classed as disruptive editing, and as you can imagine, I won't tolerate them, neither would the dispute resolution board. You're even here admitting that you don't find this article important and you "got side-tracked" with your allegedly exceedingly more "notable" contributions. That's supposed to re-assure me that you're careful with this article, how exactly?

Get some rest, you really aren't thinking straight. I will be here tomorrow night to put the article back into its superior state, without your misleading claptrap sown throughout it.

First, I'd like to apologize for yesterday. I was indeed very tired, and as a result I mistook your edits as massive reversion. Although it is true that you appeared to revert a lot of my work, I don't think that was your entire purpose. You appeared to add a lot of more content. Due to your edit summary, however, I mistook your edit as just a mass reversion. Whenever an IP does add substantial content, I'm suspicious, since vandalism is so common and a lot of the time, it's done by IPs. I decided that it was best to wait until later, and I'm glad you did. I know it must have been frustrating, but I appreciate it. Having said that, I don't mind you adding or removing content, even my content. We need to take things slower, though, since there are now two active editors on this article.

Having said that, your hostile attitude really isn't necessary. I understand that there may be significant flaws in the article, but keep in mind that the majority of my work was simply cleanup. You're blaming me for the past mistakes of others. I normally wouldn't care a whole lot, but seeing as we'll be working together, I'd rather you not continue your collaboration under the impression that I'm some idiot filling this article with unsourced crap. That's how I found the article. I have been cleaning it up, but I haven't been doing much about the article's claims. This is because, first and foremost, I am not very knowledgeable on this topic. Secondly, I thought it would be more important to clean the article first, and proceed to edit the content later. This is because I'm much better at the latter, and it would give me time to research in preparation for the former. Seeing as you noticed some of the changes I made to the article in terms of citation cleanup, however, I don't see why you're still blaming me for the article's contents. Unless you skipped over a vast majority of the changes, or you misunderstood them, you should be able to see that I didn't actually add much of anything, with the exception of content about tornadoes and earthquakes in the lead. Most of my work was deleting superfluous or otherwise unnecessary content.

Perhaps we're misunderstanding each other here, but like I already said, using images as citations is not common practice, nor is it acceptable. If an image is included, it is included as an image. Many of these images better belong on other articles, such as the ones linked in this article. I removed them because even though they are from reliable sources, you do not cite images except under very specific circumstances. Usually, images are embedded, but not linked to, in an article. As for the tornadoes and earthquakes bit, I've already explained why I kept it above, as well as my rationale for it. It's not "claptrap" or anything of the sort. Did you even look at the sources which were provided?

No, I don't "know" your content fixed errors. All I knew at the time I reverted it was that it as a whole bunch of changes, and a lot of content was removed. Your edit summary didn't help, seeing as you called me "arrogant" and derided my work. If you want to work on this page, then let's work on it together. Treating me like a child, behaving uncivilly, and assuming bad faith won't get us anywhere. So please drop the deprecatory remarks. In the mean time, I'll review your changes and I'll see whether to submit the whole edit, or let you know to only submit some while we discuss the rest. I don't own this article, but I am concerned when an IP comes in and adds 9,036 bytes to an article. Seeing as you seem so versed in Wikipedia policies, however, I don't see why you remain an IP. People would be less suspicious of your intent if you were signed in. My edits have not been disruptive, however, so there is no need to accuse anyone of that. If you wish to take this to an administrator, then feel free to do so. I don't think that admin would approve of your behavior either. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

http://www.johntreed.com/duckandcover.html Good summary info on it commonly being ridiculed but that the maneuver and those who advocated it, veterans of WWII to the Korean war, were well aware of its capabilities and the various zones in which the countermeasure would be both useless and effective. 178.167.178.178 (talk) 04:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello 185.51.***.***

In early December I spent about an hour going through the "See also" and "See related" sections. I checked to see if any of the links in those sections were present in the body of the article. There were many, and as those two sections were excessively-large, I removed the duplicates per WP:SEEALSO. Once the duplicates were removed, I replaced redirects with their targets, then placed the remaining items in alphabetical order. Dawnseeker2000 21:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, but the articles linked in the see also were arranged together in related categories, and injecting an alphabetical order simply destroys that arrangement.

109.125.16.122 (talk) 04:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

These "See also" sections have a tendency to grow. The same is true for the "External links" sections. Many editors add to these sections, but few take on the task of reducing items, even if they're not operational. The sections often get to the point where it seems like it's a good idea to create subsections and/or group by category. Look, if the article's "See also" or "External links" section needs subsections, that's the point where we should realize that the quantity is just excessive. At that point, work needs to be done to integrate the items into the article with the section "See also" templates or into the text. Dawnseeker2000 03:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"R. A. Langevin and others in 1958 compared the ability of trained troops and the untrained civilian population to duck and turn away, covering exposed skin (Operations Research, vol. 6, p. 710). Trained troops duck and cover in 0.75 second when a very bright flash occurs. The untrained civilians fared less well: 2% protected themselves within 1 second, 15% by 2 seconds, 50% by 3 seconds, 70% by 4 seconds, 80% by 5 seconds, 90% by 7 seconds, but 7.5% are still fully exposed at 10 seconds after detonation. The young and the old react most slowly if they lack clear simple knowledge of the dangers. Langevin shows that even this untrained protective reaction increases the amount of energy required to cause burns to an exposed population, especially in the case of high-yield weapons which expose the most people." Boundarylayer (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Then you best sign in, self.

185.51.75.43 (talk) 16:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.floridadisaster.org/hwa03/drill.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ocw.nd.edu/physics/nuclear-warfare/notes/lecture-14
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/1999/00/00_matsubara_spirit-hiroshima.php
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.redcross.org/static/file_cont164_lang0_71.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.engr.psu.edu/cde/Short/MPS_course/newpage/Exp-Dam-Ass-1.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130302091606/http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm to http://www.acq.osd.mil/ncbdp/nm/nm_book_5_11/appendix_F.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195238/http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf to http://www.bikiniatoll.com/BIKINICORALS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131013191113/http://www.kombe-jarvis.com/japan.html to http://www.kombe-jarvis.com/japan.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:42, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131111103357/http://orise.orau.gov/csepp/documents/planning/reports/misc-reports/paperSIP010406.pdf to http://orise.orau.gov/csepp/documents/planning/reports/misc-reports/paperSIP010406.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170207061152/http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf to http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1976/3445600218921.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Duck and cover. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150417000807/http://www.cusec.org/earthquake-safety/drop-cover-a-hold.html to http://www.cusec.org/earthquake-safety/drop-cover-a-hold.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130514044534/http://pisd.edu/about.us/safety/disaster.policy.shtml to http://www.pisd.edu/about.us/safety/disaster.policy.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130221012916/http://www.canada.com/news/Meteor+explodes+over+Russia+Ural+Mountains+injured+shock+wave+blasts+windows/7968297/story.html to http://www.canada.com/news/Meteor+explodes+over+Russia+Ural+Mountains+injured+shock+wave+blasts+windows/7968297/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130316000711/http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1184.html to https://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1184.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170307092351/http://collections.stanford.edu/atomicenergy/bin/detail?fileID=394848179 to http://www.collections.stanford.edu/atomicenergy/bin/detail?fileID=394848179

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This entire article is an exercise in proving that “scientists” and the US government have little to no understanding of war, weapons, or ballistics. This entire article is cargo cult craziness aimed at the obsessive people who want to try to ensure they will somehow survive a hydrogen bomb going off a mile away from them. The people who survived attacks who are cited in the article are so clearly random as to be outwardly laughable. It is true that at least one person has been in a situation around a nuclear bomb in which ducking and covering likely saved their lives. However the real savior in all those events is not the act of ducking, but rather the topography, the nature of the explosive, and the ballistics of the explosion that put those few people in a position where ducking actually would make a difference. Plenty of people ducked and covered and got cooked like a thanksgiving turkey anyway, because that is how munitions work. It’s like taking examples of air raids in which people saved themselves by crossing the street and changing the ballistic angles of shrapnel and saying that because these people clearly saved their lives everyone should focus first on crossing the street during all potential air raids. If you are close enough to the blast to be seriously imperiled, even the scientists admit that ducking and covering will only change a .01% survival rate into a .02%, while if you are far away ducking and covering changes a 94% survival rate into a 95% survival rate. You can use those statistics as proof that ducking and covering is the most important move you can make, or you can be straight up with people and actually teach them about the weapons we all point at each other. Talk to actual soldiers about the laughable drills for the potential of being on the battlefield during a tactical nuclear weapon strike and you will soon realize how much of this government research is all claptrap. I understand this article is edited by busybodies who desperately want hope and something tangible they can do about a nuclear blast, but you have to understand that this is all an exercise in wishful thinking and a waste of time. If you are going to somehow be close to a nuclear weapon detonation, you are likely dead. That’s why they build nuclear weapons. Superpowers don’t build and maintain them because they are easy to survive. If you are far enough away to not die you will likely not die. If you cannot come to an understanding with those simple facts no pamphlet from 1950 is going to save you. Puma6374 (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

AGREED not just foolish but biased in a way which contradicts Wikipedia policy. I added a few facts to back up what Puma6374 mentions: "It's worth noting that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions were "atom bombs" which are much weaker than nuclear hydrogen devices, also known as "H-bombs", by a factor of 1000 or more. The force of the bombs dropped on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was equivalent to 16 kilotons (16,000 tons) and 21 kilotons of TNT, respectively. On November 1, 1952, the US detonated the first hydrogen bomb at Enewetak atoll in the Marshall Islands. Codenamed "Mike," the bomb produced the energy equivalent of about 10 megatons — or 10 million tons of TNT^[1]Detonated by the Soviet Union in 1961, the Tsar bomb created a 50 megaton explosion — nearly 1,500 times more powerful than the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined^[2] I propose most of the references to Hiroshima and Nagasaki be removed as they were very far below destructive nuclear capacities just seven years afterwards. Cuvtixo (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

• The entire article is a rambling mishmash. EEng 00:13, 2 May 2024 (UTC)