Terrorist Nuke? - Shelter in place, says FEMA

Sigh - but can we trust FEMA?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/science/16terror.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp

This article contains a link to a planning guide for surviving a terrorist nuclear bomb, and the gist of it all is to shelter in place for as many hours as you can if you survive the blast. Even sitting in a car for several hours reduces your risk of death from fallout by about half. Being in a basement or underground garage is even better - remember fallout shelters?

The planning guide mentions EMP, too - it's unlikely to have effects outside the blast damage zone with bombs the size terrorists are most likely to use - 10 kilotons and less. Even if your stuff survives the blast but is fried by EMP, gear brought into the area will still work; if there are working cells, for example, outside cellphones will still make calls.

The advice is to be able to shelter in place for 72 hours until FEMA comes to your rescue. Without regard to snarkiness about FEMA, the guide is ~130 in .pdf format. I've scanned through it but not read it yet, and it seems to be to be helpful in combatting the hysteria that will arise if a terrorist nuke goes off - preparation goes a long way toward survival.

I haven't reviewed the FEMA guide yet, but thinking about this like any other disaster, its only correct that they point out that those sheltering in place a distance from the initial blast will enhance the likelihood of survival. Absent some sort of full scale thermonuclear attack by the Russians, this is all survivable, and while horrific to experience and extremely difficult to respond to, yes - I do trust FEMA, my state and local authorities, including medical assistance, shelter assistance, and volunteer partner agencies - to come to aid folks after such a disaster. Most disasters are local, and involve moving in aid and supplies from relatively nearby places - alot of nearby effort could be disabled by a terrorist nuclear detonation. Most disaster areas are not radioactively hot. There are issues responding to a nuclear disaster that will delay any response. But the premise is you want people to survive the initial blast, and fallout radiation, and for that you ask them to shelter in place according to the best methods available.

FYI I don't think snarkiness about FEMA responses is fair or worthwhile anymore, and certainly isn't productive. Working with FEMA now is a different experience than Katrina might have been. If you encounter a disaster, nuclear or otherwise, you'll find a number of responders on your doorstep as soon as possible, most of them local and state level. I'm positive that none of them are going to make you whole from the experience. FEMA is in there for the largest disasters, and the long haul. Folks who want to rail about FEMA would do well to educate themselves about what FEMA will actually *do* for them versus what they are expected to do for themselves first.

FOX just went over this.

Basically NUKE goes off you can't really do much other than bunker in place they said...

I have downloaded and will read over the 130 pages.

But, from prior training and knowledge, the basic tennant of dealing with anything radioactive is: Time - Distance - Shielding.

Time - Radioactive material decays at an exponential rate. The further along you are on the decay, the less energy there is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_decay

Distance - Radiation of all types (including light, thermal, and nuclear) follows the "Inverse-Square Law". For every foot away, the effective energy in the radiation decreases by some proportion of the original value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Shielding - Alpha, Beta, and Gamma particles are emitted from ionizing radiation are emitted from a nuclear device. This radiation poses a health hazard.

Alpha - Not a concern, unless direct contact (i.e. injested, on the skin, etc). I forgot the number, but I think a newspaper will protect you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_particle

Beta - A little more penetrating. Apparently can be stopped with a few millimeters of aluminum.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_particle

Gamma - This is the stuff that goes far distances. This is why you build 12 - 24" walls with lots of sand in them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_particle

I am pretty sure that this is a "do the most good for the most people", and most people in an urban environment will have some shielding around them to limit/mitigate their exposure. The combination of time, distance and amount of shielding will determine their likelyhood of survival.

Evacuating people into the open will remove the shielding component, and could decrease the distance component. If you evacuate them early, you are on the "beginning" of the decay line, not further down, where the amount of energy is lower.

I took this FEMA Independent Study course a few years a go, and its a good review of basic High School nuclear physics, and gives some more useful information:

IS-3 - Radiological Emergency Management
http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is3.asp

FEMA has some of the best emergency managers and has done a lot of the engineering studies and thinking ahead about these sorts of issues. Unfortunately FEMA is not often allowed to do the the pure 'best for the most' thing very often. Politics, funding through the political branches, and political appointments can easily cripple the agency and negate all the good it might do.

If the agency is well funded and allowed to operate as an independent, goal-directed and professional organization run by trained and experienced emergency managers it can do a lot of good saving lives and minimizing losses. When it is run by a someone without qualifications, without understanding or training, without common decency, it gets ugly. When positions involving life and death decisions get filled by patronage appointees in return for raising money during a political campaign you are not going to have an effective organization.

There are positions, like the US ambassadors to Bermuda and Monaco, that can be handed out as a reward for loyalty and fund-raising. This has been going on for as long as nations have existed. It is wasteful but these are posts that are there to be enjoyed. Not positions where history and lives depend on performance. FEMA is not one of those positions. Using the office as a patronage position is like selecting your brain surgeon based on his being loyal and friendly.

... and someone was smart enough to put Craig Fugate in charge of FEMA. That guy rocks.

"L.A. dry run shows urban nuke attack 'a survivable event'"

http://content.usatoday.net/dist/custom/...=41773400.story

There is this great animation show shrinking fallout zone:

http://www.usatoday.com/video/index.html#/Fallout+from+an+improvised+nuclear+device/712474766001

"The government would be preoccupied with so many tasks — identifying the culprit; tracking the effects of the blast; securing government buildings; ushering critical personnel to safe locations; amassing drugs and supplies — that federal help won't arrive for 24 to 72 hours, the White House guidance says."

So many orders of magnitude worse than 9/11 -- the carnage, national trauma and economic reverb would be immense.

Every metropolitan area would be on edge as never before. Would urban residents be evacuating in a panic upon news of another city being hit? Would you?

I might very well be inclined to embark on a last-second camping trip, with minimal packing.

God bless those tasked with preventing this from happening, and all who are reliant on their success.



[i]Bystanders miles away would witness a 100-mph fireball shooting five miles into the sky. Sun-surface heat, hyperexplosive pressures and 900-mph winds would level buildings for half a mile. Between 50,000 and 100,000 people would vanish in smoke and flame.

Flash-blind drivers 10 miles away would crash, blocking evacuation routes. [i]Fallout would rain down for hundreds of miles, according to the White House's Planning Guidance for Response to a Nuclear Detonation,posted on the Internet in June.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOJHz6Przdw - 'As you slide toward the big Truck, Oh no!!'

Why the news media interest now, this song dates from 1983?

This fellow followed the advice for sheltering in place;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6EbsrJuAoQo

Didn't do him or his family much good.

Having watched the city of Houston try to evacuate past my front door before hurricane Rita, I think I'd still just bug in even if a nuke went off downtown. Actually, a smart terrorist would set the nuke off in the middle of the refineries on the south side of town. That would be 70 miles from me.

I do suspect most other residents of Houston would be running out of the city in fear.

-Blast

I recommend that everyone read that pamphlet from about page 19 on to see what the government really projects instead of hysteria from a local reporter. The government does expect a blinding flash of light from a nuke, but they expect the blindness to last all of 30 minutes if it's night and the pupils are fully dilated. (Oh, and it's up to 15 miles away at night.) And the half-mile severe damage zone won't be totally leveled - because of blockage by buildings, some will survive. It's a complicated calculus based on explosion altitude, building congestion, and zoning (yes, zoning - buildings with good construction provide breaks in the damage).

And the fallout is a problem that's mitigated by the passage of time, as I noted in my original post. As others have noted, I'm fully expectant that the hordes would try to evacuate; I also expect that other hordes would fight off the carriers of radiation, and we'd have a fight between people trying to get out and others trying to stop them (same in any other mass-casualty event like disease or chemical disaster).

My plan remains staying and sheltering in place, with some flexibility as I try to stay upwind, upstream, uphill from whatever contamination is being spread around.

Thanks for sharing those links--scary stuff to even think about as well as what it would do to the country as a whole.

It's obviously not going to be "The Day After" if terrorists get hold of one or a few or even several low-yield nukes.

Whether blinded for several seconds or 30 minutes, the reporter is correct. The blast flash would cause a lot of car accidents that block evacuation routes. And then there are macula retinal burns the report discusses which could cause permanent blindness -- bigger risk for those driving toward the detonation, such as in the case of Washington, D.C.: I-66 eastbound, I-270 southbound, I-395 northbound or I-95 or the BW Parkway southbound, Route 50 west from Annapolis or the GW Parkway inbound.

Fifteen miles encompasses the entire 64-mile Beltway if the Capitol, WH or Pentagon are targeted. There will be car accidents far outside the Beltway from people gawking at the distant 5-mile high mushroom cloud.

The 10-kiloton scenario should be comforting to those who don't live or work in or near top-tier targets and don't have family or friends who do. It should be comforting to Annapolis, Frederick and Baltimore and all of PG County, Maryland -- which is often downwind of DC. Georgetown could feel a bit more optimistic, if the wind is blowing as it usually does. Anyone who is usually upwind of DC, Manhattan, Chicago, Los Angeles or other cities can take some comfort in it.

The damage projections may resonate differently with those who live and work in prospective Severe Damage Zones or, if we're "lucky," the Moderate Damage Zone. My neighborhood is comprised of 100 year old, or older, rowhouses. Any fires ignited in the MDZ are going to burn for awhile, and spread, while the nearest operating fire stations decide whether and how to respond on roads that may be blocked by debris.

Whether a single 10-kiloton bomb, something bigger or a smaller nuke -- it would be a profoundly disturbing event for the entire nation if any city in it were the site of a nuclear detonation, of any size. If detonated in a populated area, it will eclipse any other disaster this country has ever suffered.

It won't be the end of the world -- except for the dead or hideously injured.

> Whether a single 10-kiloton bomb, something bigger or a smaller nuke --
> it would be a profoundly disturbing event for the entire nation if any city
> in it were the site of a nuclear detonation, of any size. If detonated in a
> populated area, it will eclipse any other disaster this country has ever suffered.

True. The issue for those in the affected area is preparation and for the rest of the country how and where the outrage is expressed.

> It won't be the end of the world -- except for the dead or hideously injured.

"Only the dead have seen the end of war." George Santayana.

I don't think the forum software allows merging of threads, so cross-referencing threads:

http://forums.equipped.org/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=213301

In the event of a deliberate nuclear event, what makes anyone think that FEMA will be operable? It's headquartered in Washington D.C., one of the most likely targets. Are the local ones in any position to take over, or are they also in a place that would be a likely target?

The trouble with government agencies is that they make plans for the best-case scenarios, not the worst-case scenarios. They do what is easiest and what is most politically expedient.

Sue

You bring up an interesting point. If the FEMA leadership were taken out by the attack, I think FEMA would still be operable but due to the chaos associated with the senior people being gone any response from FEMA would be delayed. For example, instead of 3 days for FEMA to you help it may be 7,10, or 12 days. This is just one more reason why I think everyone should be prepared on all fronts to shelter in place for at least 2 weeks or more. Government "help" will arrive eventually but I don't count on it in any of my plans for at least 14 days that way if they get here sooner they will have exceeded my expectations and my plans.

I saw a Documentary last August,There are Still Quite a Number of People that,Survived Hiroshima & Nagasaki,Some of Them Saw the End of War!

FEMA is divided into a number of regions, the Pacific Northwest for instance is in Region X (ten), and has independent leadership reporting to those in Washington DC. When disaster strikes, states turn to their FEMA regional leadership, not to DC, and they lead FEMA response unless / until the response is so large that DC has to step in with a national presence. The Red Cross and a number of other agencies operate the same way - all disasters are local, local response works well until resources are overwhelmed, at which point you call in state, regional and eventually federal (and even international) level response.

Like I said, I think the Region X FEMA has been pretty good so far - alot of Fugate appointments, folks working real problems, running realistic scenarios, and figuring out the logistics of response to different disasters. Apart from some critical administrative leadership, supplies and other resources aren't all located in the DC area. I would venture to say that if DC were taken out in some sort of nuclear attack, FEMA regional administrators could continue to be responsible for response in their regions.

> They do what is easiest and what is most politically expedient.

I'm afraid that's true.

I know that some of the evacuation plans have evacuees being brought to the Frederick Fair Grounds. How they would ever get there, I have no idea, since even on a good day 270 is a massive parking lot.

And although I live two blocks from the front entrance to Ft. Detrick (where I work), rapid evacuation from the base is not too promising (only 4 exits- all onto very busy roads). The other day with the little bit of snow on the ground, they decided to have early dismissal. It took over 45 minutes to exit the base, since all feeder roads in the area were clogged with traffic. I just stayed until just before normal closing time and had few issues. But God help us if there ever needed to be an evaluation to due to an emergency on base.

Pete

I can't speak to the reality of any given evacuation route or scenario, but in general if the plan is mass evacuation, unless you plan on joining the mass, don't go near the route. The plan would be to block access, and to actively remove non-evacuees who are getting in the way. Meaning, if the plan is for evacuation by bus, private cars and trucks would be blocked from access - or shuffled to a parking area, where buses pick them up, and move folks to the evacuation site. Best planning option I know of, to get to the evacuation site, you would probably first go to a rally site, such as a nearby church or school, get documented, and get on a bus. That way the site planners have an idea how many evacuees are in their pipeline, headed for the site. I'm not familiar with the Frederick Fair Grounds, but if there's a freeway near it, I would expect all lanes to be commandeered for movement of evacuees towards the evacuation site, much like highways headed away from hurricane tracks before a landfall.

Ask around, your local or regional EM may have a published plan, if DC area plans aren't publicized owing to fears over targetting of evacuees by terrorists.

That's generalized planning, real world events can muck it all up of course - too few evacuators, too many evacuees, bad geography, not enough enforcement of the evacuation plan, not enough buses, too much or too bad weather. But the goal is not to create a death march to reach the evacuation site, which should offer food, shelter and medical help to those who need it.

> but in general if the plan is mass evacuation, unless you plan on joining
> the mass, don't go near the route.

Hence, the advice from our government to be prepared to shelter in place?

That brings up a good question. Would you rather be closer to the disaster area in your home or slightly farther away stuck in traffic on some freeway?

Or Even down at The Presidio,Eating Sourdough & Clam Chowder!

I saw that Discovery special, and what got my attention is the fallout patterns.

If I was not close enough to be affected by the blast directly, I would see which way the fallout was predicted to go and make plans from there. If I wasn't in it, why run? I am not in a major metro-plex, which is good and bad, as FT Bragg could be a target and the roads out of here suck.

Quite honestly, the plans I saw, while feasible, will break down and I fear it will be dog eat dog for a while. Nature of the beast; in this case Man.

I'd rather be home with a lot of gear, digging a shelter in the crawl space than stuck on a bus with less gear and a lot of panicked people.

Agree with most that "sheltering in place" decision tree would be hard to override. The "known knowns" of sticking it out would have a distinct advantage over going out to find just about any government response instructions.
It was interesting for me that the FEMA story came out last week while I was attending a "Shared strategies for Homeland Security" conference in Denver, and I was surrounded by CERT, Homeland Security, LEO and other first responders.
http://www.sharedstrategiesblog.com/

While radiological threats did not get top billing, it is easy to see that the whole field of emergency response is changing as we speak, with social media and efforts like wikicrisis changing the face of crisis response.

I opt to stay put at all costs, and until the last possible moment, hoping I can "gather the clan" and "batton down the hatches", and not rely on any government assistance (food, shelter) that hopefully I can provide myself.

The History Channel did a 2 hour special called "Day After Disaster". It was low on doom and gloom and high on expert testimony.

One important thing to remember is the size of particulate. A grain of sand with 100 time the mass of a spec of dust will hold radiation that much longer.

here's a link to the special on youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=doQY4xRXJJ4

Home. In Vermont. Specifically at my parent's home, where a no-electronics genny (with sound dampening shelter) and enough fuel to pull water off the well every few hours for a month (keeps the pipes from freezing) and a woodstove and a lots of cordwood and defensable archetecture... yeah.

One thing I was reminded of in this conversation was the novel Warday. The guy who was in NY- got to shelter, decontaminated (hose down), and stayed put for something like three weeks.

I'd be happy to be here at home. My wife and I have a month's worth of food for two, tents, sleeping bags, etc. And our ham radios and plenty of battery-power. (My assumption is that a low-yield terrorist nuke isn't going to cause enough EMP to wreck our electronics.) If the antenna under our eaves has been damaged, we'll put up another one from our stash of portable HF antennas and get on the air.

We're around the corner from a fire station, so we'll be offering to do health and welfare traffic for all the first responders we can get in touch with and for our neighbors, too.

...and while the "boomy" bombs are on the risk assessment grid, the dirty bomb scenario might still be easier to pull off, offeres up a similar amount of terror payback and fits in better with the current strategies of threat.
The scenario that takes place in "Dirty War", a 2004 HBO movie from a British production company, is hard to find fault with in terms of realistic implications of a dirty bomb being detonated in most any urban area.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War_(film)

It should be mandatory viewing for first responders, and certainly opens my eyes to what my spouse might get caught up in working downtown in her "known terrorist targeted" highrise.

Also available on Netflix:
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Dirty_War/70023523?trkid=2361637#height1834

Even the reviews consider it a worthwhile view.

I got that on Netflix a month ago, it was very good. (If anyone finds white dog hairs in their Netflix DVD, you can thank my Samoyed).

A dirty bomb is much more plausible and a situation where I can see having the option to evacuate and staying away until I trust the government assessment of the radioactivity risk.

As with other invisible threats such as anthrax, it would be disconcerting to rely on the government for risk-assesment. I don't even trust the tap water here (the quality of which has recently reemerged as a question mark).

This movie generated a lot of attention just prior to the London 7/7 bomb attacks in the news media. It died down quite a bit when the news media was asked about the dirty bombs used in Iraq during the invasion and occupation of the country especially during their use in the second battle of Fallujah and consequent rise in birth defects within the civilian population due to the radiation effects of depleted Uranium and other unspecified experimental weapons.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8549745.stm

Sounds just like the plot to: Right At Your Door
"A dirty bomb goes off in Los Angeles, jamming freeways and spreading a toxic cloud."
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0458367/

The March issue supplement of Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, dealing entirely with Nuclear Preparedness, is available for all without a subscription. There is lots in this issue. It is progress of a sort; lot's of people are quietly talking and planning for what a number of people are saying is inevitable. The need of community/individual resilience is emphasized.

http://www.dmphp.org/content/vol5/Supplement_1/index.dtl