Talk:Duck and Cover (film)

- for the second time now...

Do we need separate articles for Duck and Cover and duck and cover? If yes, how the material should be separated between them? Paranoid 08:30, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• I think so (although I'm a mite biased). Duck and Cover was a film, wheras duck and cover (lowercase) was a strategy. The two are, of course, inter-related, but I would say with conviction they are quite separate. If nothing else, D&C falls under the category 1951 films (if I can find it) and that alone might be enough to call it separate. -Litefantastic 14:13, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this should be mentioned somewhere but California had to take the time to transform the whole "Duck and Cover" idea to "Duck and Hold" for earthquake situations. --Allyunion 09:24, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Interesting. Could you provide more information? -Litefantastic 11:57, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I've never heard it described as that name, but California schoolchildren have earthquake drills which are basically the same as the nuclear drills. (I did them myself) Actually at my elementary school we also had duck and cover drills for armed psychopaths with AK-47s but I'm sure that was probably a local phenomenon. --Fastfission 04:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If we are keeping these 2 articles separate, perhaps the text starting from "Possibly..." to "...blocker." into Duck and cover, since it deals with the method of defence, not the film itself. A short introduction of why the movies was made is still in order, but it would make sense to direct the reader to another article if he wants to read about the reasoning behind the method. Paranoid 16:21, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• if you feel so inclined. But it would, as you say, still need soem sort of introduction. -Litefantastic 16:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Best method of defence

When the nuclear bomb strikes, place your head between your legs and kiss your ass goodbye. Shorne 07:09, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POVness about efficacy

The discussion of efficacy is POV and, in fact, largely wrong. While it is currently fashionable to ridicule the advice in this film, most of it is actually sound. (That isn't to say that the techniques would be totally effective, but they would greatly reduce the number and severity of casualties over a large "borderline" zone, which is usually many times larger than the zone in which such precautions are futile.) For example, the statement "at most distances in which an atomic flash would be seen, ... the intense heat and radiation from a nuclear explosion would be little guarded against by such a simple action". This statement is quite false, in several ways at once:

• It should be obvious that the flash can be seen for a much greater distance than that at which it is intense enough to burn you (in fact for a high altitude burst at night it may be seen for hundreds of kilometres);
• The flash is not instantaneous, but sustained over a period. (Significant burning brightness only lasts about 1 second with the weapons available when this film was made, although with large megatonne class weapons it may last five seconds or more.) The sooner you get out of the light, the better;
• Except for neutron bombs, or extremely small bombs, the distance at which a person in the open may be killed by blast effects (specifically, flying objects or by being knocked down by blast, rather than direct crushing) is much greater than the distance at which flash burns are likely to be fatal, which in turn is much greater than the range at which prompt radiation is likely to be fatal; and
• The area over which laying down is likely to be an effective protection against blast effects is as much as a hundred times larger than the area over which it will be futile (exact ratio depending on bomb size and terrain.)

Another example: "...in one scene, a father is shown holding a newspaper over his face as soon as he sees the flash. A newspaper is, in fact suitably thick enough to shield against alpha radiation, but would be torn to shreads [sic] by the shock wave." Yes, it very likely will be torn to pieces by the shockwave; but over most of the affected region, the prompt radiation and burning flash intensity are long over by the time the shockwave arrives. That is why whitewashing windows is also a useful protection (by the time the blast smashes the windows, the flash is no longer bright enough to ignite interior furnishings - of course exterior flammables need to be protected too). But what is quite wrong is the idea that the paper is supposed to protect against alpha rays. Alpha rays have a maximum range in air of only a few inches, so if you need protection from prompt alpha, you are actually inside the fireball!! In fact, the paper is to reduce the severity of flash burns to exposed skin. Certainly better protection would be desirable if it could be found, but the point of the illustration is that if nothing better can be found, even a piece of paper can offer sufficient opacity to make the difference between blindness plus third degree burns over the whole head and hands, versus a bad sunburn plus third degree burns to the knuckles only. At Hiroshima, two thirds of those who died on the first day (before they could receive medical aid, in other words) were burn victims. The shade from a simple piece of paper can make the difference between mild burns that can be treated by a first-aider, and those that will kill before medical services can be reestablished. Securiger 12:30, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree that there might be some POV in this area, but you make a number of errors in your comment. First, the obvious - when you see the flash, it's already too late. Burn and radiation got you. Second, since most scenarious involved bombs dropped on large cities, most of the area where duck and cover would be useful would be outside of cities, where almost noone lives (compared to people in the target cities that would not benefit much from D&C). Of course, there is still some useful advice in the film, but it isn't clear how much of it. Paranoid 13:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)