A professor of architecture at the University of Florida and self-described instructor in “Fallout Shelter Analysis,” accused the organization of using the same tactics as cigarette advertisers, “arguing from a conclusion using pseudo-technical jargon.” Another agreed that Consumer Reports had not “.lived up to its own standards in discharging the awesome responsibility…of giving advice that might mean life or death to large numbers of people.” Some took an optimistic something-is-better-than-nothing stance.

Some readers applauded the article as the most objective and thorough review of the facts regarding the effectiveness of fallout shelters. For a moment, the fallout shelter article became a flashpoint for the hopes, fears, and anxieties of Cold War citizens. While the organization side-stepped recommending specific shelters, the Technical Department, the unit responsible for creating testing procedures, methods, and reports, retained forwarded letters documenting reader reactions to the article. According to the organization, all the variables that might make a shelter effective or ineffective were simply unknowable and unpredictable. However, Consumer Reports essentially took a pass. The January 1962 issue of Consumer Reports, the flagship publication of the consumer education and advocacy non-profit of the same name, included a much-anticipated article titled “The Fallout Shelter: A review of the facts of nuclear life and the variables that bear on the effectiveness of a shelter.” Cold War consumers were eager for guidance from a trusted source of product evaluation.

Hartman Center for Sales, Advertising & Marketing History.

Post contributed by Joshua Larkin Rowley, Reference Archivist, John W.

Fallout shelter building guide