A clean, well-painted house is more likely to survive a nuclear blast
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says
Historical testing and civil defense documentation note that clean, white-painted structures reflect thermal radiation better and are less susceptible to primary fires from a nuclear blast than unkempt, combustible structures.
The claim is true but possibly only applicable to a very small range of situations. Upshot Knothole In 1953, as part of Operation Upshot Knothole, tests were carried out on miniature buildings to test the effects of extreme heat on the buildings. They did find that wooden buildings surrounded by dry combustible material were more likely to catch fire than clean white-painted buildings lacking any large quantities of loose combustible material. Project 8.11a, Incendiary Effects on Building and Interior Kindling Fuels, was fielded by the Forest Products Laboratory, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture. The project was designed to study the vulnerability of urban structures to primary fires produced by nuclear detonations. The study focused on materials that were either part of a building or were found within a building. Before Shot ENCORE, personnel placed furniture in two block house
whitewashing one's windows to counter the heat wave from a nuclear blast, was similar to that given in the later Protect and Survive pamphlet. The 1963 pamphlet
Protect and Survive was a public information campaign on civil defence. Produced by the British government between 1974 and 1976, it intended to advise the public on how to protect themselves during a nuclear attack. The campaign comprised a pamphlet, newspaper advertisements, radio broadcasts, and public information films. The series had originally been intended for distribution only in the event
It seems likely a basic booklet will be produced... we expect rather more attention to be paid to the dissemination of this advice through other media, in particular television.
The Protect and Survive pamphlet was prepared in 1976, and some 2,000 copies were printed and secretly issued to chief executives of local authorities and senior police officers. Its existence having been brought to public attention by the Times (see below), a slightly revised edition was printed in 1980 and made available through Stationery Office bookshops. This peacetime publication of the pamphlet was priced at 50 pence, but it was intended for free distribution to all British households should a crisis period develop. The contents of the pamphlet would also be printed in national newspapers if the risk of nuclear attack increased, with printers' proofs of this version being prepared beforehand.
Early drafts featured what Taras Young called "clumsy choices"; the stay-at-home language included a statement that "only fools run away", while drawings for the inner refuge showed it being prepared with cushions and mattresses rather than the bulkier items of the final version. The Central Office of Information expressed concern that the "Deaths" section would be unduly worrying; the heading was thus removed and the information folded into the "Casualties" section. Radios were to be merely switched off to (ineffectively) ward against electromagnetic pulse damage rather than the final version's more effective advice of leaving the aerial disconnected or unextended.
The main pamphlet was complemented in 1981 by two Domestic Nuclear Shelters publications regarding the construction of fallout shelters: an A5 pamphlet aimed at ordinary homeowners and containing do-it-yourself techniques for building and stocking a simple household shelter, and an A4 Technical Guidance book aimed at professional builders and engineers and pertaining to the design and construction of more elaborate shelters as well as containing technical data on their theoretical resistance to blast effects and nuclear fallout. The press was invited to see mockups of the depicted shelters at the Home Defence College in…
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.