That may or may not be a mushroom cloud I see, but just in case Armageddon the hell outta here:
Should you be in the unfortunate position of being in the area when a nuclear bomb explodes, new research suggests rather than 'sheltering in place' as many emergency programs insist, your best bet for survival might be to run away from the blast.
Sheltering in place is not always the best survival strategy after a nuclear detonation. If you can reach higher quality shelter in less than 30 minutes, you should go for it.
If out in the open, you need to find any shelter at all as quickly as possible.
[. . .]
The official U.S. government advice is to 'take shelter in the nearest and most protective building.'
For most people, that would be the basement of their home.
For those people, the official recommendations suggest 'early transit' to find better shelter, ideally one with thick layers of concrete over your head and plenty of food and water.
"Shelter in place" sort of goes with "duck and cover," which was government policy in the 50s and then got mocked mercilessly starting in the 60s. What's the point of ducking under your desk when there's an atomic blast?
But the point was (and is) that what we're talking about is what people should do who are somewhat removed from ground zero, and anything they can do to avoid fallout is the recommended course of action, which is why "duck and cover" is backas official government policy so that the mockers can miss the point all over again.
If where I am has a reaosnable supply of food and water, I'm likely to just stay there rather than risk 30 minutes outside with the fallout. What the hell, I was stuck home all weekend with my car in the shop, so I'm ready, baby.
