15.1 The First 100 Min
167
becomes aware of the fact of an attack, the faster they can respond as appropriate.
Of more importance to those in the city that was attacked, these notifications will
help to determine the magnitude of the event, the need for a local and/or national
response, and will help the relevant agencies at all levels of government to coordinate their actions in response to the event. In addition, information transmitted from
the scene will help the government to understand the geographical scope and radiological severity of the event and the appropriate precautions (e.g. shelter-in-place,
evacuation, etc.) that are required to see to public health and safety.
The initial information from the scene will include announcing the fact that the
event is radiological in nature. This information will, in turn, set in motion the
other response and recovery actions that will take place over the subsequent days,
months…even years of work.
Once the emergency response agencies and the elected and appointed officials
have been informed that a radiological attack has taken place they should inform the
public of this fact and of the recommended actions that should be taken to protect
their health and safety. In most cases it will make sense to instruct the public to take
shelter immediately in the nearest building that is safe and structurally sound, to
shut any open doors and windows, and to listen to the news, with more targeted and
more precise instructions to follow as more is known. In some cities there has been
debate over what to tell residents—in particular, at what point to first use the word
“radiation.” One approach is to inform the public immediately of the radiological
nature of the event, although many have expressed concerns that this could frighten
the public and cause them to take actions that are inappropriate. For example, in
the aftermath of the nuclear reactor accident at Three Mile Island there were far
more people who self-evacuated than was called for [11]. Harrisburg Pennsylvania
is a relatively small city; in 2020 the city itself had a population of nearly 50,000
with a population of about ten times that high in the greater metropolitan area.
Nearly 45,000 people evacuated the Harrisburg metropolitan area in the aftermath
of the Three Mile Island accident; a comparable flight from New York City would
be over 1 million people, with the concomitant risks associated with this number
of frightened drivers and their passengers driving away from an event that frightens
them immeasurably. For this reason, there are those who advise delaying the mention
of radiation, feeling that, by taking some time to prepare the public for having been
struck with a radiological attack, they might behave more rationally.
A competing approach discussed in meetings attended by the author would be to
lead the public gradually into the fact that a radiological attack has occurred. In this
approach, the initial report might state that a bomb had gone off, followed by a report
of hazardous materials found at the scene, and finally noting that radioactivity had
been identified and measured. The thinking behind this approach is that the slower
build-up to announcing a radiological release might reduce the fear on the part of
the public, hopefully leading them to respond more thoughtfully and to pay attention
to governmental recommendations. The chief potential concern with this approach
is that there will undoubtedly be members of the media present at the scene within
a short time; the media might or might not have radiation detectors of their own,
but they are likely to notice a number of emergency responders performing radiation
167
becomes aware of the fact of an attack, the faster they can respond as appropriate.
Of more importance to those in the city that was attacked, these notifications will
help to determine the magnitude of the event, the need for a local and/or national
response, and will help the relevant agencies at all levels of government to coordinate their actions in response to the event. In addition, information transmitted from
the scene will help the government to understand the geographical scope and radiological severity of the event and the appropriate precautions (e.g. shelter-in-place,
evacuation, etc.) that are required to see to public health and safety.
The initial information from the scene will include announcing the fact that the
event is radiological in nature. This information will, in turn, set in motion the
other response and recovery actions that will take place over the subsequent days,
months…even years of work.
Once the emergency response agencies and the elected and appointed officials
have been informed that a radiological attack has taken place they should inform the
public of this fact and of the recommended actions that should be taken to protect
their health and safety. In most cases it will make sense to instruct the public to take
shelter immediately in the nearest building that is safe and structurally sound, to
shut any open doors and windows, and to listen to the news, with more targeted and
more precise instructions to follow as more is known. In some cities there has been
debate over what to tell residents—in particular, at what point to first use the word
“radiation.” One approach is to inform the public immediately of the radiological
nature of the event, although many have expressed concerns that this could frighten
the public and cause them to take actions that are inappropriate. For example, in
the aftermath of the nuclear reactor accident at Three Mile Island there were far
more people who self-evacuated than was called for [11]. Harrisburg Pennsylvania
is a relatively small city; in 2020 the city itself had a population of nearly 50,000
with a population of about ten times that high in the greater metropolitan area.
Nearly 45,000 people evacuated the Harrisburg metropolitan area in the aftermath
of the Three Mile Island accident; a comparable flight from New York City would
be over 1 million people, with the concomitant risks associated with this number
of frightened drivers and their passengers driving away from an event that frightens
them immeasurably. For this reason, there are those who advise delaying the mention
of radiation, feeling that, by taking some time to prepare the public for having been
struck with a radiological attack, they might behave more rationally.
A competing approach discussed in meetings attended by the author would be to
lead the public gradually into the fact that a radiological attack has occurred. In this
approach, the initial report might state that a bomb had gone off, followed by a report
of hazardous materials found at the scene, and finally noting that radioactivity had
been identified and measured. The thinking behind this approach is that the slower
build-up to announcing a radiological release might reduce the fear on the part of
the public, hopefully leading them to respond more thoughtfully and to pay attention
to governmental recommendations. The chief potential concern with this approach
is that there will undoubtedly be members of the media present at the scene within
a short time; the media might or might not have radiation detectors of their own,
but they are likely to notice a number of emergency responders performing radiation