Can't shake dread of terrorism

Anonymous
Heck, ladies... If I lived near you, I'd be watching you like a HAWK!

Here are some good links for people who like to have information. If you prefer not to think about these things, nevermind:

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/effects/falloutcalc.html

Go to the bottom of the map, and plug in Washington.

Note thet the fallout really spreads in a tight rectangle. If you are in the path of the fallout, you don't necessarily need to get the hell out of dodge, away from DC at all costs. You just need to get away from the way the fallout is moving. In some cases, thet might mean DON"T drive tpward Annapolis, drive a little north or south. O rjust stay put.

This article was interesting. OK it is from the FreeRepublic, what can I say?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1429926/posts

Fallout is simply radioactive dust, launched miles into the air in a mushroom cloud and then carried on the wind. Much of it is alpha particles, whose radiation cannot penetrate bare skin, or beta particles, which cannot penetrate layers of clothing. Both are most dangerous if inhaled — or if they settle on food that is eaten unwashed. More deadly are the gamma rays, whose radiation can go through walls. But even gammas cannot hurt you from cloud height. The danger starts when the dust settles to earth.

The ideal is to avoid the fallout in the first place. In apocalyptic gridlock, you cannot drive very far. But you may not have to. Normal winds blow the cloud into a long but narrow plume, just a few miles across. In typical Washington-area weather, Virginia, Montgomery County in Maryland, and most of the District itself are not in the fallout path at all. People in the path could conceivably walk out of the fallout zone in the 10 or 15 minutes before the dust begins to fall — if they know which way to go.

But, of course, you cannot count on perfectly typical weather. The wind might shift; the breeze you feel at ground level may be blowing crosswise to the radioactive clouds five miles up; a still day might cause the fallout to seep outward slowly in all directions; sudden rain or snow could wash the dust out of the sky, heavily dousing everything beneath the storm but sparing areas farther out.

If you do not want to trust in weather and traffic, the alternative is what the experts call “sheltering in place.” You want to be in a building, as solid as possible to block the gamma rays, as airtight as possible to keep out radioactive dust. You need to turn off air conditioning, close vents, seal the seams around windows and doorways. If you wondered what former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was talking about, this is what you need the duct tape for. Abandon rooms with windows broken by the blast.

The dust that does not seep into the building will settle outside, on the roof and on the ground, emitting gamma rays. A car with an intact windshield stops 30 to 50 percent of the radiation — probably not enough, however, to save someone who’s inside the car and stuck in traffic a few miles downwind of ground zero. A wood-frame house, similarly, stops just 30 to 60 percent of gamma rays. A windowless basement stops 90 percent. The middle floors of a concrete apartment building, safely away from both roof and ground, stop 99 percent or more. But there is no 100 percent protection.

For those whom evacuation and shelter fail — or for those, like the thousands fleeing in blind panic, who never try either — there is still decontamination. A lethal dose of radiation takes time to build. The sooner the radioactive dust is off the skin, the better. And it is not that hard to remove. “Radiation contamination is easier than chemical,” said Col. David Jarrett, a medical doctor and the director of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute in Bethesda. “Simply removing the clothes and washing takes off up to 90 percent.”
Anonymous
I have a question for the women whose husbands are in the field, if you don't mind asking. (Or for anyone in the know).

Obviously there is information about this topic that cannot be shared publicly and I wouldn't expect people to share that.

But of the publicly available information, where should people go to get the best information they can? In the event of a nuclear attack, or a direty bomb. What would be the most reliable source of real time information for civilians/citizens, trying to figure out what the best course of action is?

A certain newsstation, or channel on a police radio? Twitter? God help me, please don't say the FEMA website....

Just wondering....



Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:OP, my husband is in counterterrorism. When we relocated here 4 years ago, we deliberately chose to live downwind of a nuclear fallout radius. We are on the edge of Fairfax county as a result. One thing that worried him was being able to get out fast, and as a result 1) we don't live close-in and 2) we have an evacuation plan and I know which way to point the car. I also know that if anything bad happened, he'd wouldn't be coming back. He'd be going TO the site, not away from it. This upsets me more than anything else.

My biggest fear is that all three of my kids (depending on the day) are in different schools, and not close together. How will I ever collect them all and get out of town? God forbid, I can't get to all of them - - there's no way I could leave one behind, so I guess we'd just stay.

My DH also believes the likelihood of an attack is high and imminent. He knows we're doing a lot to interrupt and prevent, but it's just a matter of odds. Eventually, they'll get one past the goalie if they make enough shots.

We would both like to get out of the bulls-eye as we call it. I feel safer living where we do, but I understand what the OP is talking about. If I were her, I'd move somewhere south and west of DC. You would at a minimum improve your odds.


Thank you for posting.

I am the poster that worked in DC on our emergency plan. I agree that all the projections showed any fallout from a dirty bomb going generally east, with the prevailing winds (jetstream).

Poster with three kids in different schools, can you make a plan with another mom to do emergency pick ups and rendevous?
Anonymous
My understanding is, in general, that kids in school will be kept in school if there is an incident of any kind. They generally do not relese the kids -- the schools won't even open their doors.

The exception, I guess, would be for the "connected" parent who gets secret insider information that somehting is headed our way, and can pick up her kids before the general populace is alerted.
Anonymous
Analysts are projecting that the next terrorist attacks will occur in the Midwest. So despite where we THINK we should move, we'll never be 100% sure about our safety.

As they always say, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Maybe, just maybe, the world will view us differently under new leadership if Obama lives up to word and replaces bullying with diplomacy.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Analysts are projecting that the next terrorist attacks will occur in the Midwest. So despite where we THINK we should move, we'll never be 100% sure about our safety.

As they always say, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Maybe, just maybe, the world will view us differently under new leadership if Obama lives up to word and replaces bullying with diplomacy.


OP again--which analysts? I am curious because that contradicts what the PPs said (the ones whose husbands are in counter-terrorism). Would you mind please sharing the sources of your information? Thanks!
Anonymous
I can't offer much advice, because I am a fatalist cynic myself. (And I just finished reading the book "Traffic" that points out that more people die in car accidents in the US every month than died on 9/11.)

However, I do note that the report says that:

"... unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." And it goes on to say that bio attack would be more likely.

So the nuclear attack in DC scenario is what the experts call "low probability, high impact," the second part of that being what makes the media want to tell the story and makes you freak out.



Anonymous
My DH's personal opinion is that when the jihadists get tired of us interrupting their large scale plots, or just when your local jihadist decides to do something locally outside of a terrorist cell - - we will start seeing suicide bombings in the US. Just like in Israel, Iraq, etc and from earlier days, with the IRA.

Another of my fears (it's cheap and fairly easy if your members aren't on the CIA's radar) is terrorists doing another school bombing like in Beslan a few years back. Now, THAT could be anywhere, USA and would drive a spike of terror into the hearts of Americans everywhere.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:My DH's personal opinion is that when the jihadists get tired of us interrupting their large scale plots, or just when your local jihadist decides to do something locally outside of a terrorist cell - - we will start seeing suicide bombings in the US. Just like in Israel, Iraq, etc and from earlier days, with the IRA.

Another of my fears (it's cheap and fairly easy if your members aren't on the CIA's radar) is terrorists doing another school bombing like in Beslan a few years back. Now, THAT could be anywhere, USA and would drive a spike of terror into the hearts of Americans everywhere.


Racial profiling and blatant discrimination,more than we have today, will thrive in that atmosphere. Denials of entry to the US based on nationality or ethnicity and maybe internment camps will be once again be acceptable.
Anonymous
Well, if an attack is imminent, I guess we should just evacuate the city now and set up a government in exile from an undisclosed location.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:Analysts are projecting that the next terrorist attacks will occur in the Midwest. So despite where we THINK we should move, we'll never be 100% sure about our safety.

As they always say, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Maybe, just maybe, the world will view us differently under new leadership if Obama lives up to word and replaces bullying with diplomacy.


This explains my husband's recent TDY...
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: One of my neighbors saw the stash of food and supplies in the basement and thought we were overreacting. I told her - um, do you have any clue what my husband does for a living!?! She backed off and said -well, if you get notice of anything will you tell me?



Except you know you can't. In case it was a false alarm.... that bothers me too. I would get a quick heads up, and couldn't tell anyone else.


You're right. I would not be allowed to tell anyone. I did receive a tip once and it was very broad. It made sense about a week later once I saw it on the news. I didn't tell anyone, but a few people questioned why I was driving instead taking metro.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Analysts are projecting that the next terrorist attacks will occur in the Midwest. So despite where we THINK we should move, we'll never be 100% sure about our safety.

As they always say, you could get hit by a bus tomorrow.

Maybe, just maybe, the world will view us differently under new leadership if Obama lives up to word and replaces bullying with diplomacy.


This explains my husband's recent TDY...


TDY? Temporary Duty Yonder?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I can't offer much advice, because I am a fatalist cynic myself. (And I just finished reading the book "Traffic" that points out that more people die in car accidents in the US every month than died on 9/11.)

However, I do note that the report says that:

"... unless the world community acts decisively and with great urgency, it is more likely than not that a weapon of mass destruction will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of 2013." And it goes on to say that bio attack would be more likely.

So the nuclear attack in DC scenario is what the experts call "low probability, high impact," the second part of that being what makes the media want to tell the story and makes you freak out.


I think it is misleading for us to keep coming back to "you are in more danger when you drive...." Of course we are all in more danger, statistically, when we drive, or heck, walk down our stairs. Because these are things we do EVERY DAY. It's not really.... fair I guess? To poo-poo terrorism fears just because there are risks in everyday life.

We all will die. Most people die during the normal course of their daily lives. Car accident, heart attack, disease, whatever. When you look at statistics, of COURSE the likelihood of getting killed in a terrorist act is actually very, very small.

But I STILL am going to do what I can to minimize my personal exposure to a likely future event. So no I don't prefer to work in DC, don't want to take the Metro, don't want to go to the Inauguration, heck don't even particularly want to fly if it can be avoided.

Another example, I have read the statistic that people are most likely to get in a car accident within five miles of their own home. Why? Well because that's where you are driving most of the time. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about the roads within five miles of your house.

It also is statistically unlikely that my child will be kidnapped. I still am not going to send her out to play by herself, or let her out of my sight in the mall, etc. There are some things that are too important to shrug off just because of statistics.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
I think it is misleading for us to keep coming back to "you are in more danger when you drive...." Of course we are all in more danger, statistically, when we drive, or heck, walk down our stairs. Because these are things we do EVERY DAY. It's not really.... fair I guess? To poo-poo terrorism fears just because there are risks in everyday life.

We all will die. Most people die during the normal course of their daily lives. Car accident, heart attack, disease, whatever. When you look at statistics, of COURSE the likelihood of getting killed in a terrorist act is actually very, very small.

But I STILL am going to do what I can to minimize my personal exposure to a likely future event. So no I don't prefer to work in DC, don't want to take the Metro, don't want to go to the Inauguration, heck don't even particularly want to fly if it can be avoided.

Another example, I have read the statistic that people are most likely to get in a car accident within five miles of their own home. Why? Well because that's where you are driving most of the time. There is nothing inherently more dangerous about the roads within five miles of your house.

It also is statistically unlikely that my child will be kidnapped. I still am not going to send her out to play by herself, or let her out of my sight in the mall, etc. There are some things that are too important to shrug off just because of statistics.


The point is that by changing your behaviour in irrational ways - e.g. driving somewhere rather than flying due your fear of terror attacks - you may actually be increasing your risk, since the risk/mile is higher in a car than a plane.
Forum Index » Off-Topic
Go to: