[ RadSafe ] Terrorist WMD Attacks Might Not Cause Mass Casualties, British Scientists Say

[farbersa at optonline.net]

Hi all,
Interesting summary of balanced information on WMD health impacts worth  
reading from the British Health Protection Agency’s Center for Emergency  
Preparedness and Response.

Stu Farber
farbersa at optonline.net

Stewart Farber
Consulting Scientist
1285 Wood Ave.
Bridgeport, CT 06604
[203] 367-0791 [office]

====================
Source:

http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_8_24.html#2FE9F236

Terrorist WMD Attacks Might Not Cause Mass Casualties, British Scientists  
Say

A terrorist attack using chemical, biological, or radiological weapons  
would be unlikely to result in mass casualties, the London Times reported  
today (see GSN, Aug. 12).Scientists at the British Health Protection  
Agency’s Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response at Porton Down —  
the control center for the response to any chemical, biological or  
radiological attack — have been coordinating planning for such incidents  
since April 2003. “We shouldn’t be complacent, but it is important for the  
public to realize that while there would be deaths, as there would be in  
[a] conventional attack using explosives, there would not be the kind of  
widespread catastrophe that they might imagine,” said Nigel Lightfoot,  
director of Emergency Response Capability.“In the event of a biological  
release, we’d begin to see a picture emerge in the same way as we would  
monitor, say, a flu outbreak,” said Gordon MacDonald, head of Emergency  
Strategic Planning.General practitioners are ready to report patients  
showing particular symptoms, and health authorities are prepared to  
quickly respond to an apparent outbreak, according to the Times.“We then  
initiate a program of tracing people with whom victims have come into  
contact and what we call ‘ring vaccination.’ People most closely exposed  
are treated with the relevant medicines, while we give prophylactic  
vaccines to stop the disease spreading. That is how smallpox was  
eradicated in the 1970s. We are not saying that there might not be  
fatalities, but we could prevent any widespread disaster,” MacDonald  
said.A radiological “dirty” bomb is also unlikely to produce mass  
casualties, said Michael Clark of the agency’s Radiation Protection  
Division.“Those closest to the release would be worst affected, but the  
most serious damage would be caused by the actual explosion,” Clark said.  
“There might be areas that would have to be evacuated for a time and  
decontaminated, but the worst-affected area would be relatively small.” In  
addition, preparation of a dirty bomb, which would involve gathering  
industrial or medical radioactive substances, would pose a lethal danger  
to those involved in the process, Clark said. “They’d try to get hold of  
cesium 137, cobalt 60, strontium 90 or iridium 192 in small amounts over  
time,” he said. “But being exposed to that would make them very sick very  
quickly. Within days they wouldn’t be able to function and would die. Even  
with people prepared to commit suicide … [it] would require a large team.  
… They could survive longer with small amounts but that would make a dirty  
bomb less effective.” Release of a chemical agent would be equally  
unlikely to kill large numbers of people, Lightfoot said.“The most likely  
release would have to be in an enclosed space, such as the Tube system,  
because these agents disperse and become harmless very quickly in open  
spaces,” Lightfoot said. “Once an assessment is made, victims would be  
taken away from the incident as soon as possible. In the event of a  
nerve-agent attack they would be given atropine, an antidote that can save  
lives if administered quickly,” Lightfoot said. “Again, let us not pretend  
that there would not be fatalities, but they could be limited by swift  
action. Twelve people died in the Tokyo incident [see GSN, Aug. 22], which  
was a tragedy, but you might argue that more would have died in a  
conventional explosion. So the main effect here would be psychological,  
and would not necessarily result in more deaths than a conventional  
attack,” he said.Independent experts agreed with the government  
scientists’ assessments. “Historically, the use of chemical or biological  
weapons has been regarded as unreliable and indiscriminate by armed  
forces. That might not deter terrorists because their aim is not efficient  
killing,” said Professor Christopher Bellamy, director of the Security  
Studies Institute at Cranfield University.“The terrorists might achieve  
their aim — to terrify people — but the casualties would probably not be  
high,” Bellamy said (Steve Boggan, The Times, Aug. 24).

-- 



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.10.15/80 - Release Date: 8/23/2005