Surviving a Dirty Bomb

Hat tip to readers Victor Falk and JimPortlandOR for suggesting and providing information on this topic.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

the more you know the less you panic

I'm setting up this thread for the sharing of solid information about "dirty bombs" and what to do should one be detonated. A good source of key questions and answers is this thread from Vanderbilt University. This discussion also references a good overview published in the Washington Post a while back (I can't find the article on the WP's site, but the considerate Vanderbilt folks provide it on theirs). First two quotes below from that WP article.

Right to the most pressing question:

John Zielinski, professor of military strategy and operations at the National War College in Washington, estimates that, generally, someone a mile from the blast is likely to walk away unscathed. And "you could be within a couple hundred yards of it, and if you are upwind, you might not have a problem at all," he says. "If they set it off in a street and you are one block over and behind a building, there might be no risk."

Not to minimize either the lives lost or psychological impact a dirty bomb would bring, but the overall casualties seem somewhat less disastrous than the media would have us believe:

What casualties?

Beyond those inflicted by the blast itself, the number of deaths and injuries is likely to be minimal -- depending on the radioactive material used, the size of the explosive, wind conditions and the effectiveness of the evacuation response.

Most experts play down any probability of radiation-related deaths. "Threat to life? Not worried about it other than the explosive device itself," says Larsen. "The main thing is, people should not lose much sleep over this."

So, the most important thing here seems to be avoiding panic: Panic Could Magnify Harm, Experts Say

the more you know the less you panic

According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements

For limited releases of radioactive material, people in the area can reduce their exposure by taking shelter in homes or other buildings for hours or a few days until the radiation levels fall.

Ventilation systems using outside air should be shut off and eating contaminated foods should be avoided. Radioactive dust can be washed off of the skin and contaminated clothing should be abandoned to reduce external exposures.

The WP article goes into a bit more detail:

The basic rule is to stay inside or get inside, then listen to the radio or television for further information.

The amount of radioactive dust that could seep inside or enter a building through its air-filtering system isn't likely to be significant. "If you are inside of a building, your chances are like getting several X-rays' worth of exposure," Zielinski says.

If you're outside, determine whether the wind is coming your way. "You don't want to be running down the street," Zelinski says. "Get into a building and reduce the amount of dust that gets on you."

Close to the explosion? Covered with residue? Stay put. "If the response is good, they are going to try to decontaminate folks closer in as opposed to those fleeing," says Zielinski. "Even if it takes an hour for authorities to respond, you are going to get better treatment there than going to a hospital."

Worst reaction? Racing for mass transit or trying to drive home. Not only could you contaminate your car, but you could also spread radiation to your family. And experts are concerned that people trying to flee the city would jam traffic routes and delay emergency teams from getting to the scene.

Experts say what the public needs to remember most about dirty bombs is that if you survive the explosion, the amounts of radiation are most likely so low that a few hours of exposure isn't going to be harmful.

"The public health people would be there within three hours or sooner," says Meinhold. "Let them worry about evacuation, decontamination, etc."

For the public then, the main positive steps you can take (if only to help calm yourself) are:

Get inside

Stay put (don't try to run for it, you'll just expose yourself more and possibly others, not to mention cause a traffic problem)

Close up (shut off ventilation to the outside)

Throw away contaminated clothing (in a plastic trash bag)

Take a soapy shower

Drink bottled water

Wait for instructions

For the professionals, however, there do seem to be some unanswered questions about the response to the blast itself (from Charles R. Yard, M.P.H. Ph.D. in the Vanderbilt thread):

1. If a dirty bomb explodes, and the shrapnel happens to be in the form of pieces of a spent fuel rod (hot), how will we locate enough physicians who would be willing to risk potential exposure to perform surgery?
2. How will we explain the risk (or lack of risk) to the public, in a way that will make them really feel that it is safe to return home?
3. How do we educate emergency responders to understand that they will not become ill if they respond to radiation emergency and their exposures are properly monitored?

Comments

[Katherine]

I just compared this to ready.gov, and I realized the problem with the site, apart from the idiotic cartoons: they tell you what to do, but even if they get that right--and they don't always--they don't explain WHY you should do that, what the actual risk of harm is, etc. etc. "Stay put" in the event of a dirty bomb sounds like advice that only makes the government's life easier but might increase your own risk, when you read it on ready.gov. When you read that in addition to making the government's life easier, you protect your family & increase the chances that you're decontaminated more quickly by people who know what they're doing--it's very different, and much more reassuring, and leaves you much more likely to follow the instructions.

[Edward]

they don't explain WHY you should do that, what the actual risk of harm is, etc. etc.

It's my mantra at my day job: Context is key.

I agree, that before reading this, my first thought was screw the authorities, I'm getting the hell out of Dodge. Of course, this is also somewhat informed by the EPA telling us the air near Ground Zero was safer than it actually was.

[wilfred]

thanks so much for the info, it really did help me alot. can the next one in the series be about ricin or whatever they are going to drop into the subways at some point? it's like the Tokyo subway thing, if people in one's own country do this stuff to each other, then the nation's foe's will do the same (i.e. the Murrow building to the WTC).

[Sebastian Holsclaw]

I agree that a radiological bomb is probably not much more of a danger than a large normal bomb. I don't think that is the point of it. It is a statement of intention--we don't have a real nuclear bomb, but as soon as we do your city is toast.

[Edward]

That reminds me of something someone noted in the Vanderbilt thread Sebastian:

Q: Why hasn't Israel had a dirty bomb exploded against them?

A: Because they would clean it up and go on...... and all the fear tactics would be ruined.

Don't know how true that is, but it shows that those supposedly in the know don't panic anywhere near as much about "dirty bombs" as those of us simply reading the mainstream press may.

[Katherine]

The Fafblog is on the case...

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_05_09_fafblog_archive.html#108421165847898519

[fling93]

This is why I don't watch 24. One of the season premieres had them briefing the president on the possible threats, and when they talked about the sheer number of casualties a dirty bomb would cause, I was like, sheesh, they didn't do their homework at all.