[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "Nukalert" for first responders?
For the past 2 mo, I've been wearing on my keychain a "NUKALERT".
It costs under $200 and can be explored at www.nukalert.com.
I have no financial interest in it, but saw its presentation at Doctors
for Disaster Preparedness meeting by CEO Shane Conner.
It might be suitable for first responders.
Howard Long
"NIXON, Grant (Kanata)" wrote:
>
> I agree. These are all difficult questions with no simple or "best" answer.
>
> A possible (conservative) suggestion is that all first-responders should be
> equipped with alarming dosimeters unless a radiological hazard has been
> ruled-out by a competent authority (ideally one of the first-responders on
> the scene). This is similar to first-responders assessing chemical hazards
> beforehand so it is nothing new, just adding a radiological check in case of
> possible terrorism at play. Local authorities should already have lists of
> all known possible radiological hazards and their locations.
>
> I think that the NCRP has set appropriate guidelines. People choosing to
> ignore or re-interpret these guidelines do so at their own peril
> (physically, politically, and possibly legally).
>
> My opinions only.
>
> Grant
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 12:04 PM
> To: NIXON, Grant (Kanata); radsafe; know_nukes
> Subject: RE: Response to Ted Rockwell's article
>
> Grant,
> Thanks for reminding me. However, to continue my
> questioning, how would the first responders initially
> know that a significant radiological hazard exists?
> Do all first responders have alarming dosimeters? How
> about if they are responding to an explosion or fire
> in a building? Would they be expected to have
> alarming dosimeters?
>
> On another point, what if the first responders are
> planning to use alarm levels one-tenth of the values
> you quote? Would this hamper rescue operations?
>
> These are issue I think that need to be considered.
>
> --- "NIXON, Grant (Kanata)" <GNIXON@MDS.Nordion.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > John,
> >
> > This is similar to a previous post we had (Ken
> > Smith, Tuesday, July 29, 2003
> > 7:42 PM).
> >
> > I think that this 50 rem level would apply only to
> > first-responders that are
> > "knowingly involved" in a life-saving/rescue
> > activity, like occupational
> > workers, directly saving people.
> >
> > NCRP-138 recommends the following personal DRD alarm
> > levels (see pp. 97-98,
> > Sect, 8.4) for responders:
> >
> > Initial alarm level: 0.1 mSv/h (10 mrem/h) - [to be
> > used as an alert level]
> > turn-around level: 0.1 Sv/h (10 rem/h) and a dose of
> > 0.1 Sv (10 rem) [to be
> > used as an alarm].
> >
> > This seems to imply a 10 rem dose for
> > first-responders who are not otherwise
> > directly involved in the task of saving a human life
> > (like non-occupational
> > workers) but carrying-out emergency work
> > nonetheless.
> >
> > Grant
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: John Jacobus [mailto:crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM]
> > Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 8:55 AM
> > To: radsafe; know_nukes
> > Subject: Re: Response to Ted Rockwell's article
> >
> >
> > One question is what kind of information is being
> > given to first responders? NCRP 116, "Limitation of
> > Exposure to Ionizing Radiation," recommends 0.5 Sv
> > (50
> > rad?) ED for occupational workers in life-saving
> > situations. NCRP 138, "Management of Terrorist
> > Events
> > Involving Radioactive Material," uses this same
> > guidelines for first responders. Are first
> > responders
> > occupational workers?
> >
> > P.S. I really hate Sv being used for ED and DE.
> >
> > --- John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> > > This letter appeared in today's Washington Post
> > > --------------
> > > Radiation: The Real Deal
> > >
> > > Theodore Rockwell ["Radiation Chicken Little,"
> > > op-ed, Sept. 16] recalls a recent National Academy
> > > of
> > > Engineering "dirty bomb" drill as yet another
> > piece
> > > of
> > > evidence that our fears of radiation are
> > overblown.
> > > As
> > >
> > > a technical adviser to the drill's designers, I
> > > understand Rockwell's frustration. Radiation is
> > not
> > > as
> > > dangerous as most people imagine.
> > >
> > > Yet Rockwell's own characterization of the dirty
> > > bomb
> > > threat is misleading. Most realistic assessments
> > of
> > > dirty bomb dangers emphasize that few if any will
> > > die
> > > from an attack. Instead, the danger is long-term
> > > contamination, carrying with it social and
> > economic
> > > costs. Rockwell dismisses such concerns.
> > >
> > > First, he contends that we will insist upon "a
> > > hypothetical, squeaky-clean condition, scrubbing
> > the
> > > ground and sidewalks down to far less than the
> > > natural
> > > radiation background of God's good green Earth," a
> >
> > > constraint that he deems "inappropriate." He is
> > > right
> > > that imposing strict EPA cleanup standards after a
> > > dirty bomb attack would, from a public health
> > > standpoint, be excessive. But easily imaginable
> > > dirty
> > > bomb scenarios would contaminate substantial areas
> > > to
> > > several hundred times those strict thresholds --
> > and
> > > to 10 or more times the "natural radiation
> > > background"
> > > Rockwell cites.
> > >
> > > Imagine a crude, inefficient dirty bomb using
> > the
> > > amount of cesium found in an old Soviet radiation
> > > source, such as one of those your paper has
> > reported
> > > are missing in Eastern Europe. If people did not
> > > leave
> > > the area permanently, and if the area surrounding
> > > the
> > > attack could not be cleaned up, one in 10
> > residents
> > > over an area of roughly 20 city blocks would die
> > of
> > > cancer as a result of the attack -- 50 percent
> > more
> > > than typically do. The radiation levels would be
> > > roughly 1,000 times higher than the EPA's
> > > "squeaky-clean condition."
> > >
> > > Rockwell claims that "you would flush any
> > residual
> > > radioactivity down the drain with hoses and be
> > done
> > > with it." But cesium chemically attaches to glass,
> > > concrete and asphalt -- and it does so quickly. If
> > > done quickly, washing off sidewalks might remove
> > > half
> > > of the contamination, but removing the rest would
> > > require special chemical procedures or abrasive
> > > techniques, which would introduce major safety,
> > > logistics and cost challenges.
> > >
> > > Nuclear power is also on Rockwell's radar, and
> > he
> > > is
> > > right to be incensed by "public interest" group
> > > claims
> > > that terrorists could turn nuclear power plants
> > into
> > > "weapons of mass destruction" -- they could do
> > > nothing of the sort. But Rockwell goes further,
> > > citing
> > > a Science article (which he co-wrote) as evidence
> > > that
> > > "one can do nothing to an American-type nuclear
> > > power
> > > plant or its fuel that would create a serious
> > public
> > > health hazard." That study has been widely
> > disputed,
> > > including by Sandia National Laboratory, upon
> > whose
> > > experiments the Science article was based. And the
> > > Science article never discusses attacks on stored
> > > fuel, probably the greatest worry of those who
> > study
> > > power-plant vulnerability. It considers only
> > attacks
> > > on fuel during shipment, while that fuel is
> > > heavily protected.
> > >
> > > Rockwell is right that "if you tell people there
> > > is
> > > no danger, and they have no reason to disbelieve
> > > you,
> > > they will remain calm."
> > >
> > > But if you tell people there is no danger, and
> > > instead there is only a small one, they will lose
> > > faith, assume the worst and panic. The real
> > dangers
> > > of
> > > dirty bombs and power-plant attacks are not nearly
> > > as
> > > horrific as many imagine. We should be able to
> > calm
> > > people by simply telling them the truth.
> > >
> > > -- Michael A. Levi
> > >
> > > Washington
> > >
> > > The writer is science and technology fellow in
> > > foreign policy studies at the Brookings
> > Institution.
> > >
> > > Would you like to send this article to a friend?
> > Go
> > > to
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A37571-
> > 2003Sep19&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle
> > >
> >
> === message truncated ===
>
> =====
> "Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds
> contempt for the law."
> Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. U.S., 1928
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> ************************************************************************
> 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/