If you live near a railroad, do you include a respirator in your prep kit in case there is a train spill? If so, what kind of respirator constitutes reasonable preparation?

We live about a mile from the railroad, and other than disposable dust-mask-style “respirators” this is something I haven’t done. For such a thing to be useful to me there’d have to be:

• Some kind of hazmat incident with the train
• That wasn’t quickly lethal to us
• But would be more slowly dangerous
• That we’d be able to escape the dangerous zone if we found out about it in time
• Where respirators significantly increased the safety of our escape

The “escape” factor is not a small one — will roads be passable? Will whatever happened prevent my car from operating? Would our clothes be contaminated such that we needed a hazmat response?

For my family this seems like a big expense for a very small likelihood of needing it.

A respirator, or at least an N95 disposable mask, is a handy item for many situations - standard equipment

Agreed. Perhaps I was caught up in terminology, but I didn’t think of those as “respirators.”

Why limit concerns to just trains? Many interesting things are hauled by motor freight on highways and city streets, even right next door....

Some people may live very close to railroads or major highways. Some people may have respiratory or ophthalmic conditions. They need to consider more than surviving the "immediate death" situation.

But what kind of respirators do people need? When I looked up hazmat information, much of it seems directed at workers on dangerous job sites. For those situations one could invest in expensive respirators. But what about for the sort of situation we're thinking of?

A respirator is the last line of defense, and it's a lousy, limited one. A half mask or full mask, with a P100 particulate plus chemical, is a miserable thing to breathe through. If the user is not trained in its use and fit tested for a reliable seal, it's basically a fancy condom with a hole in it.

Emergency services and the railway will have a plan, in some detail, for such a contingency. They won't hand you the full plan because it contains personal data, names and phone numbers etc. But if you ask, they will usually give some guidance.

One of the biggest practical measures will involve having the local populace shelter in place. And that is the place to invest time and dollars -- making your residence and your shelter room as airtight as possible before an incident.

One of the biggest practical measures will involve having the local populace shelter in place. And that is the place to invest time and dollars -- making your residence and your shelter room as airtight as possible before an incident.

Keep duct tape handy. I am reminded of an incident here on the Channel islands (California). A missile launch at Vandenberg AFB went awry and it exploded on the launch pad. San Miguel island was directly downwind. The people on the island went into the Ranger Station, basically a CONEX box with a couple of doors and windows, and sealed the opening with duct tape until they could be flown out.

No fun at all....

Not sure how this is in other places, but in my country train and road have specific corridors for hazardous materials. These avoid things like tunnels and densely populated area's.

In many cases the type of materials transported in large quantities are known and can thus be prepared for.

Do note that there outflow of any goods are limited by the amount present. That gasses will get in to building; thus ventilating after a cloud of gass has passed is important.

Hmm, my plan was (is?):

1. train spills!
2. put on a full-face respirator
3. get in the car
4. run away!!!

The respirator is meant for temporary use. But then I realized that I may not be able to get away. Or the get away may be too slow to be safe. Everyone will be trying to do the same thing, after all. We will have evacuation traffic.

So that makes sealing a room important. It seems like that means I have to have a room always sealed and ready for refuge. I am assuming that after a spill happens, I won't have time to leisurely find the plastic rolls, get the ladder, tape up the windows, etc... Further, I suspect that my house is poorly insulated, with tiny, invisible gaps in the floor and ceiling that some form of gas can get through. But let's set that problem aside. Just having a room where the major portals like windows and doors are sealed most of the time seems kind of impractical.

What do you guys think?

If an evacuation order has been issued, your original plan is pretty good. It may be that a potential hazard could quickly turn in a major disaster, and the authorities want everyone out of the danger zone ASAP.

Otherwise, without knowing the location of the spill, what has been spilled, and a clear indication of wind direction, hopping in the car is potentially a death trap. A toxic, asphixiating, or explosive cloud will knock out the car and its occupants. I guess if you can move fast and know the wind direction, it's a personal choice.

For sheltering in place, anything that can be done beforehand to reduce air movement between the interior and exterior of a building would be time well spent. Caulk is cheap (haha). A plan to kill all HVAC and ventilation fans, shut of natural/propane gas (if any) and retreat to a safe room can be executed very quickly. For the safe room, pre-cut plastic sheets and duct tape applied to the inside of doors and windows can seal things up very quickly.

I now wonder how airtight a house has to be in order to be safe in case of a chemical spill. We all know that houses aren't constructed to be airtight, and no amount of caulking will ever get us there, especially if the house was built 100 years ago or earlier. Most of us will have to make a bubble (or a box) out of plastic sheets in order to be close to airtight.

The reasons I'm asking is because people seem to be a great deal of trust in the construction of houses. What am I missing? Is there some sort of standard for "safe for spills" such that some gas leaking into your house is OK? Is there some standard for testing how airtight a house is?

Its probably not a black and white safe vs not safe, its more like the more airtight the house the more safe it is. There isn't a clear dividing line.

Wonder what it would take to get filtered air in to create a slight positive pressure

I think Eugene has it right. In a crisis, a building that is as closed off as possible provides a blob of static air for the inhabitants while a blob of toxic gas passes overhead.

Edit: There are widely used test methods for airtightness. They are associated with energy audits. Basically they replace your front door with a giant blower to find/measure air leakage. An IR image of a home could also be instructive.

I'm looking for a more precise, actionable answer, but it's possible no such answer exists. After all, if you think about it, many beautiful old houses leak like a sieve. FEMA recommends plastic sheeting and duct tape because that's what people can do, rather than what would be best for your survival. What are you going to tell the owner of the old house that has been demonstrated to be leaky? Sell the house and move out because there is a one in a million chance they might be in a train spill?

Doug and our neighbors to the north may be lucky in that their houses are probably more tightly constructed and insulated than the houses, say, in the American South, where energy bills are high and unintended ventilation is almost a feature and not a bug...

I started thinking about respirators when I saw recommendations from someone working in some sort of hazmat-related industry for the type of respirators that would be suitable for that kind of work. I looked them up, and man are they expensive -- like four digits expensive! When I looked into what prep sites recommend, I was not filled with confidence. I think this sort of stuff -- what counts as a good respirator and what home prep for spills -- may need more study.

Or maybe even leaky old houses are good enough in an emergency?