« Sorry, it's too nice a day out to blog. | Main | Who's in charge, ultimately? »

May 10, 2004

Comments

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

The Fafblog is on the case...

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

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad