[LINK] Surviving a nuclear bomb

[stephen at melbpc.org.au]

U.S. Rethinks Strategy for the Unthinkable

By WILLIAM J. BROAD Published: December 15, 2010 www.nytimes.com


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: 
<http://www.citizencorps.gov/downloads/pdf/news/nccp/3-
5_IND_Fact_Sheet_FINAL.pdf> 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. 

<http://hps.org/hsc/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_
Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf>

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.

<http://www.ncdp.mailman.columbia.edu/>

 “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. 

(Page 2 of 2)

“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.” 

--

Cheers,
Stephen