[tt] NYT: New Advice for Nuclear Strike: Don't Flee, Get Inside

[Premise Checker]

New Advice for Nuclear Strike: Don't Flee, Get Inside
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html

U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Suppose the unthinkable happened, and terrorists struck New York or
another big city with an atom bomb. What should people there do? The
government has a surprising new message: Do not flee. Get inside any
stable building and don't come out till officials say it's safe.

The advice is based on recent scientific analyses showing that a
nuclear attack is much more survivable if you immediately shield
yourself from the lethal radiation that follows a blast, a simple
tactic seen as saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Even staying
in a car, the studies show, would reduce casualties by more than 50
percent; hunkering down in a basement would be better by far.

But a problem for the Obama administration is how to spread the word
without seeming alarmist about a subject that few politicians care
to consider, let alone discuss. So officials are proceeding gingerly
in a campaign to educate the public.

"We have to get past the mental block that says it's too terrible to
think about," W. Craig Fugate, administrator of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, said in an interview. "We have to be
ready to deal with it" and help people learn how to "best protect
themselves."

Officials say they are moving aggressively to conduct drills,
prepare communication guides and raise awareness among emergency
planners of how to educate the public.

Over the years, Washington has sought to prevent nuclear terrorism
and limit its harm, mainly by governmental means. It has spent tens
of billions of dollars on everything from intelligence and securing
nuclear materials to equipping local authorities with radiation
detectors.

The new wave is citizen preparedness. For people who survive the
initial blast, the main advice is to fight the impulse to run and
instead seek shelter from lethal radioactivity. Even a few hours of
protection, officials say, can greatly increase survival rates.

Administration officials argue that the cold war created an
unrealistic sense of fatalism about a terrorist nuclear attack.
"It's more survivable than most people think," said an official
deeply involved in the planning, who spoke on the condition of
anonymity. "The key is avoiding nuclear fallout."

The administration is making that argument with state and local
authorities and has started to do so with the general public as
well. Its Citizen Corps Web site says a nuclear detonation is
"potentially survivable for thousands, especially with adequate
shelter and education." A color illustration shows which kinds of
buildings and rooms offer the best protection from radiation.

In June, the administration released to emergency officials around
the nation an unclassified planning guide 130 pages long on how to
respond to a nuclear attack. It stressed citizen education, before
any attack.

Without that knowledge, the guide added, "people will be more likely
to follow the natural instinct to run from danger, potentially
exposing themselves to fatal doses of radiation."

Specialists outside of Washington are divided on the initiative. One
group says the administration is overreacting to an atomic threat
that is all but nonexistent.

Peter Bergen, a fellow at the New America Foundation and New York
University's Center on Law and Security, recently argued that the
odds of any terrorist group obtaining a nuclear weapon are "near
zero for the foreseeable future."

But another school says that the potential consequences are so high
that the administration is, if anything, being too timid.

"There's no penetration of the message coming out of the federal
government," said Irwin Redlener, a doctor and director of the
National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.
"It's deeply frustrating that we seem unable to bridge the gap
between the new insights and using them to inform public policy."

White House officials say they are aware of the issue's political
delicacy but are nonetheless moving ahead briskly.

The administration has sought "to enhance national resilience--to
withstand disruption, adapt to change and rapidly recover," said
Brian Kamoie, senior director for preparedness policy at the
National Security Council. He added, "We're working hard to involve
individuals in the effort so they become part of the team in terms
of emergency management."

A nuclear blast produces a blinding flash, burning heat and crushing
wind. The fireball and mushroom cloud carry radioactive particles
upward, and the wind sends them near and far.

The government initially knew little about radioactive fallout. But
in the 1950s, as the cold war intensified, scientists monitoring
test explosions learned that the tiny particles throbbed with
fission products--fragments of split atoms, many highly
radioactive and potentially lethal.

But after a burst of interest in fallout shelters, the public and
even the government grew increasingly skeptical about civil defense
as nuclear arsenals grew to hold thousands of warheads.

In late 2001, a month after the Sept. 11 attacks, the director of
central intelligence told President George W. Bush of a secret
warning that Al Qaeda had hidden an atom bomb in New York City. The
report turned out to be false. But atomic jitters soared.

"History will judge harshly those who saw this coming danger but
failed to act," Mr. Bush said in late 2002.

In dozens of programs, his administration focused on prevention but
also dealt with disaster response and the acquisition of items like
radiation detectors.

"Public education is key," Daniel J. Kaniewski, a security expert at
George Washington University, said in an interview. "But it's easier
for communities to buy equipment--and look for tech solutions--
because there's Homeland Security money and no shortage of
contractors to supply the silver bullet."

After Hurricane Katrina in 2005 revealed the poor state of disaster
planning, public and private officials began to question national
preparedness for atomic strikes. Some noted conflicting federal
advice on whether survivors should seek shelter or try to evacuate.

In 2007, Congress appropriated $5.5 million for studies on atomic
disaster planning, noting that "cities have little guidance
available to them."

The Department of Homeland Security financed a multiagency modeling
effort led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in
California. The scientists looked at Washington, New York, Chicago,
Los Angeles and other big cities, using computers to simulate
details of the urban landscape and terrorist bombs.

The results were revealing. For instance, the scientists found that
a bomb's flash would blind many drivers, causing accidents and
complicating evacuation.

The big surprise was how taking shelter for as little as several
hours made a huge difference in survival rates.

"This has been a game changer," Brooke Buddemeier, a Livermore
health physicist, told a Los Angeles conference. He showed a slide
labeled "How Many Lives Can Sheltering Save?"

If people in Los Angeles a mile or more from ground zero of an
attack took no shelter, Mr. Buddemeier said, there would be 285,000
casualties from fallout in that region.

Taking shelter in a place with minimal protection, like a car, would
cut that figure to 125,000 deaths or injuries, he said. A shallow
basement would further reduce it to 45,000 casualties. And the core
of a big office building or an underground garage would provide the
best shelter of all.

"We'd have no significant exposures," Mr. Buddemeier told the
conference, and thus virtually no casualties from fallout.

On Jan. 16, 2009--four days before Mr. Bush left office--the
White House issued a 92-page handbook lauding "pre-event
preparedness." But it was silent on the delicate issue of how to
inform the public.

Soon after Mr. Obama arrived at the White House, he embarked a
global campaign to fight atomic terrorism and sped up domestic
planning for disaster response. A senior official, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity, said the new administration began a revision
of the Bush administration's handbook to address the issue of public
communication.

"We started working on it immediately," the official said. "It was
recognized as a key part of our response."

The agenda hit a speed bump. Las Vegas was to star in the nation's
first live exercise meant to simulate a terrorist attack with an
atom bomb, the test involving about 10,000 emergency responders. But
casinos and businesses protested, as did Senator Harry Reid of
Nevada. He told the federal authorities that it would scare away
tourists.

Late last year, the administration backed down.

"Politics overtook preparedness," said Mr. Kaniewski of George
Washington University.

When the administration came out with its revised planning guide in
June, it noted that "no significant federal response" after an
attack would be likely for one to three days.

The document said that planners had an obligation to help the public
"make effective decisions" and that messages for predisaster
campaigns might be tailored for schools, businesses and even water
bills.

"The most lives," the handbook said, "will be saved in the first 60
minutes through sheltering in place."
_______________________________________________
tt mailing list
tt at postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE