RAND: Individual Preparedness and Response to Chem/Radiological/Nuke/Bio Terr Attacks

H

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
I didn't see this on any threads in a search so I figured that I'd add this to the collective list of resources.

http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/

Individual Preparedness and Response to Chemical, Radiological, Nuclear, and Biological Terrorist Attacks
Cover: MR-1731 | Individual Preparedness and Response to Chemical, Radiological, Nuclear, and Biological Terrorist Attacks

By: Lynn Davis, Tom LaTourrette, David E. Mosher, Lois M. Davis, David R. Howell

Individual preparedness is an important element of our nation's strategy for homeland security. This report adopts a scenario-driven approach that provides a rigorous way to identify actions-linked specifically to terrorist attacks-individuals can take to protect their health and safety. The result is an individual's strategy across four types of terrorist attacks-chemical, radiological, nuclear, and biological-consisting of overarching goals and simple and directive response and preparatory actions. The actions are appropriate regardless of likelihood of an attack, scale of attack, or government alert level; designed to be sensitive to potential variations; and defined in terms of simple rules that should be easy for individuals to adopt.

See Also:
News Release
http://www.rand.org/news/press.04/09.15.html
Quick Guide
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731.1/
Pocket Edition Survival Guide
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731.2/
Research Brief
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB6014/

Paperback Cover Price: $28.00

Discounted Web Price: $25.20

Pages: 198

ISBN: 0-8330-3473-1


Contents

Summary PDF http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.sum.pdf

All Prefatory Materials PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.pref.pdf

Chapter One:
Introduction PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.ch1.pdf

Chapter Two:
Scenario Approach to Developing an Individual's Strategy PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.ch2.pdf

Chapter Three:
An Individual's Strategy PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.ch3.pdf

Chapter Four:
Conclusions PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.ch4.pdf

Appendix A:
Catastrophic Terrorism Scenarios PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.appa.pdf

Appendix B:
Emergency Guidelines PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.appb.pdf

Appendix C:
Focus Group Methods and Results PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.appc.pdf

Appendix D:
A Review of the Risk-Perception and Risk Communication Literature PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.appd.pdf

Supplementary Materials PDF
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1731/MR1731.sup.pdf
 
C

CAgdma

Veteran Member
Just posting to keep this currant, so tomorrow's group can see it. Will come back in the AM and read. Thanks, it looks important, especially considering the post "Final Warning."
 
J

Joseph R. Whaley

Inactive
Very interesting how they poke holes in Ready.gov while nevertheless being polite.

As opposed to the generic Heimatsicherheitsamt approach, they start with analysis of specific scenarios:

We begin by developing catastrophic terrorist attack scenarios for two important reasons.

The first reason is to discover whether individuals can take any actions in such situations
that will make a difference in terms of their ability to survive.

Only by evaluating the effectiveness of individual actions in these
catastrophic terrorist attacks can this most fundamental question be answered.
As their point of departure, the current U.S. government guidelines for terrorist
attacks argue that preparing makes sense, suggesting that their
recommendations will save lives. However, they offer no supporting analysis or evidence.

Second, only by defining the specific situations and the resulting individual
needs in catastrophic terrorist attacks can one discover what preparation and
response actions are appropriate for an individual. Guidelines designed for
other types of emergencies or emergencies in general (e.g., emergency kits and
evacuation plans) are useful. However, in the context of terrorist attacks
involving unconventional weapons, this general guidance may not address
an individual’s specific needs.

Even though the effects of the covert release of the
smallpox virus and the spread of a naturally occurring contagious disease may
be nominally similar, an individual’s needs may not be the same.

Similar situations may hold for chemical attacks compared to hazardous material
releases, for radiological attacks compared to leaks of nuclear reactor fuel, or
for terrorist nuclear explosions compared to Cold War strategic nuclear attacks.

What emerged is a strategy that individuals can adopt that
will help them survive and one tailored to the specific types of terrorist attacks, rather than one designed for emergencies in general, sometimes referred to as an “all hazards” approach.


They don't actually call Ready.gov a bunch of monkeys, but read this:


The Ready campaign guidelines provide recommendations for chemical,
radiological, nuclear, and biological terrorist attacks.

By beginning with terrorist scenarios, our strategy is, however,
able to provide more specific guidance, leaving individuals with less uncertainty about what to do at the time of an attack or with the need to make choices.

We have been able to tailor our recommended actions to the specific type of attack, rather than having to rely on
generic concepts, as do the Ready campaign guidelines.

They, for example, recommend a sheltering concept (known as “shelter-in-place”)
that calls for an individual to go inside, lock the doors, close the windows, turn off fans, go into an interior room, and
seal the windows and doors in case of indoor and outdoor chemical attacks, as well as for nuclear attacks. This response, in our view, is
appropriate for outdoor chemical attacks but not for chemical attacks inside.
Such steps would also provide little protection in a nuclear attack.

The Ready campaign guidelines for terrorist nuclear attacks correctly distinguish between the dangers from the immediate blast effects and subsequent
radiation fallout. Problems arise when they recommend that an individual
“take cover immediately below ground if possible though any shield or shelter
will help protect you from the immediate effects of the blast and the pressure
wave.” This is misleading, because an individual is unlikely to have sufficient
time to make such a step effective. Such guidance seems to be a holdover from
earlier Cold War nuclear scenarios in which up to 30 minutes of warning was
expected.

Individual Preparedness and Response to Unconventional Terrorist Attacks

For the radioactive fallout that will develop soon after a nuclear attack, the
Ready campaign guidelines do not indicate the time urgency involved and leave
it to an individual to “consider if you can get out of the area; or if it would be
better to go inside a building and follow your plan to ‘shelter-in-place.’” Our
individual’s strategy is based on the critical need to act quickly (within 10 minutes when in the immediate blast zone) either to move out of the path of the
fallout cloud or into a deep underground shelter.

The Ready campaign guidance (“get away as quickly as possible”) is given only
for those biological attacks that are detected at the time, even though they note
that the “more likely” attack will be one in which health care workers later
report “a pattern of unusual illness.” Such covert biological attacks form the
basis for our individual’s strategy, which calls for response actions involving
preventive medical treatment and preparatory steps to improve passive protection in buildings.

The Ready campaign guidelines for chemical attacks, as does our individual’s
strategy, differentiate between indoor and outdoor attacks, but then leave to
individuals the choice of what to do at the time, calling for an individual to
“consider” whether to find shelter or evacuate the area. Our individual’s strategy specifies opening a window or evacuation for a chemical release inside a
building and sheltering inside for a chemical release outdoors. Doing anything
else would not provide as effective protection.

In a radiological attack, the Ready campaign guidelines call for steps based on
three principles—“shielding, distance, and time”—guidance designed for conditions in laboratories handling radioactive materials. Our individual’s strategy
instead focuses on protecting against the primary danger in radiological attacks
(i.e., radiological dust). The recommended response actions include distancing
from the explosion, but shielding provides little extra protection.

Where the Ready campaign guidelines are specific and detailed is in their recommendations for “preparatory steps” for terrorist attacks. As these are largely
drawn from general emergency guidelines, they are certainly useful. The problem is that individuals could be led to believe that the measures are all essential
for some or all of the different types of terrorist attacks. This is not the case.
Our approach is to focus in our individual’s strategy on those preparatory
actions critical to surviving terrorist attacks. This leads us to recommend, as do
the Ready campaign guidelines, that individuals learn about the characteristics
of terrorist attacks, develop family plans, consult in advance with personal
physicians on appropriate kinds of medical treatment, have in their emergency
kit a dust mask, duct tape and plastic sheeting, and a battery powered radio.

Conclusions

The Ready campaign guidelines then go on, for example, to call for individuals
to stock days of supplies of food and water. Having food and water could be
convenient, if supplies were interrupted in the aftermath of an attack involving
biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons or in cases where individuals were
staying at home to protect themselves from exposure to contagious biological
diseases. Supplies of food and water will probably only be “essential” for those
taking shelter in a nuclear attack.

The Ready campaign guidelines also suggest ways in which individuals should
prepare to evacuate quickly by car, beginning with the instruction that the circumstances and the nature of the attack will require a decision about “whether
you stay put or get away.” The guidelines then suggest that an individual create
an evacuation plan that would include keeping a half tank of gas in a car at all
times and becoming familiar with alternate routes. In our individual’s strategy,
evacuation is recommended only in a nuclear attack, and then using a car is
unlikely to be feasible given the accompanying destruction and potentially
impassable roads. For those situations in which individuals are asked to relocate out of contaminated anthrax or radiation areas, there will be time to prepare and plan for the exodus.

The results of our scenario-driven approach provide the empirical basis for
refining the Ready campaign’s guidelines by giving more specific guidance to
individuals about how to respond, by making clear the types of shelters,
respiratory protection, and evacuation needed in each type of terrorist attack,
and by focusing on those preparatory steps that are the most critical.

God is in the details.

RAND actually has an intelligible explanation of when sealing up with plastic sheet and duct tape makes sense. And why having an escape hood makes sense.

Interestingly, they also explain certain things NOT to do. Their Chapter 3 is a real eye-opener, with information you'll never get from the gummint.



As I have mentioned before on this forum, we are on our own.
 
deja

deja

Inactive
It might be good info under the right circumstances. IMNSHO, IF Rand Corp (think tank) has anything to do with it......prepare for the opposite also. ;) Can ya tell how much I trust em?

http://christianparty.net/tavistock.htm

RAND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Without a doubt, RAND is THE think tank most beholden to Tavistock Institute and certainly the RIIA's most prestigious vehicle for control of United States policies at every level. Specific RAND policies that became operative include our ICBM program, prime analyses for U.S. foreign policy making, instigator of space programs, U.S. nuclear policies, corporate analyses, hundreds of projects for the military, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in relation to the use of mind altering drugs like peyote, LSD (the covert MK-ULTRA operation which lasted for 20 years).

Some of RAND's clients include:

American Telephone and Telegraph Company (AT&T)
Chase Manhattan Bank
International Business Machines (IBM)
National Science Foundation
Republican Party
TRW
U.S. Air Force
U.S. Department of Health
U.S. Department of Energy

There are literally THOUSANDS of highly important companies, government institutions and organizations that make use of RANDS's services. To list them all would be impossible. Among RAND's specialities is a study group that predicts the timing and the direction of a thermonuclear war, plus working out the many scenarios based upon its findings. RAND was once accused of being commisioned by the USSR to work out terms of surrender of the United States Government, an accusation that went all the way to the United States Senate, where it was taken up by Senator Symington and subsquently fell victim to scorn poured out by the establishment press. BRAINWASHING remains the primary function of RAND.

• These institutions are among those that fund The UNIFORM LAW FOUNDATION, whose function is to ensure that the Uniform Commercial Code remains the instrument for conducting business in the United States.

-----------
Rand under Tavistock........;)
 
H

Housecarl

On TB every waking moment
Deja,

I hear where you're coming from. I posted this as much for comparison with everything else as their methodology in determining what to do when. Besides I figured as taxpayers we've already paid for the report likely as not so we should know that it exists and where it is.

Housecarl ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top