Re: Surviving a Dirty Bomb

["Bud Yard" <Bud.Yard@state.tn.us>]

Radsafers,

I have been following the thread on this subject, and before it runs its course, I have some food for thought, and would appreciate feedback. In our office, we acknowledge but look beyond questions concerning the easily measured doses that are applicable to occupational settings, we agree that those are well defined in most areas. 



For example. we sample and assess pico-curie and micro-curie rad levels in the environment to look for trends. We do understand occupational doses and work in the rad arena every day, but as environmentalists, we are dealing with the general public and environmental pathways, thus we are responsible for generally identifying very low rad levels, and associating those levels with specific environmental pathways. Many of these pathways will continue to worsen until the sources are controlled (very long term public chronic as opposed to acute occupational exposures). We also work in the area of emergency management, so our work covers both ends of the spectrum.



It is important to remember that when members of the public are exposed via an environmental release, or in this discussion thread, a dirty bomb, they are not volunteering for exposure through employment. Additionally, they have now way of quantifying that exposure in their minds unless we (as radiation professionals) explain to them why there is or is not reason for concern. 



As has been pointed out previously by other folks in the group, most members of the general public do not know a microrem from a rem. For many of us, it is our job to measure what is measurable and put that information to the public in terms that they can relate to.  



In regards to a dirty bomb, I think there are several issues to consider and would like to ask for additional thoughts from the group.



People are going to panic due to the lack of understanding about rad. As rad professionals, we can find the mess, and we can clean up the mess. We do this through environmental restoration activities at nuclear sites every day.



We will also need to have this communication thing down to a science, because if people do not understand this risk, or lack there-of, we have problems greater than the mess left behind by a dirty bomb. I would like for folks to think about and I would love to have feedback on real issues that would confront us as a result of this potential scenario. I would like to have ideas on what people can expect if this thing were to happen. For instance:



If a dirty bomb explodes, and the shrapnel happens to be in the form of pieces of a spent fuel rod (hot), how will we locate enough physicians who would be willing to risk potential exposure to perform surgery?



How will we explain the risk (or lack of risk) to the public, in a way that will make them really feel that it is safe to return home?



How do we educate emergency responders to understand that they will not become ill if they respond to radiation emergency and their exposures are properly monitored?    



We have been working on these issues in Oak Ridge for a number of years and I hope that others are doing the same.



One thing is for sure, anything nuclear scares the heck out of people, and if another major incident occurs, all one will need to do is imply that rad is involved, and our work will begin in earnest.  



What questions can we ask ourselves now to prepare us for this potential scenario?



Used to be a boy scout . . . be prepared and all that stuff,



Charles R. (Bud) Yard, M.P.H. Ph.D.

Oak Ridge, Tennessee 





>>> Mike Lantz <mlantz33@CYBERTRAILS.COM> 06/17/02 03:40PM >>>

Thanks for the article.  Simple followup question:



        Why hasn't Israel had a dirty bomb exploded against them?



Because they would clean it up and go on...... and all the fear tactics would

be ruined.



We can only hope that the truth gets out slowly but surely.



Mike Lantz, CHP



Susan L Gawarecki wrote:



> Thanks to Roger Macklin for pointing out this article to me.  Finally,

> the media is trying to subtract some of the terror from terrorism.

>

> --Susan Gawarecki

>

> How Bad Would A Dirty Blast Be? Here's What The Experts Say.

>

>  By Don Oldenburg

>  Washington Post Staff Writer

>  Thursday, June 13, 2002; Page C01

>

>  Another day, another "credible" terrorist threat. The disaster scenario

> du jour is now the so-called dirty bomb, so called because this is a

> conventional bomb that plays dirty. Experts say a dirty bomb could range

> in size from a small "suitcase" device to a truck bomb, and maybe

> larger. Its explosive may be as ordinary as dynamite, but it's packaged

> with radioactive material that, detonated, is scattered in fragments and

> airborne dust -- or "dirt." Hence the name.

>

>  You have probably heard public officials and terrorist experts say a

> dirty bomb's real threat is psychological. And that it is a weapon of

> terror, fear, panic and disruption rather than one of mass destruction.

> But what else does the public need to know about dirty bombs? How bad

> are they, really? Here's the dirt:

>

>  What could happen if a dirty bomb went off in downtown Washington?

>

>  Experts envision scenarios that could be on the scale of Timothy

> McVeigh's 1995 truck bombing in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people

> -- with the added dimension of radiation contamination. But it could be

> much less if it involved a small device, such as one set off by a

> backpack bomber.

>

>  "But even a big one would do much less damage than Hurricane Andrew did

> in Florida," says Randy Larsen, director of the ANSER Institute for

> Homeland

>  Security, a nonprofit research organization in Alexandria.

>

>  Almost all deaths and serious injuries would be confined to the

> immediate vicinity of the explosion. The downtown area would shake from

> the blast. Anyone nearby would know a bomb had exploded but would have

> no clue it was a dirty bomb -- you can't smell, taste, feel or see

> radiation -- until authorities announce they have detected it.

>

>  How widespread the damage?

>

>  In March, the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International

> Studies simulated what would happen if terrorists detonated a

> 4,000-pound dirty bomb in a school bus parked outside the National Air

> and Space Museum. In the simulation, the museum ended up almost

> destroyed and nearby buildings damaged. An estimated 10,000 people were

> in the immediate vicinity; how many would have died isn't known, but the

> acute threat was confined to a radius of a few city blocks.

>

>  Although in the simulation, prevailing winds carried contamination into

> southern Pennsylvania, the amounts were very small because radiation

> dissipates quickly.

>

>  The highest contamination would occur in the blocks surrounding the

> blast -- or about 10 percent of the District, says Philip Anderson,

> senior fellow for homeland security initiatives at CSIS, who specializes

> in anti-terrorism strategies. People there would get about a

> 5-rem-per-hour dose of radiation. That's the amount the Environmental

> Protection Agency says is the maximum safe dose to absorb in one year, a

> standard that is considered very cautious; even absorbed in hours, the

> amount is not likely to make you sick.

>

>  Another 10 percent of the District -- people a half-mile to a mile from

> the blast -- would be in contaminated areas, but not seriously

> contaminated. The dose would be so small, says Anderson, that it would

> probably take days or weeks to exceed the EPA maximum yearly safe dose.

> "The key point," he says, "is that nobody is going to become sick or die

> from radiation."

>

>  John Zielinski, professor of military strategy and operations at the

> National War College in Washington, estimates that, generally, someone a

> mile from the blast is likely to walk away unscathed. And "you could be

> within a couple hundred yards of it, and if you are upwind, you might

> not have a problem at all," he says. "If they set it off in a street and

> you are one block over and behind a building, there might be no risk."

>

>  What casualties?

>

>  Beyond those inflicted by the blast itself, the number of deaths and

> injuries is likely to be minimal -- depending on the radioactive

> material used, the size of the explosive, wind conditions and the

> effectiveness of the evacuation response.

>

>  Most experts play down any probability of radiation-related deaths.

> "Threat to life? Not worried about it other than the explosive device

> itself," says Larsen. "The main thing is, people should not lose much

> sleep over this.

>

>  "Just imagine if Timothy McVeigh had put five pounds of radioactive

> material and blew that up in Oklahoma. . . . No more people would have

> probably died than did."

>

>  Long-term effects of radiation exposure? Most experts say that except

> for people in the immediate area of the blast who survive, the odds are

> against anyone absorbing enough radiation to suffer long-term effects,

> such as radiation poisoning or cancer.

>

>  And the history of radiation exposure is on our side. In a nuclear

> disaster second only to Chernobyl that occurred in Brazil in 1987,

> junkyard workers pried open a metal canister from a cancer clinic.

> Inside was glowing blue radioactive cesium-137 dust. By the next day,

> dozens of locals had been exposed. "Several ingested it," says Anderson.

>

>  Of the 20 seriously exposed victims, "four died. But 100,000 plus

> people had to be medically evaluated. Most of those -- 47,000 people --

> had to take a shower and be monitored down the road."

>

>  Although the devastation was unimaginable and an estimated 200,000

> people died from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki --

> from the

>  explosion and radiation poisoning in the first year -- the long-term

> health-related problems for survivors hasn't been as horrific. Charles

> B. Meinhold, president emeritus of the National Council on Radiation

> Protection, a nonprofit international clearinghouse for research on

> radiation safety, says studies of those survivors since 1950 show that

> of 86,572 people exposed to levels of radiation thousands of times

> greater than a dirty bomb could produce, cancer deaths exceeded the

> expected numbers for that population by 335.

>

>  What should I do if I'm in the vicinity of the explosion?

>

>  The basic rule is to stay inside or get inside, then listen to the

> radio or television for further information.

>

>  The amount of radioactive dust that could seep inside or enter a

> building through its air-filtering system isn't likely to be

> significant. "If you are inside of a building, your chances are like

> getting several X-rays' worth of exposure," Zielinski says.

>

>  If you're outside, determine whether the wind is coming your way. "You

> don't want to be running down the street," Zelinski says. "Get into a

> building and reduce the amount of dust that gets on you."

>

>  Close to the explosion? Covered with residue? Stay put. "If the

> response is good, they are going to try to decontaminate folks closer in

> as opposed to those fleeing," says Zielinski. "Even if it takes an hour

> for authorities to respond, you are going to get better treatment there

> than going to a hospital."

>

>  Worst reaction? Racing for mass transit or trying to drive home. Not

> only could you contaminate your car, but you could also spread radiation

> to your family. And experts are concerned that people trying to flee the

> city would jam traffic routes and delay emergency teams from getting to

> the scene.

>

>  Experts say what the public needs to remember most about dirty bombs is

> that if you survive the explosion, the amounts of radiation are most

> likely so low that a few hours of exposure isn't going to be harmful.

>

>  "The public health people would be there within three hours or sooner,"

> says Meinhold. "Let them worry about evacuation, decontamination, etc."

>

>  How about washing?

>

>  "Most or a large portion of the decontamination effort is going to

> involve a soapy shower and a change of clothes," says the CSIS's

> Anderson, who recommends that if you think you are near a potential

> terrorist target, it may make sense to keep extra clothes, shoes, soap

> and shampoo on hand.

>

>  Says Zielinski: "The first thing [is] to try to get as much off as you

> can, get the clothes off of you and put them in a trash bag. Then take a

> shower."

>

>  Can you drink the water?

>

>  There may be some contamination of water and food in some areas. "You

> can drink it, but there are definite issues there," warns Anderson,

> explaining that although a good rain would help clear contamination, the

> runoff might affect the groundwater supply.

>

>  Bottled water might be the safe way to go until authorities have tested

> drinking water, he says.

>

>  Would a gas mask help any?

>

>  Gas masks, experts say, may help in protecting against "particulate

> matter," since radiation attaches to particles in the air. But when you

> get much beyond the area of the blast, the dust is going to dissipate

> quickly anyway. "I'm not not sure it would make a difference," says

> Anderson.

>

>  Should we stock up on potassium iodide?

>

>  Again, the solution and the problem may not match well in a dirty-bomb

> attack, experts say. Potassium iodide protects the thyroid gland from

> absorbing radioactive isotope of iodine -- a component of radioactive

> fallout that causes radiation sickness.

>

>  "I'm not sure we're going to get to the point where we will have many

> people, if any, suffering from radiation sickness," says Anderson.

>

>  How likely is an attack?

>

>  Many experts believe that terrorists already have the crude radioactive

> materials needed and that a dirty bomb attack is one of the more likely

> terrorist scenarios -- some even say "inevitable." But Anderson cautions

> that "it's a simple plan that is still reasonably difficult and

> complicated to coordinate."

>

>  But the biggest problem in making a dirty bomb is that even if you find

> all the parts, assembling them can kill you. True, some terrorists are

> already suicidal. Still, "first you've got to find it, then you've got

> to carry it around," says Zielinski. "By the time I get it, move it to a

> site that is secure and grind it, I've probably already lost several

> people."

>

>  To make and transport a dirty bomb safely would require a lead

> container or shielding that makes it nearly impossible to move. Handling

> the material can cause burns on the hands and body, even through a

> backpack. And making a bomb without a shield means almost certain death

> from the concentrated radiation levels of a radioactive rod or "clump."

>

>  What do we have to fear?

>

>  Experts say the answer is fear itself. Dirty bombs can be as

> devastating as any conventional bomb. People will die in a dirty-bomb

> attack. But they believe very few people will die or get sick from its

> radiation. And the radiation is the terrorist wild card for causing

> panic and psychological trauma.

>

>  Experts are concerned that public panic is the biggest risk. "It stems

> from our society's inherent fear of radiation," says Anderson,

> explaining that he's not discounting the tremendous social and economic

> implications of a contaminated area in an urban center.

>

>  The blast area, he says, could be off-limits for several months during

> intense cleanup efforts, and that could disrupt the local economy.

>

>  Still, "a lot of this stuff, you just take a big fire hose out and you

> wash it down," says Larsen. "It's a heavy metal, so it goes to the

> bottom of the river. It shouldn't be too much problem. So then we have

> low levels of radiation. That's not as bad as smoking cigarettes. I'd

> rather be a half-mile from a dirty bomb site than smoke cigarettes."

> --

> .....................................................

> Susan L. Gawarecki, Ph.D., Executive Director

> Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee

> We've moved!  Please note our new address:

> 102 Robertsville Road, Suite B, Oak Ridge, TN 37830

> .....................................................

> ************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/ 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/ 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/