Replies

I appreciate your comments and should tell you that I've worked around toxic chemicals like radioactive markers, organic carcinogens/mutagens, and nerve agents.

Your comments do not fall on deaf ears.

Casual readers of this thread will misinterpret your comments.

As a board certified physician who is familiar with the relative risks of various types of accidents, you are correct stating that radiation hazards pose a risk.

However, you are grossly overstating the relative risk of being directly involved with a terrorist radioactive weapon release. The harsh reality is that you stand a far larger chance of being frozen in a nor-eastern blizzard while standing in Texas' panhandle, being Earthquaked on in Tokyo, being swamped by a hurricane in Florida, or being killed in a car accident in Los Angeles.

Dust particles of particular sizes are notoriously difficult to clear from your lungs, including microscopic quantities of fibreglass, asbestos, coal, etc.

Far more people have died of black lung secondary to coal exposures, mesothelioma secondary to asbestos use, lung carcinoma secondary to cigarette smoke versus those who have died of malignant carcinoma secondary to industrial or occupational exposure to cobalt 60.

Exposure to ANY compound can result in death.

After all, you can drown in 3 inches of water if your drunk. Babies drown in buckets of water because they can't get themselves upright after tumbling into the bucket.

My primary concern was that this thread is over-emphasizing the relative risk of being caught in a terror event.

While it may be politically useful for some individuals to promulgate fear, it is not useful for either our economy or our lives to respond to such fear.

I am not afraid of Al Qaeda nor their prolific posturing over the internet.

As a healthcare provider responsible for my staff, my fellow physicians, and (most importantly) our patients; I can not permit Al Qaeda to paralyze our operations with their satanic verses.

On the other hand, I can examine the relative risks, position our company to respond appropriately with our limited resources, provide advice to appropriate federal legislators from our area, and assist law enforcement with any response strategies.

The most enjoyable aspect to this thread is actually the war gaming scenarios where particular risks are presented.

We, frankly, are better at war gaming than the civilian bureaucrats in various state and county departments.

Collectively, Free Republic can synthesize more people (military, law enforcement, physicians, nurses, fire, healthcare) than probably Top Hat 2.

After all, Top Hat 2 had a bunch of state employees running their scenario. Unfortunately, they managed to leave out the health care community and the physicians who are actually supposed to be first responders, but have been LEFT OUT by the Clinton-loving SOB's running state/county programs in various liberal bastions like Illinois, Massachusetts, and California (BUT I DIGRESS!).

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.

I appreciate your sober analysis as to the threats we face.

My only nit is with the following as the rest of your post is a well measured, thoughtful analysis.

My primary concern was that this thread is over-emphasizing the relative risk of being caught in a terror event.

If you take the whole of the USA and jumble in the 10s of thousands killed or injured during 9/11, this is indeed true.

If you take merely the number of people in Manhatten at the time, or folks like myself who watched it from across the Hudson, your percentage goes up significantly. If you were in WTC 1 or 2, your risk was 100%.

My mother and father live in small towns in Ohio. I work in southern Bergen county NJ, I travel into Manhatten on occasion. Who's risk is higher?

My point is that one needs to factor in proximity to high value targets to identify risk as best as possible. Calculating risk by using the population of the country or the world as a benchmark is disengenuous.

After all, Top Hat 2 had a bunch of state employees running their scenario. Unfortunately, they managed to leave out the health care community and the physicians who are actually supposed to be first responders, but have been LEFT OUT by the Clinton-loving SOB's running state/county programs in various liberal bastions like Illinois, Massachusetts, and California (BUT I DIGRESS!).

Scrolling thru the multitudinous posts on this thread, I found yours. Very sane, for the most part,and I agree, but I have a different take on the health profession being *left out*.

In my rural hospital, the problem is voluntary non-participation ranging from "it can't happen here" to various forms of Bush-hatred. When I bring up the topic of NBC preparedness, about 75% of the senior med staff rolls their eyes. The real responders are the fire, hazmat and EMT folks, many of whom are Reserve. THEY are on board and well-trained and participate in the drills w/professionalism.

The hospital was the center of anti-war organizing back last winter. They didn't get too far, just were able to mobilize about 2 dozen of the usual suspects, but they have status here and can confuse others about how to respond.

The med staff says we don't need smallpox vaccinations and that Cipro, et al are *too dangerous* to give out en masse. I know most of them will respond as needed when push comes to shove, but they will do it while growling about how it is the fault of the Administration.

While we are rural, we are midway between 2 of 30 mid-sized cities being monitored for bio agents and about 20 miles from vital infrastructure on the Mississippi.