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

[howard long]

I agree about both applications and ethics, but I boost wide use of devices, not awaiting desired training.
 
Microwave use has similar concerns, but people rarely have serious trouble, despite not even reading instructions. I advise hot packs for many conditions to increase blood supply and speed healing. I show patients how to put 4 lb rice in a pillow case, knot it and microwave for 2 min. then test on arm like baby milk. So far, no burns and much relief of earaches and  backaches. HPs could in one minute give emergency demonstration of what to do if palmRAD,
NUKalert, etc show specific readings. 
 
Hormesis is important up front, because unwarranted fear of future cancer leads to shutting down actually beneficial sources.
 
Howard Long  

"Minnema, Douglas" <Douglas.Minnema at nnsa.doe.gov> wrote:
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)
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