[ RadSafe ] RE: DHS PLANNING SCENARIOS -Scenario 1: Nuclear Deton ation

[Minnema, Douglas]

Howard and all,
 
I agree but would add at least two more elements.  Unfortunately, those two
elements often tend to be the weakest link in many of our plans.  The two
elements are:
 
1.  Applications training - By this I mean more than just teaching people
how to turn on and read a meter, or what I refer to as "awareness training".
The person using the meter must have an understanding of the appropriate
applications and limitations of the equipment, combined with a good
appreciation for the meaning and significance of the results of the
measurements.  This requires much more than a pamphlet enclosed with the
meter or even a document from a website.  It means hands-on instruction,
preferably with a real instructor, combined with practical experience with
the instrument in real radiation fields.
 
2. Ethics training - By this I mean that the person must understand the
moral responsibilities that come with the capability that has been given to
him or her.  The person must recognize that the information provided by the
equipment can be misused as as easily as it can be properly used, and that
is true even for the person with best intentions.  As we've all seen in the
news, panic can be initiated for the simplest of reasons, and this is
heightened even further when the topic is ionizing radiation.  When we
evacuate blocks of cities because a reading was twice background, when we
shut down roads for hours because of a slightly contaminated package, it is
obvious that carrying and using a radiation detector requires much more
social responsibility than just knowing how to turn it on and read it.  That
is certainly not what any of us ever wanted or intended, but we must
recognize the fact.  If all it took was a slogan then I'd suggest "meter
responsibly", but we all have seen that it has taken much more than the
slogan "drink responsibly" to get drunk drivers off the roads.
 
The first of these is hard, but doable, if the society decides to commit
enough resources.  The second is much more difficult, but I believe much
more important.  Unfortunately, we will probably have to forego the second
one because, since there is a widespread mistrust of the government and
people in authority to provide accurate and timely information, there may be
no alternative to putting a meter in the hands of everybody who wants one.
 
Finally, I don't think we need to get into the hormesis argument to address
the concern you suggest in your item number 3.  All we need to do is to get
people to understand that there is a big difference between surviving the
day and surviving the next 20 years.  Just put it all in the proper
perspective.  But alas, since that one gets tied back into my item 2 above,
then we may have a problem.
 
Over all, I agree with Gerry Blackwood and yourself on the most important
thing - it's time to stop postulating the worst, stop planning the perfect
solution, and lets get something into place that we can then work to
improve.  None of these models and simulations are perfect, but they all
provide us with information we didn't have before.  Let's learn what we can
from them and then act on that lesson.  A coworker of mine has a good phrase
that applies well here:  "an adequate plan adequately implemented is far
better than the perfect plan never carried out".
 
Doug Minnema, PhD, CHP
 
what few thoughts i have are truly my own.

-----Original Message-----
From: howard long [mailto:hflong at pacbell.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 6:46 PM
To: Minnema, Douglas; Radsafe (E-mail)
Subject: DHS PLANNING SCENARIOS -Scenario 1: Nuclear Deton ation


Doug's model showing, "early fallout from such a burst could result in
external doses in excess of 100 rem at distances beyond 30 miles from the
detonation", supports need for 
1, Rad measuring devices widely available,
2, Guides like below or Nuclear War Survival Skills - Kearny (free online
www.oism.org <http://www.oism.org> )
3, Hormesis recognition (so action by 10 rem, but no panic at <100 rem),
4, Getting mass (earth, cement, etc ) between people and fallout, as in
Kearny, above.
 
Howard Long, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness member