|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Terrorist WMD Attacks Might Not Cause Mass Casualties, British Scientists Say
A terrorist attack using chemical, biological, or radiological weapons would be unlikely to result in mass casualties, the London Times reported today (see GSN, Aug. 12). Scientists at the British Health Protection Agency’s Center for Emergency Preparedness and Response at Porton Down — the control center for the response to any chemical, biological or radiological attack — have been coordinating planning for such incidents since April 2003. “We shouldn’t be complacent, but it is important for the public to realize that while there would be deaths, as there would be in [a] conventional attack using explosives, there would not be the kind of widespread catastrophe that they might imagine,” said Nigel Lightfoot, director of Emergency Response Capability. “In the event of a biological release, we’d begin to see a picture emerge in the same way as we would monitor, say, a flu outbreak,” said Gordon MacDonald, head of Emergency Strategic Planning. General practitioners are ready to report patients showing particular symptoms, and health authorities are prepared to quickly respond to an apparent outbreak, according to the Times. “We then initiate a program of tracing people with whom victims have come into contact and what we call ‘ring vaccination.’ People most closely exposed are treated with the relevant medicines, while we give prophylactic vaccines to stop the disease spreading. That is how smallpox was eradicated in the 1970s. We are not saying that there might not be fatalities, but we could prevent any widespread disaster,” MacDonald said. A radiological “dirty” bomb is also unlikely to produce mass casualties, said Michael Clark of the agency’s Radiation Protection Division. “Those closest to the release would be worst affected, but the most serious damage would be caused by the actual explosion,” Clark said. “There might be areas that would have to be evacuated for a time and decontaminated, but the worst-affected area would be relatively small.” In addition, preparation of a dirty bomb, which would involve gathering industrial or medical radioactive substances, would pose a lethal danger to those involved in the process, Clark said. “They’d try to get hold of cesium 137, cobalt 60, strontium 90 or iridium 192 in small amounts over time,” he said. “But being exposed to that would make them very sick very quickly. Within days they wouldn’t be able to function and would die. Even with people prepared to commit suicide … [it] would require a large team. … They could survive longer with small amounts but that would make a dirty bomb less effective.” Release of a chemical agent would be equally unlikely to kill large numbers of people, Lightfoot said. “The most likely release would have to be in an enclosed space, such as the Tube system, because these agents disperse and become harmless very quickly in open spaces,” Lightfoot said. “Once an assessment is made, victims would be taken away from the incident as soon as possible. In the event of a nerve-agent attack they would be given atropine, an antidote that can save lives if administered quickly,” Lightfoot said. “Again, let us not pretend that there would not be fatalities, but they could be limited by swift action. Twelve people died in the Tokyo incident [see GSN, Aug. 22], which was a tragedy, but you might argue that more would have died in a conventional explosion. So the main effect here would be psychological, and would not necessarily result in more deaths than a conventional attack,” he said. Independent experts agreed with the government scientists’ assessments. “Historically, the use of chemical or biological weapons has been regarded as unreliable and indiscriminate by armed forces. That might not deter terrorists because their aim is not efficient killing,” said Professor Christopher Bellamy, director of the Security Studies Institute at Cranfield University. “The terrorists might achieve their aim — to terrify people — but the casualties would probably not be high,” Bellamy said (Steve Boggan, The Times, Aug. 24).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
