2
1 Introduction
the questions that must be answered in trying to avert, respond to, or recover from a
radiological or nuclear attack.
Part II will discuss radiological weapons—how they work, their possible health
and physical effects, and how the use of radiological weapons might affect society.
And in Part III we will explore the same aspects of an attack using nuclear weapons.
Both of these will use the science presented in Part I to help the reader to understand
the topic and, more importantly, to understand what the actual—not imagined or
feared—impact of such an attack might be. In particular, if such an attack does occur
it’s important to understand what these weapons can—and cannot—do if we are to
be able to plan and to respond appropriately.
From here, we move on to some more applied topics. Part IV uses what we have
learned about radiation instruments and about these weapons to discuss how an
attack might be stopped before it can even take place. This interdiction activity is
what many call the “Left of Boom” phase (meaning the activities that take place on
an imaginary timeline before something explodes). And in Part V we explore how to
use the preceding information to help inform an effective response to a radiological
or nuclear attack—one designed to provide for the public safety while also keeping
emergency responders safe.
Finally, in Part VI we will use what has been discussed to help to determine
how to recover from such an attack. And, in spite of fears to the contrary, there is
no reason why such a recovery cannot be accomplished—Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
after all, are thriving cities today, and there is no reason to believe that even nuclear
terrorism would leave a modern city permanently uninhabitable. We can draw upon
our experiences from the past, in conjunction with the fundamental science, to help
plan recovery efforts from even something as major as an act of nuclear terrorism.
One thing to bear in mind is that there has never been a terrorist attack using
radiological or nuclear weapons. There seems to be compelling evidence that terrorist
groups have an interest in them and there have been any number of instances of
attempted smuggling of radioactive or nuclear materials [2]—but there has never been
an attack using them. But even if these weapons are never used by terrorists—or by
governments—we can assume that there will be future accidents,small, moderate,
or large in scale. The information found in this book is equally relevant for any
radiological or nuclear event, deliberate or accidental.
On a personal note, one of our children used to be scared of the dark. In actuality,
it wasn’t the dark that was frightening—it was what might be lurking in the dark.
Similarly, it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the lack of good information about
radiation and its effects that contributes to much of the fear surrounding it, and this
fear makes it a good weapon for terrorizing the public. We can hope that, by helping
to spread good information, we can help to lessen the fear so that we—as individuals
and as a society—might give radiation the respect it deserves, but not unwarranted
and inappropriate terror (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2).
1 Introduction
the questions that must be answered in trying to avert, respond to, or recover from a
radiological or nuclear attack.
Part II will discuss radiological weapons—how they work, their possible health
and physical effects, and how the use of radiological weapons might affect society.
And in Part III we will explore the same aspects of an attack using nuclear weapons.
Both of these will use the science presented in Part I to help the reader to understand
the topic and, more importantly, to understand what the actual—not imagined or
feared—impact of such an attack might be. In particular, if such an attack does occur
it’s important to understand what these weapons can—and cannot—do if we are to
be able to plan and to respond appropriately.
From here, we move on to some more applied topics. Part IV uses what we have
learned about radiation instruments and about these weapons to discuss how an
attack might be stopped before it can even take place. This interdiction activity is
what many call the “Left of Boom” phase (meaning the activities that take place on
an imaginary timeline before something explodes). And in Part V we explore how to
use the preceding information to help inform an effective response to a radiological
or nuclear attack—one designed to provide for the public safety while also keeping
emergency responders safe.
Finally, in Part VI we will use what has been discussed to help to determine
how to recover from such an attack. And, in spite of fears to the contrary, there is
no reason why such a recovery cannot be accomplished—Hiroshima and Nagasaki,
after all, are thriving cities today, and there is no reason to believe that even nuclear
terrorism would leave a modern city permanently uninhabitable. We can draw upon
our experiences from the past, in conjunction with the fundamental science, to help
plan recovery efforts from even something as major as an act of nuclear terrorism.
One thing to bear in mind is that there has never been a terrorist attack using
radiological or nuclear weapons. There seems to be compelling evidence that terrorist
groups have an interest in them and there have been any number of instances of
attempted smuggling of radioactive or nuclear materials [2]—but there has never been
an attack using them. But even if these weapons are never used by terrorists—or by
governments—we can assume that there will be future accidents,small, moderate,
or large in scale. The information found in this book is equally relevant for any
radiological or nuclear event, deliberate or accidental.
On a personal note, one of our children used to be scared of the dark. In actuality,
it wasn’t the dark that was frightening—it was what might be lurking in the dark.
Similarly, it seems reasonable to assume that it’s the lack of good information about
radiation and its effects that contributes to much of the fear surrounding it, and this
fear makes it a good weapon for terrorizing the public. We can hope that, by helping
to spread good information, we can help to lessen the fear so that we—as individuals
and as a society—might give radiation the respect it deserves, but not unwarranted
and inappropriate terror (Figs. 1.1 and 1.2).