Duck And Cover - Original 1950 Airing

more important topics to discuss? and even if you cant find a better topic, why discus it here??? do you think any true youtube viewer has ever had the intention span to sit and read all the, well, USELESS information below? no they never have. all the hard work is nothing but filler text to most of us, spam is all it is really. honestly you just annoy me because you think you are so beyond the intellectual status of everyone else, while arguing with a 14 year old has kept you busy for this long

1. honestly, they don't want to be informed, if they did (or do) i sincerely doubt that they would go to the comments section of an out dated "duck and cover" video.
2. did you catch how you said the "ignorant" up there? like you are almighty superior scholar of the atomic age and you must inform the squabbling masses about the threat?
that is the self indulgence that annoys me
3.if you truly wished to inform ANYONE about ANYTHING don't you believe that there are (continue below) VVV

I am probably equally annoyed by apathetic people like many on YouTube. So, what of it?

Griping about it won't accomplish anything so I try to inform those that wish to be informed.

Yeah, I get pissed about the absolute apathy and people talking sh** about stuff they know nothing about but so what?

So, you think I'm self-indulgent. I'm sorry, but I don't care. Gotta go...

"nobody cares."

Yes, I know. That's the worst part. That's the whole reason this misinformation exists. That's why, even after my posts, dokot09 came in and said what he did. It's not stupidity (usually) but apathy.

Why don't you post your comment again that you want me to think about. I don't have time to look for it right now.

How do you know my goal is anything but to inform the misinformed and to "educate" the ignorant? Why must I automatically be self-indulgent?

please do respond tho, i enjoy our little arguments :]

my arguement has nothing to do with whatever you're spewing, its over my annoyance with self indulgent people like you. also, you mentioned in the above comment how i should prove you wrong with facts, but my aim was never to prove you wrong, it was mainly to tell you nobody cares.
remember how i said REALLY THINK? well you didnt, and you did come back and yap about how you're right you ARE right about the math, shut up because we already know that you are just the shiz. i open for cross ex. XD

lie down and die. that what is bassicaly telling you,

i thick i losed half of my brian cells from watchin this.givein snot nose kids false hope that they can sirvive a bomb.oh im safe now under this 1 inch pease off ''wood'' thats a bombs only weakness.i would love to meet the guy that made this and kick him right in the nut sack.their all(hopefuly)ganna diy a painful death anyway so why give them hope?

All nuclear weapons that I know of produce at least some gamma radiation.  I don't think it would even be feasible to create a nuclear weapon that released all radiation but gamma. And ALPHA particles can be stopped by a piece of paper or aluminum foil. Beta can be stopped by thick wood or a brick wall. Gamma usually needs concrete several feet thick to stop it but any MATTER (air, wood, bricks, steel etc...) will decrease its intensity over distance depending on density and atomic compositio

And what does this have to do with my statement? You may be right about the percentages (who knows) but you are ABSOLUTELY 100% WRONG about duck & cover/clothing being useless. Since apparently you guys don't like math (maybe a picture-book?) why don't you watch some of the test videos. They did tests on houses and mannequins. Even within less than a mile a small to medium size bomb is definitely survivable. Survivability is directly (almost exponentially) proportional to distance.