[ RadSafe ] U.S. Called Unprepared For Nuclear Terrorism - Experts Critical of Evacuation Plans

[Susan Gawarecki]

I was interested in the true experts' reaction to the below article.  
Just how time-critical is it to evacuate from downwind after surviving 
the initial blast and energy flux?  Considering the likely resulting 
traffic jam, would the much-maligned strategy of sheltering in place 
(rather than attempting to walk out) be a rational response?  What would 
be an appropriate length of time to stay put in a sealed room for the 
worst of the short-lived radionuclides to decay, before then trying to 
leave the area?

My suspicions about the article were piqued by the statement about 
"possibility of forever abandoning many radiated neighborhoods," which 
seems extreme considering that Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been rebuilt 
60 years after their bombings.  Would the explosion of a bomb at ground 
level, creating more radioactive fallout than at H & N, be a more 
critical factor?  Wouldn't this also offer somewhat more protection from 
the initial blast?

Also, wouldn't virtually all forms of communication, as well as car 
computers, be disabled by the electromagnetic flux?

In case anyone wonders about my reasons for wanting to know, I have some 
emergency response oversight roles in my job, as well as serving as 
Communty Awareness Chair for the Local Emergency Planning Committee.  
Seems there's a lot more to be aware of recently.

Susan Gawarecki
Executive Director,
Oak Ridge Reservation Local Oversight Committee

U.S. Called Unprepared For Nuclear Terrorism - Experts Critical of 
Evacuation Plans
By John Mintz, Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 3, 2005; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/02/AR2005050201454.html

When asked during the campaign debates to name the gravest danger facing 
the United States, President Bush and challenger Sen. John F. Kerry 
(D-Mass.) gave the same answer: a nuclear device in the hands of terrorists.

But more than 3 1/2 years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the U.S. 
government has failed to adequately prepare first responders and the 
public for a nuclear strike, according to emergency preparedness and 
nuclear experts and federal reports.

Although hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved by rapidly 
evacuating people downwind of a radiation cloud, officials have trained 
only small numbers of first responders to prepare for such an event, 
according to public health specialists and government documents. And the 
information given to the public is flawed and incomplete, many experts 
agree.

"The United States is, at the moment, not well prepared to manage an 
[emergency] evacuation of this sort in the relevant time frame," said 
Richard Falkenrath, former deputy homeland security adviser and now a 
fellow at the Brookings Institution. "The federal government currently 
lacks the ability to [rapidly] generate and broadcast specific, 
geographically tailored evacuation instructions" across the country, he 
said.

Security experts consider a terrorist nuclear strike highly unlikely 
because of the difficulty in obtaining fissionable material and 
constructing a bomb. But it is a conceivable scenario, especially in 
light of the lax security at many former Soviet nuclear facilities and 
the knowledge of atomic scientists in such places as Pakistan.

Two closely held government reports obtained by The Washington Post -- 
one by the White House's Homeland Security Council, the other by the 
Energy Department -- describe in chilling detail the effects of a 
nuclear detonation, using the scenario of a strike on Washington. They 
make clear the need for split-second execution by top officials of the 
Department of Homeland Security if downwind communities dozens of miles 
away are to be saved -- a level of performance that some experts say is 
well beyond officials' ability now.

U.S. officials say they are only in the first stages of planning ways to 
communicate with endangered downwind communities, via radio, television 
or cell phones.

Members of the public who seek information from Homeland Security's Web 
site, Ready.gov, may not be getting the best advice, experts said.

Take, for example, a Ready.gov graphic showing that someone a city block 
from a nuclear blast could save his or her life by walking around the 
corner. The text reads, "Consider if you can get out of the area." 
Nuclear specialists say that advice is unhelpful because such a blast 
can destroy everything within a radius of as much as three-quarters of a 
mile.

"Ready.gov treats a nuclear weapon in this case as if it were a big 
truck bomb, which it's not," said Ivan Oelrich, a physicist who studies 
nuclear weapons for the nonprofit Federation of American Scientists. 
"There's no information in Ready.gov that would help your chances" of 
surviving a nuclear blast or the resulting mushroom cloud, he said.

Homeland Security officials acknowledge they have lots of work ahead to 
prepare for a nuclear strike -- a task they point out is extraordinarily 
difficult -- but say they have made progress.

"A lot of good work's been done, and a lot of federal resources are 
poised to respond," said Gil Jamieson, who helps run the department's 
programs to unify national, state and local emergency response efforts. 
"Can more work be done? Absolutely."

Department officials also say they have made strides in the monumental 
task of establishing standard protocols and plans among federal 
agencies, and with state and local authorities, on how to prepare for 
and respond to different types of terrorist attacks.

Homeland Security officials point with pride to the nuclear response 
training given to 2,200 first responders. But domestic defense experts 
point out there are 2 million such firefighters, police officers and 
emergency medical personnel nationwide.

More of them need crucial training in the dangers of radiation, how to 
limit their own exposure to it, how to triage victims and how to 
decontaminate them, they say. Many experts believe the government needs 
to train responders in these techniques and, more fundamentally, decide 
what their jobs would be in a nuclear attack.

A 2003 report by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security 
Administration (NNSA), designated "For Official Use Only," said the 
government lacks rules and standards for sending first responders into 
radiated areas to save people or warn them of approaching fallout. This 
would include standards for radiation exposure for firefighters and how 
to decide where to deploy responders.

The prospect of a nuclear strike "requires a fundamental shift in 
radiological protection policy for members of the public and emergency 
responders," the report added. Officials said work in these areas has 
barely begun.

In detailing the consequences of a 10-kiloton bomb attack on Washington, 
the NNSA document, and another prepared in July 2004 by the Homeland 
Security Council (HSC), used different wind projections and assumptions 
about the government's success in evacuating residents.

The HSC document, also stamped "For Official Use Only," shows a 
radioactive plume heading east over Prince George's and Anne Arundel 
counties, killing 99,000 to 190,000 people. The NNSA report describes a 
cloud moving northeast over Prince George's and Howard counties, and, 
assuming less success in evacuation, estimates 300,000 deaths.

A blast from a 10-kiloton weapon would destroy everything within a 
half-mile, the reports say, and cause severe damage for miles beyond. 
Many people would suffer "flash blindness" from the explosion.

First responders would be unlikely to enter the blast zone but would 
establish care centers upwind to help victims who escape, the reports 
say. "Triage will be a major issue," the HSC report said, noting that 
because of the huge numbers of victims, responders will have to turn 
away people too sick from radiation to survive.

In the end, years of cleanup of 3,000 to 5,000 square miles would be 
needed, the reports say. They also raise the possibility of forever 
abandoning many radiated neighborhoods. An atomic strike on this country 
"would forever change the American psyche, its politics and worldview," 
according to the White House report.

The government also has failed to communicate well with the public about 
nuclear dangers, terrorism experts said.

In late 2003, months after the debut of Homeland Security's Ready.gov 
Web site, Rand Corp. released a detailed study advising individuals on 
responding to various attack scenarios -- but with starkly different 
recommendations.

Ready.gov gave almost no information on which to base a hide-or-flee 
decision, beyond advice such as to "Quickly assess the situation" after 
a nuclear blast. In general, it advised going inside, underground if 
possible, and fleeing by car rather than on foot.

Rand, which in the 1950s was an architect of U.S. nuclear doctrine, said 
going indoors "would provide little protection in a nuclear attack." It 
said Ready.gov's suggestion that people in the blast zone head 
underground after a blast is "misleading" because few people would have 
time to take that step.

Ready.gov made no mention of the critical factor of wind. But Rand 
advised that if wind is carrying smoke and the mushroom cloud toward 
people, they should immediately head perpendicular to it, on foot, for 
at least a few miles, to get out of the plume's path. Driving would be 
futile because of impassable roads, Rand said.

"Guidance from Ready.gov fails to indicate the time urgency involved," 
said Lynn E. Davis, a former undersecretary of state for arms control 
who was the Rand study's lead author. "We must act in a matter of 
minutes to survive."

Homeland Security officials said that some of the criticisms of 
Ready.gov are valid, and that they might change its wording in some 
places. But they said several experts they consulted believe miles-high 
winds could carry radiation in a different direction from wind on the 
ground.

"We decided [advice to flee crosswind] was not necessarily the best 
guidance for the American people," said Lara Shane, a Homeland Security 
spokeswoman who runs Ready.gov.

Department officials said their strategy is not for people themselves to 
decide what to do, but for them to listen for officials' advice over 
radio or television. Some emergency response experts, however, pointed 
out many radio and TV stations would be off the air.

"The threat information our leaders have given post-9/11 has often been 
disorganized, not confidence-inspiring," added Irwin Redlener, director 
of Columbia University's National Center for Disaster Preparedness. 
"It's perilous to have a system solely dependent on central leadership 
to save lives."

Retired Gen. Dennis Reimer, a former Army chief of staff who is now the 
director of the Oklahoma-based National Memorial Institute for the 
Prevention of Terrorism, said he prefers Rand's specificity. "The 
American people can handle that," he said. "It's like the Red Cross's 
lifesaving tips," he said. "Most of us aren't doctors, but we can help 
save lives."

Researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.