Nuclear Blast Victims Would Have to Wait

Discussion in 'International Current News & Events' started by mosquitomountainman, Apr 14, 2010.

  1. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    Nuclear blast victims would have to wait - USATODAY.com

    So says Obama...

    Just a couple of excerpts from the article...

    "The White House has warned state and local governments not to expect a "significant federal response" at the scene of a terrorist nuclear attack for 24 to 72 hours after the blast, according to a planning guide. ...

    The document is designed to help local officials craft plans for responding to a nuclear blast. The prospect is anything but far-fetched, says Rick Nelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Do I think in my lifetime I'll see the detonation of a nuclear device? I do."
    The "Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation" was developed by a task force headed by the White House Homeland Security Council. It was circulated to state and local government officials and first responders in January 2009. ...

    The report has never been formally released to the public, White House spokesman Nick Shapiro says. ...

    It offers practical guidance to first responders and advice on radiation measurement and decontamination.

    Disaster experts say local governments aren't prepared for a nuclear attack. "There isn't a single American city, in my estimation, that has sufficient plans for a nuclear terrorist event," says Irwin Redlener of Columbia University's Mailman School of Public Health.

    The message for families is simple, he says: Stay put. Wait for instructions. If you've been outside, dust off, change, shower. "What citizens need to know fits on a wallet-sized card," Redlener says. "A limited amount of information would save tens of thousands of people."


    Pay particular attention to the last paragraph. Get prepared. The government can't/won't help you.
     
  2. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    There is that 72hr thing again ... I keep thinking that 72hr would be the minimum to be prepared not the maximum that seems to be the "feel" given by all kinds of documents.

    The funny thing is - a long weekend normally sees me re-stocking up on supplies. A long weekend is only 72hrs long and I know that I have enough to keep going for longer, but, I always seem to need to be out shopping for more supplies ...
     

  3. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    I agree with NaeKid AT LEAST 72 hours is what you should plan for; at most?

    but I can understand the wait, sending waves of medical teams into radioactive areas is just going to negligently infect more people. Bomb hits, people are infected, you can't go back in time, but you can prevent further harm by keeping the people most likely able to help out of harms way.

    now why it took so long to get into New Orleans?
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2010
  4. UncleJoe

    UncleJoe Well-Known Member

    6,764
    108
    And that need seems to be getting more pressing with every passing day.
     
  5. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    Makes perfect sense. It takes roughly 3 days for nuclear fallout to stop falling and roughly 90% of the radioactive material to decay. Of course, ground zero will be radioactive for much longer.

    After 3-5 days, it should be safe to begin the decontamination of the outlying affected areas at least. Decontaminating those who are still alive with radiation sickness, washing down fallout-covered areas, cutting down ash-filled trees and tilling over contaminated soil.
     
  6. drhwest

    drhwest Junior Member

    71
    0
    I agree with Allen. It is not feasible to send in help without guaranteeing their safety first. Those that have already been exposed need to get out or shelter in place until the radiation levels drop. Chernobyl is a prime example of that. They denied that there was an accident for hours and kept sending in staff to help put out the fires. Most of them received lethal doses of radiation.
     
  7. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    One of the disappointments with this article is the total lack of information on just what people should do. Going home and waiting for instructions sounds nice on paper but how are the instructions going to be given? And how many people will have shielding material to protect themselves from nuclear fallout that they can have ready in 30 minutes or less? Are they to wait trustingly "indoors" while radiation takes it's toll? Is the government's idea of disaster preparedness just to treat radiation sickness or to prevent it? Our national civil defense plans are entirely inadequate. Survival is up to the individual and a 72 hour kit is only the beginning...the absolute minimum.

    There should be public fallout shelters ready to go as there were in the 60's. They should be fully stocked with food, water, and blankets. Send this article to your congress critters and demand action from them. I have no intention of ever using public facilities but the better prepared the public system is, the fewer problems we will have to deal with then and afterward.

    We have a family member who is a fireman. There are no real plans for nuclear protection. They've done evacuation drills but that's about all. And these were done on a very small level (terrorist threat to a high school).

    As was mentioned in the article, the threat is real. We, as individuals, need to be ready and we need to light a fire under the public "servants" who should be implementing real plans to protect the public. It's no longer a question of "if." It's a question of "when."
     
  8. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    there are, many local buildings, when built, are specified as public fallout shelters. I think there's a city quota? Though more public knowledge should be available, maybe more prominent placement of signs (i'm sure storefronts don't want them out in the open).

    maybe for larger cities, but do you think that threat applies equally across the board? shouldn't we focus on major cities larger populations of people?
     
  9. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The good news about nuclear destruction

    There's a very good article at the above website that explains the problem with our government's lack of preparation and how much could be done with a more assertive stance on civil defense. Following is a short excerpt from the article:

    "The National Planning Scenario No. 1, an originally confidential internal 2004 study by the Department of Homeland Security, demonstrated the above survival odds when they examined the effects of a terrorist nuke going off in Washington, D.C. They discovered that a 10 kiloton nuke, about two-thirds the size of the Hiroshima bomb, detonated at ground level, would result in about 15,000 immediate deaths and another 15,000 casualties from the initial blast, thermal flash and radiation release. As horrific as that is, the surprising revelation here is that over 99 percent of the residents in the D.C. area will have just witnessed and survived their first nuclear explosion. Clearly, the good news is most people will survive the initial blast.

    The study also determined that another 250,000 people would soon be at risk from lethal doses of radiation from the fallout drifting downwind toward them after the blast. These much larger casualty numbers are avoidable, and that's more good news, but only for those pre-trained by a Civil Defense program in what to do before it arrives.

    Another study, released this month by the Rand Corporation, looked at a terrorist 10-kiloton nuke arriving in a cargo container and being exploded in the Port of Long Beach, Calif. Over 150,000 people were estimated to be at risk downwind from fallout, again, many more than from the initial blast itself.

    Today, lacking any meaningful Civil Defense program, millions of American families continue to be at risk and could perish needlessly for lack of essential knowledge that used to be taught at the grade school level.

    The public urgently needs to be instructed in Civil Defense basics, like the good news that thousands can be saved employing the old "Duck and Cover" tactic, without which most people will instead run to the nearest window to see what the big flash was just in time to be shredded by the glass imploding inward from the shock wave. They need to know when promptly evacuating, doing so perpendicular to the coming downwind drift of the fallout would be their best strategy. They must also be taught how to effectively shelter in place for a brief time while the radioactive fallout loses 90 percent of it's lethal intensity in the first seven hours and 99 percent of it in two days. For those requiring sheltering from fallout, the majority would only need a couple or three days of hunkering down, not weeks on end. "

    The frustrating thing is that by the time information is disseminated after a nuclear attack it will be too late for hundreds of thousands of people. The disaster preparedness material you get from FEMA now has about two paragraphs regarding nuclear attack. About all they say is do what the authorities tell you to do. They used to give you plans for both planned and expedient shelters but not anymore.

    I don't know why there shouldn't be a national effort to at least inform people of the options. While I expect such an attack is most likely in a major city I'm not confidant that the threat of a large scale nuclear war is a thing of the past.

    The sad thing is that very little would have to be done by the government to make a big difference in the number of lives saved.

    The good thing about being a participant on this board is that we have been warned and have the resources available to do something about it.
     
  10. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I seem to detect a slight bit of " The Government will/ should do something " but folks you all know there is no way the Gov is going save us, help us, prevent anything. The Gov has created the problem and it wasn't an accident, to expect them to do anything is is wasted time and emotions.

    All we can do is try to teach the willing and feel sorry for the sheeple, I'm sorry but I don't think the meek are going to inherit anything , the vault is empty, the bank is closed, the Gov. is broke because "We the People" are broke, no jobs, no tax bucks rolling in...

    We are alone in this and nobody's coming to help us... except us...sorry to sound so negative but there it is....

    Also from what I've seen I think I'll be better off without the Gov being involved
     
  11. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    I agree. You can not rely on Uncle Sam riding in on a white horse to pull you out of the rubble. It's not going to happen. If you aren't watching your own back, nobody is.

    Public fallout shelters just wouldn't work these days. This isn't 1950's America. People just aren't as friendly as they used to be.

    When not in use, the need for constant maintenance and security would most likely lead to these shelters being shut down, boarded up, and eventually demolished or sold and turned into a starbucks.

    When not in use, you run the risk of a group of homeless people moving in. Or teenagers turning the place into a drug den. Or vandals and thieves pilfering the stockpiled goods. Or local thugs using the place to conveniently commit the occassional murder and gang rape.

    When not in use, you would still need somebody on payroll to constantly test and maintain the place. Otherwise, what good is a fallout shelter with non-functioning equipment, spoiled food, cracking concrete, rusted steel, and no working lights? What happens if a bilge pump fails and the place fills up with water? That costs money. Money that the average politician would eventually refuse to spend, shutting down the public fallout shelters.

    There is a reason that most of the vaults built during the cold war don't exist anymore.
     
  12. kogneto

    kogneto The Skeptic

    280
    0
    hmm well I think our best option, being the informed citizens we are, is to educate the populace; if the government can't be relied on to do so, shouldn't we then fulfill that role

    hmm, needs more grassroots movements me thinks

    why can't prepping be as vocal as tea partiers? we're here, no fear, get used to it! hmm not catchy enough
     
  13. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    Good luck with that! drop a post card and let me know how it went....:D

    Even at it's worst the Gov has / had more and better resources to deal with most any disaster , but they can't get it done.. there is no way a few so called " wierdo's " like us are going to get anywhere and all you will do is paint a path to your door.

    A point... A few of my friends and I were having a conversation about being prepared , and one of my friends said to another that he couldn't see any sense in doing all that stuff when he could just come over a shoot any one who is prepared and take their stuff... now he was just being mouthy but the thought is there, and ya know, I believe he would!

    I know that at least one person there besides me made a small note in our mental check list... Joke or no..it will be remembered.

    I work on the people I care about and that's that...
     
  14. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The original fallout shelters on the 60's through 80's were not special structures for the most part. They were businesses and existing public buildings that provided a FPF (fallout protection factor) of at lest 40. (Meaning the radiation inside the shelter was 1/40th the rate of fallout outside the shelter.) The only special preparations they had was storage for food/water/gieger counters and sometimes blankets and other disaster supplies. The buidings had a small sign posted by the doors showing they were an emergency shelter. I believe they also had the FPF rating and a capacity rating. There really wasn't a lot of expense involved in either stocking or maintenance. The "food" was basicly survival crackers - enough to keep you alive but certainly not gourmet fare! I believe they figured a two week stay was adequate.

    We had "duck and cover" drills in school just as we had tornado and fire drills. Due to pubic awareness many people installed fallout shelters in their homes and on the property. It wasn't really a big thing and there were at least some measures ready to go for those who didn't prepare beforehand to go to when they became "believers" after the fact.

    The cost for preparation would be substantially less than the expense on not preparing if there is an actual nuclear attack on this country. Prevention is amost always the better route than the cost of the "cure" afterward.

    And this is probably the basic problem with the whole system: Do people really believe it will happen? And of those who do believe do they believe it is survivable with preparations? If the answer is yes to both then we'll see some action.

    Kogneto: I may check into our local civil defense plans to see if they could use some help. The better the public option is the less we'll have to worry about at our own location.

    HB - I've met those people too and know exactly what you mean:sssh:
     
  15. NaeKid

    NaeKid YourAdministrator, eh?

    8,000
    10
    I am starting to see a "government job" for some of the retired. Hold government sponsor'd preparation classes in the evenings at the local colleges. Now, before all the old guys on the board get their grey-beards all tied up in a knot, I have my reason for suggesting a retired person.

    1. A retired person has time to prepare before the class
    2. A retired person has lived a great life and has the life experiences to back up what they are potentially teaching
    3. A retired person has the skills already learned for survival and does not need to rely on book-knowledge in order to teach the course

    It doesn't need to be anything significant - just significant enough to get people thinking (really thinking and just not about the latest reality-show). Charge a small entrance fee to cover things like coffee / tea / goodies / handouts that people visiting the class would be able to take home. Throw in a business sponsor'd door-prize that has something to do with preparations (maybe a book on canning or a wind-up flashlight) and you will have a recipe for success.

    Do I hear any volunteers from this group willing to talk to their local mayor about holding preparation classes?
     
  16. Asatrur

    Asatrur Well-Known Member

    444
    0
    I tried this in my town and was pretty much told, do not worry we have it covered and when I asked they would feed people if food systems were impacted, they had no answer and it was the same for most everything I brought up.

    Most cities IMO look at small changes and are not excited about possibly exciting the population with talk of their bubbles being burst.
     
  17. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0

    But then who would greet me every time I go to walmart? :cry:

    :welcome:

    ok. that was a joke. It's actually a sound idea.
     
  18. mosquitomountainman

    mosquitomountainman I invented the internet. :rofl:

    3,698
    70
    The local community college might be good place to start.
    Or any ohter place that offers adult education classes.
     
  19. HozayBuck

    HozayBuck Well-Known Member

    3,183
    16
    I will give the idea this, IF you live in a small enough town, lets say 500 or less, you might find enough people willing to talk about it, folks in small towns have a better grasp of real life or so I believe , and in a place that small it's possible to know almost everybody, you'd know who might be open to the discussion and who would blow you off...

    In a small town it would be easy to print up information fliers and place them around in public places..

    Also go to a town council meeting and ask a few questions of the leadership... from the back of the room, not for running room but when folks turn around to see whose talking you can look at each of them and not the Mayor or councilmen , look for interested faces.. read some eyes...you can approach them later with some hand outs, and pass information out at the end of the meeting..

    These are just positive suggestions in the face of my seemingly negative remarks...

    I guess after so many years of getting blown off by some of my best friends, people who I know are smart and with good jobs and who can afford to do something all are the best of parents..yet, they just kind of laugh and say ahh Hozay we know your ready for anything, and you won't lock us out..and dammit they are right.. mostly because all are shooters, big time shooters and owners of a lot of weapons...so I'll feed em and they will fight...:D

    Anyway, I think there is some merit to trying to wake up some of the sheeple... hell if you can get 10 real and willing people you have a good start on a MAG...and if your organized you can always pull the town together by being willing to stand up and take charge.

    If you can't herd the sheeple then lead them, they will follow.. feed the workers and take the whiners 30 miles out of town and drop them off...saves time and you won't have to shoot them later...:D
     
  20. allen_idaho

    allen_idaho Well-Known Member

    348
    0
    I live near a very small town. Right now, it's got about 150 people living there. Maybe. The population has dropped so much that they are actually planning on shutting down the school that I went to all those years ago. Back then, my graduating class was only 16 people. These days, there are so few kids that they just want to shut it down and ship them off to a nearby school.

    The relevance of this is that the school is a very massive concrete building. It was built in the 1940's to function as both a school and fallout shelter. If it isn't going to be used anymore, I wonder if they would be willing to convert it into something useful rather than just letting it fall into decrepitude. Like, a fallout shelter and emergency facility for example.