[ RadSafe ] N. Korea Nuclear test

Wed Feb 13 20:01:49 CST 2013

Victor,
    Thanks for informing us of the horrors of nuclear warfare. Without your 
guidance, we might have thought it would cause  a minor inconvenience.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Victor Anderson" <victor.anderson at frontier.com>
To: "'The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList'" 
<radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] N. Korea Nuclear test


> Good Afternoon,
>
> Yes indeed, North Korea does pose a problem.  The government is run by
> madmen who are likely as not to nuke someone.  The only thing that holds
> them back (in my opinion) is the specter of US retaliation.  And yes,
> whoever the president is, that person will be virtually forced to 
> retaliate
> with a nuclear strike.  The issue of any city being hit with a nuke weapon
> is really nasty.  Those who want the messy details can download Effects of
> Nuclear Weapons by Glasstone and Dolan.  If memory serves me correctly, it
> is on the Princeton website.  For a ground burst of 10 kt, you can expect
> lethal levels of fallout out to about 20 miles downwind depending on 
> weather
> conditions.  Essentially everybody within a one mile diameter of ground 
> zero
> is dead.  Forget about long term effects.  You will have bigger fish to 
> fry.
> Like providing care for tens of thousands of people with radiation 
> syndrome.
> Then there are the thermal injuries and shattered glass injuries and so 
> on.
> It gets worse.  For those of you with a morbid sense of curiosity go to 
> LLNL
> website and download the "HOTSPOT" health physics code.  One of the 
> modules
> allows you to model nuclear weapons effects for various yields, weather
> conditions, etc.  The other issue is probable warhead size.  DOE after a
> little study settled on 10 kilotons as the most probable yield for a
> terrorist improvised nuclear weapon (IND).  All well and good.  Now we 
> have
> an outlaw nation building the damm things.  When you do the research (and 
> I
> have), the non-classified information indicates that for military purposes
> current thinking is about 500 kt set off in an airburst with multiple
> warheads for a large target (Think NYC or the Los Angeles metroplex).
> Effects tend to go up as the cube root of the yield.  So, life gets much
> more difficult.  The good news is that air bursts don't make as much 
> fallout
> as ground bursts.  A ground burst will generate ungodly amounts of highly
> radioactive stuff.  Having just one US city nuked will use up all of the
> health physics talent we can muster.  It will also strain our emergency
> management system.  California now has one response plan for an nuke 
> strike
> at the public health department level.  Don't know the details as it was
> completed after I left.  Los Angeles County has a response plan as does
> Ventura County.  And that's about it. If your city, state, county does not
> have a response plan, I strongly suggest that you write, call, whatever 
> and
> try and to get the wheels moving.  Saying the federal government has one 
> is
> not good enough.  Federal response time is three days.  With initial dose
> rates post explosion in excess of 10 Gy/hr over many square kilometers, 
> the
> local and state organizations better have a plan.  Otherwise lots of 
> people
> are going to needlessly die.  There are so many issues that there is just
> not enough room to go into them.  For example, fire departments and haz 
> mat
> teams need to understand to keep their amateur, untrained asses out of
> ground zero.  They are not going to save anyone and will just commit 
> suicide
> with a long term messy death.  Setting up medical care on a mass basis is
> another.  But enough.  We should have invaded North Korea instead of Iraq.
> End of rant.
>
> Victor Anderson
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
> [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of JPreisig at aol.com
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 3:03 PM
> To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
> Subject: [ RadSafe ] N. Korea Nuclear test
>
> Dear Radsafe,
>
>     If the North Koreans are getting very proficient  in Uranium and/or
> Plutonium enrichment, then it is time to start worrying about  their 
> ability
>
> to put a nuclear device on a cruise missile and/or a rocket  launched
> from a submarine or destroyer or whatever.  This no longer becomes a  west
> coast USA/ICBM
> problem.  The east coast of the USA and/or gulf coast would also  become
> potential targets to nuclear
> attack (also a global problem).  Hope Team USA is on its toes.
>
>    I also hope any cargo shipments from North Korea into  the USA are
> receiving extra scrutiny.
>
>    According to TV News reports, Mainland China is having  discussions
> with North Korea about their
> Nuclear testing.
>
>    Anybody see any radiation readings on their detectors  from this below
> ground nuclear test???
>
>    Regards,  Joe Preisig
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the
> RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit:
> http://health.phys.iit.edu
>
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list
>
> Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood 
> the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
> http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings 
> visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu