[ RadSafe ] Nuclear power plants; radiological bombs not on top oflist of attacks

Fri Mar 18 18:58:10 CET 2005

Well,... Response has been great. Very positive. Once I get "Shepherds:Chronicles of The Annunaki" to pre-production at the first of next month, I will begin prep on this undertaking. I will be on sabbatical in the interim until March 30th trying to clear out some of the cobwebs and getting some much needed rest. When I return I hope to see everyone's suggestions on what should be included in the book. I will do my best to include all of them without turning the thing into a "War and Peace" size tome.

Thanx again.

Floyd W. Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Flanigan, Floyd
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 7:42 AM
To: Jose Julio Rozental; John Jacobus; radsafe;
know_nukes at yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear power plants;radiological bombs not on
top oflist of attacks

Jose,
The issue of psychological impact of such an event definitely needs to be addressed. Being both an author and a degreed radiation protection professional, perhaps I should write an informational book which would explain in layman's terms the reality of radiation and it's associated effects according to the true data at hand. My belief is that the lack of education on the matter, provided to the general public, is responsible for the fear and misconceptions which run rampant in the public view. Sensationalized movies, books etc. with little or no scientific basis are the only things most people have upon which to base their view of all things nuclear. If it was explained in plain english I believe many would have a higher level of comfort with the prospect of dirty bombs and the like. 

So, let us have a micro poll ... Should I take the time to crank out this body of work or not? The need is clearly there but what type of reception should one expect when undertaking such a project?

RadSafers sound off. If enough people want it to be written I'll take it under serious consideration.

Floyd W.Flanigan B.S.Nuc.H.P.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl]On
Behalf Of Jose Julio Rozental
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 7:00 AM
To: John Jacobus; radsafe; know_nukes at yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear power plants; radiological bombs not on
top oflist of attacks

Colleagues,

About the number of deaths the document mentions "540 initial deaths". In
fact to know the reason of such number it is necessary to go into the
scenario. The number of deaths and injuries from a dirty bomb explosion
might not be substantially greater than from a conventional bomb explosion,
however public fears about to be contaminated and being near a radioactive
area  no doubt will  get on people   nerves,  and a significant
psychological impact, by causing fear, apprehension, panic and disruption.
The document mention only "extraordinary economic consequences" - I would
like to know what was written on human reaction and to discuss
psychological impact and how they intent to manage this issue.

Certainly, the scenario also depends on the culture and resources where this
could be happen. Probably in USA it will be less complex to control
comparing with developing countries.

Jose Julio Rozental

 joseroze at netvision.net.il
Israel

----- Original Message -----
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "radsafe" <radsafe at radlab.nl>; <know_nukes at yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2005 12:35 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Nuclear power plants; radiological bombs not on top of
list of attacks

> >From today's New York Times
>
> March 16, 2005
> U.S. Report Lists Possibilities for Terrorist Attacks
> and Likely Toll
> By ERIC LIPTON
>
> ASHINGTON, March 15 - The Department of Homeland
> Security, trying to focus antiterrorism spending
> better nationwide, has identified a dozen possible
> strikes it views as most plausible or devastating,
> including detonation of a nuclear device in a major
> city, release of sarin nerve agent in office buildings
> and a truck bombing of a sports arena.
>
> The document, known simply as the National Planning
> Scenarios, reads more like a doomsday plan, offering
> estimates of the probable deaths and economic damage
> caused by each type of attack.
>
> They include blowing up a chlorine tank, killing
> 17,500 people and injuring more than 100,000;
> spreading pneumonic plague in the bathrooms of an
> airport, sports arena and train station, killing 2,500
> and sickening 8,000 worldwide; and infecting cattle
> with foot-and-mouth disease at several sites, costing
> hundreds of millions of dollars in losses. Specific
> locations are not named because the events could
> unfold in many major metropolitan or rural areas, the
> document says.
>
> The agency's objective is not to scare the public,
> officials said, and they have no credible intelligence
> that such attacks are planned. The department did not
> intend to release the document publicly, but a draft
> of it was inadvertently posted on a Hawaii state
> government Web site.
>
> By identifying possible attacks and specifying what
> government agencies should do to prevent, respond to
> and recover from them, Homeland Security is trying for
> the first time to define what "prepared" means,
> officials said.
>
> That will help decide how billions of federal dollars
> are distributed in the future. Cities like New York
> that have targets with economic and symbolic value, or
> places with hazardous facilities like chemical plants
> could get a bigger share of agency money than before,
> while less vulnerable communities could receive less.
>
> "We live in a world of finite resources, whether they
> be personnel or funding," said Matt A. Mayer, acting
> executive director of the Office of State and Local
> Government Coordination and Preparedness at the
> Homeland Security Department, which is in charge of
> the effort.
>
> President Bush requested the list of priorities 15
> months ago to address a widespread criticism of
> Homeland Security from members of Congress and
> antiterrorism experts that it was wasting money by
> spreading it out instead of focusing on areas or
> targets at greatest risk. Critics also have faulted
> the agency for not having a detailed plan on how to
> eliminate or reduce vulnerabilities.
>
> Michael Chertoff, the new secretary of homeland
> security, has made it clear that this risk-based
> planning will be a central theme of his tenure, saying
> that the nation must do a better job of identifying
> the greatest threats and then move aggressively to
> deal with them.
>
> "There's risk everywhere; risk is a part of life," Mr.
> Chertoff said in testimony before the Senate last
> week. "I think one thing I've tried to be clear in
> saying is we will not eliminate every risk."
>
> The goal of the document's planners was not to
> identify every type of possible terrorist attack. It
> does not include an airplane hijacking, for example,
> because "there are well developed and tested response
> plans" for such an incident. Planners included the
> threats they considered the most plausible or
> devastating, and that represented a range of the
> calamities that communities might need to prepare for,
> said Marc Short, a department spokesman. "Each
> scenario generally reflects suspected terrorist
> capabilities and known tradecraft," the document says.
>
>
> To ensure that emergency planning is adequate for most
> possible hazards, three catastrophic natural events
> are included: an influenza pandemic, a magnitude 7.2
> earthquake in a major city and a slow-moving Category
> 5 hurricane hitting a major East Coast city.
>
> The strike possibilities were used to create a
> comprehensive list of the capabilities and actions
> necessary to prevent attacks or handle incidents once
> they happen, like searching for the injured, treating
> the surge of victims at hospitals, distributing mass
> quantities of medicine and collecting the dead.
>
> Once the White House approves the plan, which could
> happen within the next month, state and local
> governments will be asked to identify gaps in
> fulfilling the demands placed upon them by the
> possible strikes, officials said.
>
> No terrorist groups are identified in the documents.
> Instead, those responsible for the various
> hypothetical attacks are called Universal Adversary.
>
> The most devastating of the possible attacks - as
> measured by loss of life and economic impact - would
> be a nuclear bomb, the explosion of a liquid chlorine
> tank and an aerosol anthrax attack.
>
> The anthrax attack involves terrorists filling a truck
> with an aerosolized version of anthrax and driving
> through five cities over two weeks spraying it into
> the air. Public health officials, the report predicts,
> would probably not know of the initial attack until a
> day or two after it started. By the time it was over,
> an estimated 350,000 people would be exposed, and
> about 13,200 would die, the report predicts.
>
> The emphasis on casualty predictions is a critical
> part of the process, because Homeland Security
> officials want to establish what kinds of demands
> these incidents would place upon the public health and
> emergency response system.
>
> "The public will want to know very quickly if it is
> safe to remain in the affected city and surrounding
> regions," the anthrax attack summary says. "Many
> persons will flee regardless of the public health
> guidance that is provided."
>
> Even in some cases where the expected casualties are
> relatively small, the document lays out extraordinary
> economic consequences, as with a radiological
> dispersal device, known as a "dirty bomb." The
> planning document predicts 540 initial deaths, but
> within 20 minutes, a radioactive plume would spread
> across 36 blocks, contaminating businesses, schools,
> shopping areas and homes, as well as transit systems
> and a sewage treatment plant.
>
> The authors of the reports have tried to make each
> possible attack as realistic as possible, providing
> details on how terrorists would obtain deadly
> chemicals, for example, and what equipment they would
> be likely to use to distribute it. But the document
> makes clear that "the Federal Bureau of Investigation
> is unaware of any credible intelligence that indicates
> that such an attack is being planned."
>
> Even so, local and state governments nationwide will
> soon be required to collaboratively plan their
> responses to these possible catastrophes. Starting
> perhaps as early as 2006, most communities would be
> expected to share specially trained personnel to
> handle certain hazardous materials, for example,
> instead of each city or town having its own unit.
>
> To prioritize spending nationwide, communities or
> regions will be ranked by population, population
> density and an inventory of critical infrastructure in
> the region.
>
> The communities in the first tier, the largest
> jurisdictions with the highest-value targets, will be
> expected to prepare more comprehensively than other
> communities, so they would be eligible for more
> federal money.
>
> "We can't spend equal amounts of money everywhere,"
> said Mr. Mayer, of the Homeland Security Department.
>
> To some, the extraordinarily detailed planning
> documents in this effort - like a list of more than
> 1,500 distinct tasks that might need to be performed
> in these calamities - are an example of a Washington
> bureaucracy gone wild.
>
> "The goal has to be to get things down to a manageable
> checklist," said Gary C. Scott, chief of the Campbell
> County Fire Department in Gillette, Wyo., who has
> served on one of the many advisory committees helping
> create the reports. "This is not a document you can
> decipher when you are on a scene. It scared the living
> daylights out of people." But federal officials and
> some domestic security experts say they are convinced
> that this is a threshold event in the national process
> of responding to the 2001 attacks.
>
> "Our country is at risk of spending ourselves to death
> without knowing the end site of what it takes to be
> prepared," said David Heyman, director of the homeland
> security program at the Center for Strategic and
> International Studies, a Washington-based research
> organization. "We have a great sense of vulnerability,
> but no sense of what it takes to be prepared. These
> scenarios provide us with an opportunity to address
> that."
>
> Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy
> enough people to make it worth the effort." Herm Albright
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
> _______________________________________________
> You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
> radsafe at radlab.nl
>
> For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
>

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/radsafe