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

[conrad]

The article is wrong at least on one point; way more than 2,000 firefighters 
have been trained; between FEMA, EPA, and DOE programs, I'd bet the number 
exceeds 10,000 and may approach over 100,000 who have had at least one day 
of training in radiological emergencies.  FEMA has been doing this a long 
time, as has DOE.  DHS through its ODP and other programs are relatively new 
efforts.

I think, without having any special inside knowledge, between feds, their 
contractors and the states, not counting industrial support; several 
thousand health physicists, radiation safety officers, and NBC warfare 
qualified advisors would be available to support first responders.

My question is this; could they be coordinated and consistent in advice and 
recommendations; in other words, when will be all singing the same tune?

Preparedness is always a relative issue!

Conrad Sherman

opinions are my own


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird at yahoo.com>
To: "Susan Gawarecki" <>; "RADSAFE" <>
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 2:23 PM
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] U.S. Called Unprepared For Nuclear 
Terrorism -Experts Critical of Evacuation Plans


> With enough money, you can decontaminate the areas
> affected by initial radiaiton and fallout.
>
> --- Susan Gawarecki <loc at icx.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>> . . .
>
> +++++++++++++++++++
> "Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, 
> the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
> Hugh Blair, 1783
>
> -- John
> John Jacobus, MS
> Certified Health Physicist
> e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>