Panic more dangerous than WMD

[Susan L Gawarecki <loc@icx.net>]

RadSafers:



Here is the scariest part of the article: "In the absence of responsible

government communication, it will be up to the media to take the lead in

correcting misconceptions."



We're doomed!



My opinion only,

Susan Gawarecki



Panic more dangerous than WMD



In the event of a dirty bomb or biological weapon attack, accurate and

consistent information, from government and the media, will be critical

to avoiding panic



By Michael Levi. Michael A. Levi is the Science & Technology fellow in

Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution

May 26, 2003

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/oped/chi-0305260178may26,1,221799.story 



Two weeks ago a dirty bomb detonated in Seattle, and over the course of

a week, patients poured into Chicago hospitals, sick with plague.



The dirty bomb used conventional explosives to spread radioactive

materials, inflicting public fear and economic damage without causing

massive destruction.



The plague attack strained the public health system, but was effectively

countered with antibiotics. Most likely, few people will die.



All this, of course, was simulated -- it was part of TOPOFF 2, billed by

the Department of Homeland Security as the nation's largest ever

exercise in combating terrorism with weapons of mass destruction (WMD).



And therein lies the problem: Though dirty bombs or plague would wreak

havoc, they are not weapons of mass destruction.



By continuing to label so many weapons as WMD, the government and the

media are propagating unfounded fears that will produce much of an

attack's impact.



A dirty bomb is unlikely to kill anyone who wasn't hit by the initial

conventional blast.



Depending on the bomb's details, it could contaminate anywhere from a

few square meters to hundreds of city blocks.



And plague, while able to kill in vast numbers if left untreated, can be

halted by a seven-day course of antibiotics.



Its impact might be much like that of the fall 2001 anthrax attacks,

which had the potential for mass death, but were countered quite easily.



These attacks, though, share a common feature: Their greatest immediate

impact would likely be the ensuing chaos as people's irrational fears of

radiation and disease took hold.



Anything we can do to lessen these fears will make disaster response

immeasurably easier; but conversely, anything we do to inflame them

might come back to hurt us.



TOPOFF is not the only time high-level administration officials have

wrongly described weapons of mass destruction. The most egregious errors

have come in describing dirty bombs.



Most flagrantly, Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft, announcing the arrest of

suspected dirty-bomber Jose Padilla on June 11, 2002, incorrectly

declared, "a radioactive `dirty bomb' involves exploding a conventional

bomb that not only kills victims in the immediate vicinity, but also

spreads radioactive material that is highly toxic to humans and can

cause mass death and injury."



And on Wednesday, announcing the new orange terror alert, Homeland

Security Secretary Tom Ridge remarked, "Weapons of mass destruction,

including

those containing chemical, biological or radiological agents or

materials, cannot be discounted."



In the absence of responsible government communication, it will be up to

the media to take the lead in correcting misconceptions.



While coverage of weapons of mass destruction has been improving, it

still leaves much to be desired.



For example, following Ashcroft's exaggerations about dirty bombs, the

press followed up with stories that explained the details of dirty bombs

and calmed irrational fears.



But since then, careless labeling of dirty bombs as weapons of mass

destruction-- as in Tom Ridge's comment, reported by the media

uncritically--has crept back in.



And while inaccurate information on potential weapons may be problematic

now, it could be devastating if promulgated after an attack.



Controlling panic after a dirty bomb or biological weapon detonates will

require accurate and consistent communication, from government officials

and the media.



Eearly missteps will break public trust, making later corrections

difficult.



Fortunately, top officials and elite news reporters are becoming better

informed, but this will not be enough.



In an actual attack, the pool of individuals publicly addressing dirty

bombs and biological weapons will widen quickly, and it could include

many with little understanding of what these weapons are.



In government, mayors, fire chiefs, and school superintendents will be

called on to communicate.



Reporters who ordinarily report on lifestyle, sports, and even weather

will likely have to cover an attack.



None of these people will have the time to properly learn the nuances of

plague, radiation, or whatever other toxic material has been used.

Instead, they should be trained now.



The government has put much effort into deploying radiation detectors to

detect dirty bombs, training hospital personnel to confront biological

weapons, and hunting down terrorist cells.



The best defense against future attacks, though, is knowledge. Our first

priority should be stockpiling that in abundance.

-- 

.....................................................

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

Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee

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

Toll free 888-770-3073 ~ www.local-oversight.org

.....................................................

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

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/