[ RadSafe ] N. Korea Nuclear test

Wed Feb 13 20:55:15 CST 2013

Jerry,

Thanks for your reply.  Quite seriously it caused me to laugh. Why?  Well
because if anybody understands the horrors of nuclear warfare it would be
the members of this list.  No doubt many of you much better than me.  From
June 2006 to just before retirement I and one of my staff members devoted a
lot of time and analysis to the subject.  To analyze this sort of stuff in
detail requires a certain amount of cold blooded thinking.  Otherwise, you
can't begin to rationally determine what is needed for a good response.  It
still gets to you after awhile.  It did me.  In any case, if someone knows
of nuclear response plans at the state and local level that are on the net,
I would be interested.

Victor

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Jerry Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 6:02 PM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) MailingList
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] N. Korea Nuclear test

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 

_______________________________________________
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