WND 'Why First Responders Won't Respond'

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Feb. 14, 2005 | Shane Connor

[shanec]

Why first responders won't respond

---

Posted: February 14, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Shane Connor

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Though the war on terror continues, the U.S. government has left the public completely exposed to the aftermath of a radiological attack. There is no better evidence of this than the actions of the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS is very focused on interdiction, government continuity and infrastructure protection, but it has not yet prepared for civil defense, which is the protection of civilians in time of war or disaster.

Recently a Toronto Star news reporter was given a guided tour of the fallout shelters in Beijing and was told that the entire population of the city could be underground in three minutes. Russia has a vast civil defense establishment that they have begun to upgrade within the last year. What are the Chinese and Russians preparing for? Why aren't we equally concerned? Why does America, the richest nation in the world, have no civil defense?

During the Cold War, 6 million high-level radiation survey meters were distributed in communities from coast-to-coast. Civilians were trained in their use and taught simple defensive techniques for nuclear and chemical threats. Since JFK, successive administrations have degraded our civil-defense structures.

Under President Clinton, civil defense was completely disbanded and the equipment largely disposed of. It has not been replaced.

The only radiological threat the government wants to discuss is small-scale "dirty bombs" because that is the only threat they have prepared for, but even for that they are ill-equipped. Hazmat teams and a few first responders now carry overly sensitive, low-level instruments that will be useless after a nuclear detonation or even a large dirty-bomb explosion. We are woefully unprepared to assure public safety in a real nuclear event.

The DHS response to this deplorable situation has been to develop a standard for instruments carried by "first responders." Radiation meters meeting this standard are overly sensitive and so expensive ($2,000 to $12,000) that very few will be deployed. The highest level of radiation measurable by the approved instruments is equivalent to the exposure one sometimes receives on an airline flight during a solar flare – clearly not life threatening.

When the responders encounter even this meager reading, they will be forced to back off, abandoning the public within a perimeter that cannot be entered for lack of instruments that identify TRUE hazards.

It will be impossible to map the footprint of a nuclear event because there are insufficient suitable instruments deployed. They will not be able to recommend a wise course of action because they will not know where the greatest hazards are. Because of these exotic, over-sensitive instruments, emergency responders will be unable to prioritize neighborhood evacuations or to assure the safest routes out.

The DHS approved instruments are appropriate for customs agents screening for smuggled radioactive materials at close range, but these are police duties – our responders should have emergency response equipment, not detective gear!

Do you think your community is protected? Visit your local fire department and ask about their radiation detection equipment. Most likely, they have little or nothing. The good news is that radiation hazards are relatively easy to defend against with simple training of the population and appropriate instruments widely distributed. The American people should immediately demand civil defense from their government. Meanwhile, in the years that it takes for government actually to do anything, evaluate your own preparation to protect your family from a radioactive cloud drifting toward them from an event even hundreds of miles away.

Just as we all see the need for family medical insurance, while still hoping and praying never to have to use it, so too, acquiring this knowledge and these preparations are equally prudent as we race toward nuclear disaster – a day that no one will ever forget!

When the TV or radio program switches abruptly to a terse announcement saying: "We interrupt this program for a special bulletin!" and your kids look up to you with questioning, wide eyes, eager for assurances, know then that you are confidently ready for them with your own plan of action and preparations ready to go.

That's what this is all about ... protecting our precious children!

"A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences."
Proverbs 22:3

---

[Beckwith]

What to Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Imminent!

1. Spread your feet a comfortable distance apart.

2. Reach down and grab you ankles.

3. Place your head between your knees.

4. Kiss your ass goodbye.

[TXFireman]

ping

[eno_]

The author is both serious and correct. If there is a dirty bomb or a small nuke detonated in the U.S., the response will be disorganized and the bungled response will cost hundreds to thousands of lives.

[Modernman]

If there is a dirty bomb or a small nuke detonated in the U.S., the response will be disorganized and the bungled response will cost hundreds to thousands of lives.

The damage from a dirty bomb are mostly psychological, unless you happen to be standing next to it when it goes off.

There's not much the authorities can do if a nuke goes off in a US city. People within the blast zone will die quickly, people within a certain radius will die slowly and people within a certain radius will have their cancer rates go up.

[eno_]

In broad terms what you say is true. But based on this article, it seems that many burn victims will die waiting to find if they are too hot to move.

[Sgt_Schultze]

...What are the Chinese and Russians preparing for?

The Chinese one-child policy has reportedly encouraged families to abort female children. With the high population, that is probably causing a large imbalance of males to females. That's a lot of "surplus" young males who will be condemned to live life without female companionship. In the event of a ground war, the Chinese could probably field an army of several million of these disaffected youths.

Maybe that's how they intend to solve their burgeoning population of young men.

[Question_Assumptions]

The United States should simply clarify it's MAD doctrine. Our targets won't just be military targets. The bulk of our nuclear strikes will be against dams, cities, and below-surface strikes on farmland to throw as much radioactive soil into the air as possible and render the farmland useless. MAD should be about eliminating a nation as a viable entity.

[Poohbah]

In the event of a ground war, the Chinese could probably field an army of several million of these disaffected youths.

Which would work for the Chinese about as well as recruiting Crips and Bloods into the US Army would work for us--and it would fail because of the same underlying issue. Read some of George Gilder's early stuff (from before he tried to become a geek guru).

[sure_fine]

thanks to the author for posting and doing the follow up..that doesn't happen often

Which would work for the Chinese about as well as recruiting Crips and Bloods into the US Army

exactly, they would self destruct

[CLS]

"...the bungled response will cost hundreds to thousands of lives."

Perhaps that is the intended consequence?

My comment above is only PARTIALLY tongue-in-cheek. The sad part is, that my response COULD be the truth.

Has anyone read about the Georgia GuideStones?

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

It makes one think ....

[PLMerite]

"Maybe that's how they intend to solve their burgeoning population of young men."

Reminds me of something Mao was supposed to have said when presented with the prospect of a nuclear war with the Soviet Union, "Good! Give me a hundred million fewer mouths to feed."

[RetroWarrior]

If a 'small nuke' went off in a busy metropolitan area, most first responders would be DEAD! That would slow them up a bit!

As for a 'dirty bomb', the greatest damage would come from panic. But I don't think there would be much panic.

If you've ever seen a disaster area, you'd notice how most people act calmly and become 'first responders' themselves. Just look at the earthquakes, floods, etc.

When Chernobyl blew, people were removed from the affected areas without major problems. Yes, the Russian government was late in alerting the population, but the evacuation went very smoothly.

[shanec]

The damage from a dirty bomb are mostly psychological, unless you happen to be standing next to it when it goes off.

True, but there are a couple things to know to minimize radiation inhalation exposure downwind.

There's not much the authorities can do if a nuke goes off in a US city.

True, but more families could start to become better prepared the sooner they grasp the reality that they've always been on their own. Also, from the guide What to Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Imminent! we state; Government information and guidance is a vital resource in your response to a nuclear crisis, but for many reasons it may be late, incomplete, misleading or simply in error. While evacuation might be prudent for individuals who act quickly in response to a threat, governments will be slow to call for mass evacuations because of their potential for panic and gridlock. As the recent government calls for duct tape and plastic sheeting led to sold-out stores, anxiety, and derision from the press, there will be great reluctance to issue similar alarms. If you want to assure that you have adequate food and supplies for your family you must act BEFORE the panic without first waiting for government instructions that may never come or as urgently as warranted. You alone are ultimately responsible for your family.

People within the blast zone will die quickly, people within a certain radius will die slowly and people within a certain radius will have their cancer rates go up.

True, for the ground zero blast zone victims, but there is really 'Good News' awaiting that larger vast majority that will be downwind that will only have to deal with radioactive fallout. See the guide linked above for effective and practical tactics to dispel those widely held and self-defeating nuclear un-survivability myths. They are what will have many families tragically failing to even try for lack of well proven basic knowledge.

-Shane

[CDB]

Recently a Toronto Star news reporter was given a guided tour of the fallout shelters in Beijing

Do the words "Potemkin Village" come to mind? There's a sucker born every minute, isn't there?

[Modernman]

I live no more than 3 miles from the White House and the Capitol. If someone nukes DC, I figure I have about a 0% chance of surviving, so I'm kind of fatalistic about the whole thing.

[GOP_1900AD]

What to cut in order to fund Civil Defense. Let me start the list, others welcome to add on:
1. UN dues
2. Foreign aid to backstabbing anti US countries
3. All funding of abortion
4. Most non business related grants
5. Agricultural subsidies

[BurbankKarl]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

have you seen this site? navigate using the chapters on the bottom...

[shanec]

I live no more than 3 miles from the White House and the Capitol. If someone nukes DC, I figure I have about a 0% chance of surviving, so I'm kind of fatalistic about the whole thing.

The biggest surprize to the greatest number of people will be that they actually did survive the inital blast. But, they will then need to know what to do next, and quickly, or they risk not surviving for too long. Ideally, they need to have found out well beforehand, figured out their sheltering/evacuation best options and already acquired some minimum preps, mostly stuff they can someday use anyways even if nothing bad ever does get unleashed. Read the guide linked above, and discover how many more families could survive than currently think so.

-Shane

[LowInMo]

I agree. I think it is time to take at least 50% of every paycheck and 98% of every savings account from every individual in the United States of America and spend it on fallout shelters just in case someone, somewhere, at some future time, just might, either accidentally or on purpose, finds, or creates, or just thinks about, a dirty nuclear weapon. Whether or not they have the intelligence to actually set it off. I mean, what if there actually IS a 'gator in the pond?

[eno_]

Ummm, what's your point? We are already bankrupting ourselves with HSA boondoggles, and are no safer. Less, in the case of "first responders" using over-sensitive radiation meters. All of it, money down the drain.

[donmeaker]

It is important to note that there are three aspects to the Russian/Chinese fallout shelters.

1. Convince a potential attacker that Russia/China can survive an attack,
2. Convince the Russian/Chinese people that Russia/China can survive an attack,
3. Permit the Russian/Chinese government to play aggressively with their relatively weak hands.

The Russian/Chinese approach is to withhold information so markets cannot function, then complain that the ineffeciency of the market requires the government to command the diversion of resources based on the direction of (and to the benefit of) the elite. They may indeed be ready for one nuclear war, but it may not be the one that their enemy inflicts upon them. If there are any errors in their analysis, they will be very slow to react.

Rather than central planning, the US approach is freedom, to adapt to the circumstances as they exist, rather than have only a small elite able to make decisions. The US market would adapt to what ever damage, prices would direct repairs where necessary.

Our market has discounted the likelihood of nuclear war, and further discounted the likelihood of civil defense measures having useful effect. Rather than have separate stockpiles of food in the target zones, (a dumb way to do it) our system has large stockpiles of food as part of our normal operating system, and they get exchanged and rejuvenated (fifo inventory control) in the normal course of business.

[G32]

No kidding. If there's a real nuclear event, you better hope to be wellll outside of the 5psi blast zone. About 4 miles for a 10 kiloton they are likely to have. Anyone inside there's gonna be toast even if they survive in the initial heat/blast.

[Jonx6]

I don't have any first hand knowledge with other Departments but Austin FD has both detectors for high and low levels of radiation. There are also training and procedures in place for the use of this equipment and mass decon.

The high level detectors are from the feds (old CD type in good working order) and I don’t think we are the exception.

[rdcorso]

It's sickening to think that the politicians in Washington will spear no expense to save themselves and their families from a nuclear attack while the taxpayers are left with no defense.A friend of mine was just talking about building a fallout shelter like the ones people built in the 40's and 50's.I can't say that I blame him since the government isn't even willing to provide the basics.I know the politicians are too busy wasting our money on important issues but maybe it's time to slap them in the head to wake them up.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

"There's not much the authorities can do if a nuke goes off in a US city. People within the blast zone will die quickly, people within a certain radius will die slowly and people within a certain radius will have their cancer rates go up."

 

Just need to add one thing. With today's nuclear weapons this will happen whether or not you make it to a shelter. Anyone who tells you different is sadly not facing the truth.

 

Also anyone who believes a city in China can be evacuated underground in 3 minutes is an idiot. Do you have any idea how many people that is, even in a small city in China?

[AIC]

Before getting too excited about this writers column think about answering the writer's question about, Why aren't we equally concerned? Why does America, the richest nation in the world, have no civil defense? My answer to the above question is answered with a lot of other questions like the few that follow. It's because that once an atomic bomb war starts and is then finished, even if you live through it, what do you think will be left? How long do you think a person can live after a nuclear war? Most, if not all of the animals will be dead. You wouldn't be able to grow anything. The water wouldn't be fit to drink. Would you really want to live after a nuclear war? What would you do after a nuclear war? How would you survive and for how long? The whole world will have changed so think about if you could be able to change with it. Would the world go back to, only the strong survive? The last and most deeply thinking question to really think about is; would you really want to start it all over again?

[ExSoldier]

BLAST ZONES

[RetroWarrior]

Bookmarked for later read, thanks.

[eno_]

VERY informative visualization.

I would encourage everyone to take a look. A nuclear blast in a city definitely does NOT mean the whole city is wrecked. It does mean a huge disaster, with thousands to tens of thousands of serious but non-fatal injuries.

It definitely highlights the fact that first responders will be needed, will be available, and that their performance will mean life or death for thousands, at least.

[zeugma]

Your questions and comments are valid, but I'd point out that the real question is, since 9/11/2001, why is it they the only real response the government has made is to increase their power? Why is it that only now are we starting to hear people talk a little about immigration? Why are airline pilots still unarmed? Why is it that the government thinks that the key to making airlines safe is to further disarm the passengers to the point that they'll throw you in jail for having a swiss army knife?

The man from the government who says he's here to help you is lying. He's here to help himself.

[Beckwith]

In August 1948, a Sunday evening, my family was driving back to Boston from Cape Cod. Walter Winchell was on the radio and announced the Russians had the bomb. His screed was pretty much the same as yours.

I was eight, his report scared the stuffing out of me and I was terrified of a nuclear holocaust. However, after ten years or so of air raid drills where we crawled under our desks at school, I kind of became numb to the whole notion of nuclear warfare.

The bomb exists. No one has used it because they knew, up front, we would drop a couple of thousand nukes on whoever did use it.

However, in the current climate, I would prefer that our government announce a very clear policy describing what would be the response to a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States. I believe that the mooslims should know Mecca and Medina would turn into glass if any of their jihad whackjobs should attack the United States, its territories or its allies with a nuke.

But I don't worry about nuclear war or attacks because it is totally out of my hands and your description of the hoorors has the same impact on me as Dr. Strangelove.

[eno_]

My answer to the above question is answered with a lot of other questions like the few that follow. It's because that once an atomic bomb war starts and is then finished, even if you live through it, what do you think will be left? How long do you think a person can live after a nuclear war? Most, if not all of the animals will be dead. You wouldn't be able to grow anything. The water wouldn't be fit to drink. Would you really want to live after a nuclear war? What would you do after a nuclear war? How would you survive and for how long? The whole world will have changed so think about if you could be able to change with it. Would the world go back to, only the strong survive? The last and most deeply thinking question to really think about is; would you really want to start it all over again?

All commonplace misconceptions. Look at the blast radius diagrams on the site linked to in #28. Would one such bomb destroy one major metro area? 10? Would it take more like 20-100? Short of all-out thermonuclear war between the now non-existent full-strength arsenals of the U.S. and Soviet Union, there is no nuclear doomsday. Failure to care for the injured would be a travesty.

[shanec]

My posted comments that followed the WND article got pulled because I had a commercial link in my signature, so here they are again without it...

I'm the original author and though WND did edit this a tad, the basic theme is intact that the 'first responder' community has been pushed towards overly sensitive radiological instruments. This will someday be seen as a major tragic blunder when it unfolds live atop the emergency response to a future nuclear disaster. These instruments are better suited for interdiction, the discovering of a bomb before it has gone off, as they are totally unsuited for use in Civil Defense after a bomb has detonated and contaminated an area. These instruments pegged out at these low levels make it impossible to then determine whether the local intensity is a little above it's detectable range or 100 or 1,000 times more so. That could be the difference between a local population being safe to stay put for a month or needing to get out within minutes. First responders will be hard pressed then to determine which areas should shelter in-place, or most need evacuation first and even what the safest routes out are. They will be crippled to confidently enter, respond or direct anybody anywhere! This will be the 'big story' of the needless loss of life via the failed emergency response that'll erupt shortly after that day 'none will ever forget'.

BTW, this free guide is both worthwhile reading and bookmarking for when a future nuclear crisis is brewing... What to Do If A Nuclear Disaster Is Imminent!

- Shane

[ExSoldier]

A nuclear blast in a city definitely does NOT mean the whole city is wrecked.

Notice that the graphic specifies a nominal yield of 10 kilotons, approximating the Hiroshima device. Also approximating a "manpad" aka suitcase nuke. Anything bigger is going to cause a much larger problem. For example say a terrorist group manages to buy a city-buster nuke from atop a mirv missile. Ukraine? Russian mob? 30-50 megatons is going to wreak total havoc. 50 million TONS of TNT? To put that in perspective, picture a rail car commonly used to transport coal, for example. Such a train full of 50 million TONS of explosive moving past a fixed point at 50mph will take EIGHT HOURS to go by. That's why they're refwerred to as city-busters. That's my nightmare scenario.

[eno_]

50 megatons is the size of the Tsar Bomba - the biggest thermonuclear device ever made. I don't think that size was ever turned into an actual weapon.

[Quix]

Thanks.

Sobering.

When are we going to sentence Dillbo and Shrillery Clinton to Leavenworth?

Ahhhh, when we do Scuba Kennedy.

Ahhhh, when h*ll freezes over?

Sigh.

Has there been any culture in history so officially suicidal?

[ExSoldier]

You know, I believe you're correct. IIRC, 25 megatons is the size of the average mirv warhead. Obviously a thermonuclear device aka hydrogen bomb. So, 25 million tons would take four hours to pass a fixed point at 50mph. LOL Some difference if you're in the target zone.

[shanec]

Another big variable involved here in determining the blast damage area is whether the nuke is detonated at ground level or is an air burst. The following is from www.radshelters4u.com where it's readily evident that a 500kt ground blast is not as destructive as the much smaller 200kt air burst...

A readily portable terrorist nuclear bomb would likely be only a fraction as powerful as the examples above, but for reference, the Hiroshima nuclear bomb was only a 15KT air burst. (The RA-115 backpack nukes reported missing from Russian stockpiles are one kiloton yield each.)

As noted above, blast effects drop off quickly with distance. At Hiroshima a brick building survived only 640 feet from ground zero. And less than a mile away a trolley car remained intact and on its tracks.

For concerns of a future Soviet attack, the current thinking is that with the continuing trend towards more accurate MIRV'ed (multiple, independently targetable, re-entry vehicles) nuclear weapons, they are now mostly smaller than in the past, averaging on the order of 500 KT or less and for submarines only 200 KT. Of course, there are now more warheads per missile (4-10) and they are substantially more accurate than during the height of the cold war. Also, any targeted military installations can expect to receive multiple hits.

Again, we are exploring here only the initial direct effects of a nuclear explosion, and specifically, the shock wave and blast effect. (Thermal Pulse effects will be covered below.)

All buildings will suffer light damage from the shock wave at even 1 psi peak overpressure--shattered windows, doors damaged or blown off hinges and interior partitions cracked. The maximum wind velocity would be only about 35 miles per hour. As the overpressure increases, so does the blast wind--exceeding hurricane velocities above about 2 psi.

So, how much blast or overpressure is too much to survive?

It, of course, depends on where you are when it comes charging through, but from a 500 KT blast, 2.2 miles away, it'll be arriving about 8 seconds after the detonation flash. (An even larger 1 MT blast, but 5 miles away, would give you about 20 seconds.)

Like surviving an imminent tornado, utilizing those essential seconds after the initial flash to 'duck & cover' could be the difference between life & death for many. Both the overpressure in the blast shock wave and the blast wind are important causes of casualties and damage.

...continued on www.radshelters4u.com

- Shane

[Teacher317]

That website is only representing a 10-kiloton weapon. The US and Russia both have many 300+ kiloton warheads. Big difference.

[eno_]

You are still thinking megatons when it is kilotons. 25 megatons is still a whopping huge device. About as big as the U.S. ever built and tested, IIRC, but not weaponized. Multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons are not a big part of anyone's arsenal, and are not very portable. 10 kilotons is about what Pakistan was able to cobble together and realistically what a terrorist could hope to acquire, if that.

It would make a hell of a disaster, but the reality is that there would be a city left standing around such a blast - with tens of thousands dead and a huge number of critically injured survivors. They better have a response plan that doesn't end up doubling the fatalities because it was not competent.

[ExSoldier]

HipShot was a mirv technician. HipShot, what is the average size of a mirv warhead in KT or MT as applicable. I remember you once told me it was something like 475 KT.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Actually your chances of dying at 3 miles out are fairly close to zero, with shards of glass from a blown out window the biggest hazard.

[Eaker]

Ping for later.

[JasonC]

"There's not much the authorities can do if a nuke goes off in a US city."

On the contrary, they will be very busy because they will have so much to do and so little training, preparation, equipment, or personnel to do it with. Can they make it all better? No of course not. But they will be swamped for weeks. The more we prepare, the more we can avoid the truly avoidable follow on consequences, that would stem from services collapse rather than direct effects.

Those include medical response, evacuation, immediate relief supplies, substitutes for essentials (water e.g.) clearing and cleaning the impact area. Not enjoying thinking about it, or setting a standard at "if it doesn't bring everyone back, what's the point?" is unrealistic, shortsighted, and stupid.

There might have been some reason to be cavalier about such things when the threat was 10,000 nukes within a matter of days or hours from the Soviet Union, at the height of the cold war. But when the threat is a terrorist nuke, pretending it will be the end of the world is simply irresponsible. Men will have to clean up and carry on. And we'd better be ready, because with the state of our policies toward NK and Iran etc, and the indifference of the rest of the world, it is mostly a matter of when not if, at this point.

[TEXOKIE]

"What to cut in order to fund Civil Defense. Let me start the list, others welcome to add on:
1. UN dues
2. Foreign aid to backstabbing anti US countries
3. All funding of abortion
4. Most non business related grants
5. Agricultural subsidies "




bttt this comment

[HipShot]

I can only speak to the old stuff, ExSoldier. The SALT 1 treaty led to reduced but more powerful MIRVs on the C3, (10 max). The yield per bullet was increased from 40+ kt, (W68), to 100 kt, (W76), as compensation.

This was 25 years ago. A lot has changed since then.

This information is readily and publicly available.

[HipShot]

Here's a couple of questions that put our ability to respond into sharp relief:

How many burn victims would there be if a 1kt were to be deployed at 5:00 pm in Manhatten?

Now....

How many burn beds are there en toto in the entire country?

[judicial meanz]

There arent a lot of burn beds in this country. Last I knew, it was hovering about 3,000. This is fairly old information however.

I cant go into too much detail, but there is a lot more out there than most people know about.

First responders may not have a lot of in depth survey equipment, but there are significant follow on assets that can be mobilized for any type of radiologcal response, and within a few hours of an event.

There are state radiation teams, and they have the right survey equipment to deal with the initial emergency. Survey meters, protective equipment, decontamination equipment, and a full suite of response capabilities. There are also state radiation laboratories, and mobile response assets. Depends on the state and how much money they have invested in response. They hold the fort until the feds arrive.

The Federal Government has FRMAC teams, and RAP teams out there, and they can be on scene in hours. They have pre-positioned equipment that can be loaded on an aircraft and flown there immediately.

Its not as bad as the writer makes it out, but there are some areas that can be doing better.

[eno_]

That sounds more like it. A MIRV warhead must be pretty compact, so 100s of kilotons sounds about right for modern ICBMs. THAT would leave a mark.