United States needs ‘dirty nukes’ facts

Opinion: February 16, 2011 at 12:00a.m.

By Peter Goldmark

Newsday

Before Christmas there was a drill in Los Angeles in which the police and other public safety agencies practiced the steps they’d take if terrorists exploded a nuclear weapon in that city.

Police, fire, health departments and others often train their employees via simulated catastrophe. One purpose is to spot problems in coordination and communication. We all remember feeling astonished and outraged after 9/11, when it turned out that New York City police officers and firefighters couldn’t communicate with each other because their systems weren’t compatible.

But what was unusual about the L.A. drill is that it was widely publicized. It seemed like there had been a high-level decision that it was time to acquaint the public with the frightening possibility of terrorism with a dirty nuke — small bombs that go through a fission reaction and spread radioactivity. As you read these words, a score or more of terrorist groups around the world are trying to get their hands on the components of a nuclear bomb. Just last week, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the threat of terrorism is as high as it’s been since 9/11.

Obviously the methods used to identify, track and intercept those groups have to remain secret. But wouldn’t it be useful to discuss the kinds of threats out there? What about discussing the potential impact on those living and working in Los Angeles, London, Frankfurt or New Delhi if a dirty nuke were set off there?

Most dangerous threat

I’m focusing on dirty nukes because most experts consider them the single most dangerous threat. But why not, for example, declassify a sanitized version (removing the items that might give terrorists ideas) of the famous “Hundred Horribles” list of potential terror attacks compiled more than a decade ago? Why shouldn’t you and I know what kinds of dangers the experts worry about?

And surely it would be reasonable to talk about the common sense steps we should take to minimize the radiation poisoning that would be released by a dirty nuke. (One important rule: Get indoors and stay there. Any wall or structure will help reduce the amount of radiation that reaches your body.)

There’s a fine balance to be struck here. The focus should be on what we can do to protect ourselves, not on scaring us all out of our wits. Prevention is key, and for that, public cooperation must be sought — and welcomed.

“See something, say something,” doesn’t quite do it for me, although I get the drift. I remember once a couple years ago spotting a package under a bench in the Brooklyn subway station where I get on the train every morning. When I arrived in Manhattan, I found two MTA employees and told them about it. They just laughed. I’m too battle-scarred to be thrown by that. But some people might say: Hey, what’s the use?

This is a tough subject with some dark sides to it. Some underground mass transit systems around the country have considered compartmentalization, to allow them to seal off a contaminated train.

Should the riding public know what measures are in place? Not precisely — because in some cases, letting the public know exactly what’s being done would also tell the potential terrorists what obstacles they have to overcome. But couldn’t we be told in general terms? Shouldn’t we know the difference between what you do if a small nuclear weapon goes off vs. what you do if a radiation dispersal device — which simply spreads radioactive material — goes off?

Real dangers

We need some straight talk on this subject to form a judgment about the right balance in a democracy between what the security folks need to keep secret and what’s being done with our tax dollars to protect us from disaster. We live in a world with real dangers, and if we learn about them we’re likely to find more effective ways to prevent them — and smarter ways to cope with their consequences if they do occur. The publicity surrounding the Los Angeles drill was a first step in that direction.

Peter Goldmark, a former publisher of the International Herald Tribune, headed the climate program at the Environmental Defense Fund. He wrote this for Newsday. Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.