Tag: terrorist attacks

Debating the Need for Radiation Pills

  • Some states are arguing with the federal government's program to hand out radiation pills to those who live near power plants. The states say the pills don't protect from all exposures and give residents a false sense of security. Photo: Lester Graham

Since the September eleventh terrorist attacks, political pressure has been building to distribute potassium iodide pills to people who live around nuclear power plants. The pills help reduce the damage from exposure to certain kinds of radioactivity in the event of a release, but not all states with nuclear power plants are distributing the pills. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Since the September eleventh terrorist attacks, political
pressure has been building to distribute potassium
iodide pills to people who live around nuclear power
plants. The pills help reduce the damage from
exposure to certain kinds of radioactivity in the event of
a release, but not all states with nuclear power plants
are distributing the pills. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


David Lochbaum is a former nuclear engineer who is now with the Union of Concerned
Scientists. He says everyone at risk should have some of the pills handy….


“We feel the federal government should step in and require potassium iodide to be stock-
piled for the residents within ten miles of all nuclear power plants, not just some people
in some states.”


Lochbaum and his colleagues at the Union of Concerned Scientists say if the potassium
iodide pill is taken at the proper time, it saturates the thyroid with a stable or benign form
of iodine. That way, if a radioactive cloud is released from a nuclear power plant,
harmful radioactive iodine breathed in is not retained by the thyroid.


“If you don’t take potassium iodide, your body tends to absorb the radioactive iodine. It
tends to assault your body for days or months and can lead to thyroid cancers and other
illnesses that are easily avoidable with this very cheap pill that can be taken.”


But some of the states with nuclear power plants say too much stock is being put into the
potassium iodide pill. Illinois has more nuclear power plants than any other state in the
nation. Thomas Ortciger is the head of the Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety…


“It’s a bogus issue that I think has been blown way out of proportion because of 9-11.”


Ortciger says his state is not participating in the federal government’s potassium iodide
pill program. He says handing out the pill to everyone who lives near a nuclear power
plant can give the residents a false sense of security…


“It is not a cure all. It is not a total radiation pill. It defends one small part of the body —
quite frankly it there was an accident or there was an act of terrorism and there was a
release from a plant, there’s probably seven – eight other nuclides that could be just as
dangerous that the people would become contaminated with.”


That’s not stopping the federal government from encouraging the states to sign on to its
potassium iodide pill program. Sue Gagner is with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
She says the N.R.C. believes the potassium iodide pills are helpful…


“It is certainly true that potassium iodide does only provide protection from the one
radioactive nuclide, radioactive iodine. So, there are others that could be released in a
severe nuclear accident. That’s why we only refer to potassium iodide as a supplement to
evacuation and sheltering which could be needed.”


Gagner says citizens should be instructed that the potassium iodide pill does not mean it’s
safe to stick around a contaminated area to gather a few more belongings. People should
leave as soon as possible. But… in the states where the federal program has been used…
surveys a year after the potassium iodide pills were pre-distributed have found that as
many as 90-percent of the people can’t even locate the pills. Gagner told us the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission doesn’t implement the program… so, it leaves it up to the states
to decide whether or not it works… when we asked about the programs effectiveness…


“So, there’s no way to measure whether this is effective or a complete waste of money.”


“Well, I don’t think it’s a complete waste of money. No, I think it can be effective when
used along with the other methods of possible evacuation or sheltering and it can be
effective.”


But some state regulators are skeptical. In Illinois, the Department of Nuclear Safety
refuses to get involved with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s program… but it has
launched it’s own potassium iodide pill program. Director Thomas Ortciger says there’s
been too much political pressure to completely ignore the issue… so the pill is being
made available to people who live near a nuclear power plant and who ask for it…


“For people who feel that this will give them some comfort, we’re going to make this
available, but it’s certainly not going to be part of the Illinois plan.”


Ortciger says the terrorist threat since nine-eleven has only persuaded Illinois emergency
officials to concentrate on the one thing they’re certain will work in case of a radioactive
release… quick evacuation… and the potassium iodide pills are a distraction from that
goal.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

DEBATING THE NEED FOR RADIATION PILLS (Short Version)

  • Some states are arguing with the federal government's program to hand out radiation pills to those who live near power plants. The states say the pills don't protect from all exposures and give residents a false sense of security. Photo: Lester Graham

A group of scientists concerned about the environment wants the federal government to force states with nuclear power plants to stock-pile pills that help prevent exposure to radioactivity. Some states don’t think the pill is helpful. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham has more:

Transcript

A group of scientists concerned about the environment wants the federal government to
force states with nuclear power plants to stock-pile pills that help prevent exposure to
radioactivity. Some states don’t think the pill is helpful. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham has more.


The Union of Concerned Scientists wants the potassium iodide pills distributed to
everyone who lives within ten miles of a nuclear power plant. David Lochbaum is with
the group. He says it’s protection in case there’s ever an accident or a terrorist attack on
the plant and radioactivity is released.


“Potassium iodide is taken to saturate your thyroid with a stable or benign form of iodine
so when radioactive iodine goes by and your body breathes it, it’s not retained by the
body. You just exhale it.”


But fewer than half of the states with nuclear power plants have signed up for the federal
program to make the potassium iodide pills available. One of the concerns is that people
will stay longer gathering belongings, thinking the pill protects them from radioactivity.
It actually only protects for one of several different harmful radionuclides. Some
emergency experts say the best bet is to simply evacuate people as quickly as possible.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

Region’s Champion Tree Cloned for 9/11 Tribute

On Wednesday, nine trees will be planted at the Pentagon as a memorial to the victims of September 11th. The trees are clones of the nation’s largest red ash. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports:

Transcript

On Wednesday, nine trees will be planted at the Pentagon as a memorial to the
victims of September 11th. The trees are clones of the nation’s largest red ash. The
Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tamar Charney reports:


David Millarch runs a tree nursery in Northern Michigan and he’s the
founder of a project that is cloning the nation’s largest measured trees
also known as champions. Michigan’s congressional delegation encouraged
the Pentagon to plant nine of his clones of a 450-year-old champion ash tree
from Michigan.


“Most religions signify the passing of someone with the planting of a tree and
that’s been taking place for thousands of years to signify our spirit lives on…
and that’s why we call these trees champions for heroes.”


Millarch will help plant the trees on the south side of the Pentagon. The
ceremony will be attended by the President, most members of Congress, and
family members of the victims of September 11th.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tamar Charney.

Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Power Plants

  • The Braidwood nuclear power plant is 50 miles from Chicago. Industry, government, and environmental groups are trying to determine what kinds of risks the plants might face from terrorist attacks.

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, there have been all kinds of speculation about the next target. One of the worst case scenarios conjured up is crashing a jet into a nuclear power plant. Since September 11th, the nuclear power industry and regulators have been trying to determine what other kinds of threats the plants might face. However, progress has been slow. No one seems sure how far to take the security issue. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon,
there have been all kinds of speculation about the next target. One of
the worst case scenarios conjured up is crashing a jet into a nuclear
power plant. Since September 11th, the nuclear power industry and
regulators have been trying to determine what other kinds of threats
the plants might face. However, progress has been slow. No one seems
sure how far to take the security issue. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


The idea of a radioactive release from a nuclear power plant is chilling.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has always required plant
operators to keep security tight and the plant owners generally thought
of the security requirements as a necessary evil… a costly regulatory
requirement. That changed on September 11th.


Jack Skolds is the President of Exelon Nuclear, which operates 17
reactors in the U.S. He says the nuclear power industry’s opinions
about security have changed. Now, it’s seen as not just a regulatory
requirement, but as absolutely essential for the safety of the plants.


“And I didn’t believe this necessarily before September 11th.
I believe there are people out there who want to inflict some kind of
harm to nuclear power plants somewhere in the world. And one of those
plants might be one of ours. So, we take this very seriously and we’re
going to do everything that we need to do to protect the security of the
plants.”


Exelon, just as other nuclear power plant operators, has increased
spending on security by about 25 percent. Security guards are better
armed. There are more inspections of people and cars going in and out
of plants. Barricades have been put up. But, Skolds concedes that
nuclear power plants can’t defend against everything.


“I wouldn’t call anything impenetrable. I think that would be a stretch.
But, I would tell you I know of no other civilian industry
that has as high a degree of security as the nuclear power industry
does.”


But no one is testing that security. The government used to conduct
mock attacks – so-called force-on-force tests – against plants to test
security. Since September 11th, there have been no force-on-force drills.


The government says it’s still trying to figure out what kind of threats a
group of terrorist might present. So, the nuclear power plants are
waiting. They’re waiting for the government to come up with likely
terrorism scenarios and strategies to defend against them. Once that’s
complete, then there will likely be a discussion about who pays for
those defenses, the nuclear power industry or the government.


David Lochbaum is the nuclear safety engineer for the Union of
Concerned Scientists. He says that if there’s an attack against a plant,
the nuclear power industry and government need to be able to tell the
public that they did everything they could to prevent it. The Union of
Concerned Scientists says that should start with bringing back
force-on-force drills… and then focus on the possibility of insider
sabotage by giving lie detector tests to nuclear power plant employees.
But, those things aren’t happening…


“So, we think there are shortfalls that would prevent officials from reassuring the American public that everything that can reasonably be done has been done.”


Lochbaum adds that the government needs to work faster to develop
likely attack scenarios and defenses so that the nuclear power plants
know the best ways to beef up security.


The power plants are not the only ones waiting for those scenarios.
Agencies responsible for evacuating areas around a plant are also
waiting. Thomas Ortciger is the Director of the Illinois Department of
Nuclear Safety. Illinois has more reactors than any other state. He says
while his staff is trying to come up with plans to react to the most likely
situations and looking for federal government guidance… they’re
getting pressure to do something… or , actually, everything… and do it
right now.


“There are various outside groups, particularly “anti-” groups that have developed scenarios that are absolutely bizzare. I mean, there are so many things that
would have to happen at a plant. I mean, this is hysteria at its best. You know,
cut it out guys. Let’s talk in real terms. Let’s try to help one another make this thing work.”


Ortciger says the evacuation plans already in place appear to be enough, but it’s difficult to know. These plans weren’t designed with terrorist attacks in mind.


“What we need to see is whether or not there are any credible scenarios where the time we believe we have to implement an evacuation would be shortened. But, we have not seen a credible argument for that yet.”


And so state and local emergency agencies and the nuclear industry are
all waiting for the same thing: information. Exelon Nuclear’s Jack
Skolds says he doesn’t know where or how or even if they should
increase security further.


“So, whether we have enough or not, I can’t answer because
we haven’t reached a conclusion yet on what the perceived threat is.”


Recent studies by the National Research Council, the Electric Power
Research Institute, the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission all look at perceived threats, especially the
threat of a jet crash into the reactor containment building. The studies
only look at what kind of damage such a crash would likely cause. They
agree it would cause a lot of disruption, but probably would not cause a
melt down. But none of the studies looks at what to do to stop an air
attack.


David Lochbaum at the Union of Concerned Scientists says that’s the
problem. Study and planning to defend against a terrorist attack are
just going too slowly.


“Things aren’t looking real good that we’re going to be able to beat the
next terrorist attack. We’re still trying to figure out where the lines are
drawn, who does what, who pays for the problems. We haven’t responded
with a lot of urgency to this challenge.”


Given that the worst case scenario in the back of every expert’s mind is
something like the Chernobyl plant radioactive release. A similar
release from a nuclear power plant such as Exelon’s Braidwood plant,
just 50 miles from Chicago is haunting. Lochbaum says it’s clear that
the challenge of securing nuclear power plants from a terrorist attack
is significant and should be urgent. But the studies take time… and it
could be one to three years before defense plans are outlined.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Nuclear Reactors in Harm’s Way?

Canadian environmentalists are concerned that nuclear power plants located on the Great Lakes are vulnerable to a potential terrorist attack. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Karen Kelly has the story:

Wild Places Provide Welcome Respite

  • In times of crisis and sadness, many people find solace in America's wild places (above: Lake Superior coastline). Photo courtesy of Dave Hansen.

It’s been three months since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. Many people find they’re still trying to come to terms with their feelings about the attacks. Some people, though, have found solace in a walk through nature. For them, wild places have become a respite from the chaos of emotions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

It’s been three months since the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington D.C. Many people find they’re still trying to come to terms with their feelings about the attacks. For some though, they’ve found solace in a walk through nature. For them wild places have become a respite from the chaos of emotions. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


The September 11th attacks left many people bewildered. How could it happen? Why did so many people have to die? People question their own safety. They worry about the safety of their family and their friends, the disturbing images of the planes crashing, the buildings collapsing, and the threats of bio-terrorism since then. They’re all hard to comprehend. The terrorism has been such a shock, that some people found they need space to think, to try to wrap their heads around what had happened.


Often that space, it turns out, is green. In New York, almost immediately after the attacks, many people found themselves drawn to the Gateway National Recreation Area not far from Manhattan where the twin towers of the World Trade Center had stood. U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton says people went there, searching for a break from the intensity of the events.


“After the attacks, the number of people flocking to Gateway skyrocketed. Park employees say visitors told them that they wanted a place to get away from the television, to be alone, and even to cry.”


People around the nation did much the same thing. Many other parks have been reporting higher numbers of visitors. Park staff say people tell them they feel drawn to the peaceful settings; Many of them heading into nature just to escape the scenes repeated over and over again on television.


Richard Nelson is a writer in Alaska. He says he’s not surprised people are returning to parks and places outdoors. In the days following September 11th, he wrote an article for Orion-on-line-dot-org about his own need to go to nature. In it, he wrote the only way he had found release from “the almost unbearable weight of grief and fear is to take myself out into the wild places, where I can find the embrace of peace, where I can see that the world goes on as always.” Nelson says when the human world looks ugly, nature has a way of reminding people that there’s still beauty.


“I can’t do away with that grief I feel about the enormous losses of September 11th. I can’t eliminate that from myself. But, I can balance it against this great bright sanity of the earth itself. This is why I think we need these wild places, why they are so vital for us is because it’s where we find balance.”


For some people the balance means finding deeper meaning in nature, reveling in the survival of an old tree that’s been around longer than the memories of past horrors, but still stands unbowed, or discovering a tiny flower that’s bloomed despite a hard freeze and winter’s onslaught.


Of course, finding that respite in nature is not unique to the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. Long before the attacks, writer Wendell Berry wrote a poem entitled “The Peace of Wild Things.” In it he expresses that comfort that many people recently have found again.

“When despair in the world grows for me
And I wake in the middle of the night at the least sound
In fear of what my life and my children’s lives may be,
I go and lie down where the wood drake
Rests in his beauty on the water, and the great heron feeds.
I come into the peace of wild things
Who do not tax their lives with forethought of grief.
I come into the presence of still water.
And I feel above me the day-blind stars
Waiting for their light. For a time
I rest in the grace of the world, and I am free.”


To a psychologist, finding this freedom in places that seem constant and reliable is a perfectly natural reaction. Shannon Lynch is a clinical psychologist at Western Illinois University. She says while some people might be drawn to other people for comfort and understanding…others will be drawn to green spaces for reassurance.


“When you choose to go and be outside or you choose to go somewhere so you can feel ‘real,’ I’d say you’re coping. You’re reminding yourself that even in this time, there are places that you can feel safe, that you can feel connected, that you can be in green space to feel at peace. We might go out and be in green space to remind ourselves that we’re good adventurers and we get through tough times, that we’re survivors. There are lots of reasons. This idea that you’re real, that your surroundings are real and that they’re predictable. That you’re going to go on a hike and you can know what’s going to happen there.”


It can give people the right atmosphere and the time to help them deal with the feelings and the emotions that might have disturbed them since the attacks.


For writer Richard Nelson, the constant rhythm of nature helps remind him that not everything in life has been marred by mankind’s violence.


“Wild places are where I find my peace and solace and relief from the sort of pressures and the darkness of the news. It seems to me whenever I go to someplace wild I’m able to absorb myself in positive and beautiful things. When I go out to the meadows or to the seacoast or to the meadows somewhere. I. I don’t know, it just…everything else seems to fade into some kind of irrelevance. And, I feel as if my damaged soul gets healed when I’m out there.”


Nelson stresses that he’s not saying a walk in the park will solve the world’s problems or your own feelings about them. But, he says, the nature found there might just be enough of a reminder that life endures, for many people to find a way to rekindle their hope for mankind. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Lester Graham.

Epa Wavers Over Online Information

  • Some federal agencies and laboratories have restricted access to information. The government fears terrorists could use some information to plan attacks against the U.S.

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the federal government has been re-thinking its website policies. Anything that the government feels could be used by terrorists was removed from the Internet. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website for a time and little of it has been restored. The Army Corps of Engineers removed information about dams across the U-S from its sites. Similarly, some information about natural gas pipelines, and transportation systems was removed. The Environmental Protection Agency removed information about hazardous chemicals. Now, the E-P-A is considering putting back some information about the risks communities face because of nearby industrial plants. But some industry groups were glad to see the information removed and don’t want it put back on the internet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Following the terrorist attacks on September 11th, the federal government has been re-thinking its website policies. Anything that the government feels could be used by terrorists was removed from the internet. For example. the Nuclear Regulatory Commission completely shut down its website for a time and little of it has been restored. The Army Corps of Engineers removed information about dams across the U.S. from its sites. Similarly, some information about natural gas pipelines, and transportation systems was removed. The Environmental Protection Agency removed information about hazardous chemicals. Now, the EPA is considering putting back some information about the risks communities face because of nearby industrial plants. But, some industry groups were glad to see the information removed and don’t want it put back on the internet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports.


In the last decade or so, the government has put volumes and volumes of information on the internet. In the interest of an open and free government, federal agencies have given the public access to all kinds of data. But after the terrorist attacks, there was a scramble to remove a lot of that data. Some government agencies concede they might have overreacted when pulling information off the web. But, most indicate they thought it was better to be safe than to leave information on the internet that terrorists could use to more effectively plan an attack.


For example, the Environmental Protection Agency removed Risk Management Plans from the EPA website. Those plans give details about certain hazardous chemicals that are kept at industrial plants, how a chemical leak or fire at a plant would affect the surrounding community. and even how many people might be hurt or killed in a worse case scenario.


The EPA Administrator, Christie Whitman recently explained to journalists why she had the agency remove those plans.


“That was information on our website that really gave terrorists a road map as to how to where to plan an attack. I was just not sure that we wanted to have that up for any –not so much terrorists, but terrorist wannabe— to find and to take advantage of.”


The information was originally put together in EPA office reading rooms open to the public. Later it was put up on the EPA’s website. That was so community groups could more easily learn about the risks they faced from nearby chemical plants. It was also used by some neighborhood groups to pressure companies to either implement better safety measures or stop using certain chemicals.


Administrator Whitman says in the weeks since the attacks, the EPA has been reviewing whether some of that information can be restored to the internet.


“What we’re doing is reviewing and seeing if it is readily available elsewhere, then there’s no point in our taking it off. We’d put it back again.”


But many chemical companies and other industry groups don’t want that information put back on the government’s websites, even though it’s sometimes still available elsewhere on the internet. In fact, they don’t want the information available to the public at all.


Angela Logomasini is with the Washington-based libertarian think tank, the Competitive Enterprise Institute. She says the information, such as worse case scenarios, shouldn’t be available because it might be used by terrorists. Logomasini was surprised to learn the EPA Administrator is considering putting the information back on the internet.


“I think it’s ridiculous. I think what they should be doing is trying to investigate, you know, what the risks are and whether this is really a wise thing to do. You know, just simply because other groups have taken the information and posted some of it on the internet does not mean that our government should go out of its way and provide it too.”


Logomasini says the risk management plans are of little use to the public anyway. She says the only people who used them were environmentalists, who wanted the information to scare people.


There’s some skepticism about the chemical industry’s real motivation to keep the information out of public view. Besides environmentalists. Some journalists use the information to track industry safety and government regulations.


Margaret Kriz is a correspondent for the National Journal where she writes about government, industry and the environment. She says since September 11th, chemical industry people might be arguing that the risk management plans should be kept secret for national security reasons. But before then, their reasons had more to do with corporate public relations and competition.


“Some of the information that was taken off the web by EPA the day of the attack is information the chemical industry has been trying to get off the web for years. They have not wanted it on there because they really don’t want to have— they fear two things: they fear the public will overreact to the information if they find out (about) some chemicals in a nearby plant and the second thing, they’re fearful if a competitor for them will go look at this information and find out what chemicals are being used and figure out what their secret formula is for whatever they make.”


So, it appears to at least some observers that the chemical industry sees the concern over terrorism as an opportunity. an opportunity to get the internet-based information removed for good. But it looks as though the Environmental Protection Agency is leaning toward making some of the information available on the website again. However. EPA Administrator Christie Whitman didn’t say when. Other agencies are also reviewing the information they’ve removed from the web with an eye toward eventually making some version of the data available to the public once again on the internet.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links

Preparing for Bioterrorism

State health departments, emergency management agencies and doctors throughout the Great Lakes region are re-examining their emergency plans after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Officials say they need to increase their planning to prepare for a bioterrorist attack. Such an attack could mean the release of deadly diseases into a general population and officials say there’s no way the public health structure could handle such an outbreak right now. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Scheck has more:

Transcript

State health departments, emergency management agencies and doctors throughout the Great Lakes region are re-examining their emergency plans after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. Officials say they need to increase their planning to prepare for a bioterrorist attack. Such an attack could mean the release of deadly diseases into a general population and officials say there’s no way the public health structure could handle such an outbreak right now. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Tom Scheck reports…


As the nation tries to recover from the terrorist attacks in Pennsylvania, New York and Washington DC, infectious disease experts are using the tragedies to highlight that the nation’s skies and borders are not the only things the federal government needs to worry about. Those experts say the nation needs to also start preparing for a bioterrorist attack. The University of Minnesota’s Michael Osterholm is one of the leading experts on infectious disease and bioterrorism in the nation. He says it’s unlikely that a terrorist is equipped at this time to release a deadly disease like anthrax or small pox. But he says the events on Tuesday, September 11th have redefined terrorism in the United States. And he says the country is currently ill equipped to handle a biological outbreak.


“We’re a country right now, that if we have a slight increase of influenza cases in the wintertime we close down our hospitals because we have no excess capacity, we don’t have the health care workers or the beds. Now you tell me, given that backdrop, what it will mean when 250 or 300,000 or 400,000 people suddenly come down with smallpox or anthrax.”


Osterholm says if those biologic agents, or others like them are released in an American city, it could, over time, make thousands of people sick. And he says the highly contagious diseases would rapidly transfer from person to person, making it difficult for doctors and public health officials to contain the outbreak. On top of that, Osterholm says most such diseases wouldn’t show their symptoms for 3 or four days. He says that could stretch the state’s public health departments thin as they try to track down who’s infected and who’s not.


“We run much of public health in this country on what I would call the equivalent of running O’Hare air traffic control tower on tin cans and string. Yet that’s going to be the system that’s going to respond to bioterrorism.”


Osterholm and others are lobbying the federal government to allocate billions of dollars to improve the community response rates of public health and emergency personnel throughout the country. He also says the country needs to start stockpiling vaccines for smallpox and anthrax. Since the last human case of small pox was eradicated in 1979,
Osterholm says officials haven’t seen the need to continue vaccinating against the disease. Anthrax, on the other hand, has a vaccine but can also be treated with antibiotics if the disease is caught early enough.


The threat of a bioterrorist attack is not only worrying public health officials but also the emergency room doctors who will be treating infected patients. In addition to running the risk of contracting the same infections they’re treating, emergency room doctors say the threat of bioterrorism adds to an already busy schedule of treating cuts, gashes and gun shot wounds. Now physicians, like Pat Lilja who works at North Memorial Medical Center in the Twin Cities, say they have to watch out for rare illnesses as well; for instance, rare flu-like cases in the summer.


“You don’t know about it until people three or four or five days later suddenly start coming into hospitals sick. So you don’t have this big, all of a sudden, something’s going on. What you have to rely upon are your hospitals, primarily your emergency departments, to say we’ve seen twenty patients today all with this same problem and we usually see one a month.”


Lilja and other emergency room physicians’ say they’ve been conducting mock drills of biological and chemical disasters to prepare for any outbreaks. But he says the emergency plans at many hospitals are stuck on the dusty shelves of an administrator too worried about a declining budget rather than an event that they think could never occur. That worries Randall Larson, the director of the Anser Institute for Homeland Security in Virginia. He says hospitals need to increase their security and monitoring methods to make sure they catch any outbreak that does occur.


“We mad e a decision in this country that we didn’t want the federal government or the state government running our hospitals. They’re private corporations. Thirty percent of them are in the red today. Fifty percent of our teaching hospitals are in the red. They don’t have time to do the exercises and the training they need to be prepared to respond to a biological or a chemical attack. They got to just keep the doors open and stay out of the red.”


Larsen and others say the new federal office of Homeland Security needs to make bioterrorism a priority in the coming years. He says the FBI, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and doctors need to coordinate their efforts to make sure they respond quickly to a biological or chemical outbreak. He says the responsiveness is just as critical for those who work in public health as the quickness expected from a police officer or a firefighter. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Tom Scheck.

No Such Thing as a Just War

Americans, often independent and splintered, learned on September 11th that – like it or not – we are tethered to our neighbors in ways we never imagined. As the world awaits the next phase of the U.S. response to the terrorist attack, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King examines the ethical paradox of a just war:

Transcript

Americans, often independent and splintered, learned on September 11th that – like it or not, we are tethered to our neighbors in ways we never imagined. As the world awaits the next phase of the U.S. response to the terrorist attack, Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Julia King examines the ethical paradox of a just war.


On one side of my home, there lives a jovial, white-haired grandpa who likes feeding birds and playing soccer with his granddaughters. A retired cop and staunch patriot, he plans to cheer out loud when the United States retaliates for the World Trade Center attack.


On the other side of my home, there lives a quiet, soft-spoken Mennonite couple. Thin, gentle people, they spend their time tending an organic garden and often share their tomatoes and flowers with my young daughter. They are pacifists, bracing themselves for the coming horrors of American warfare.


Sandwiched between committed Hawks and Doves, I’m lonely with my ambivalence.


Americans overwhelmingly say they support a military response. But how many of us answered the question with true contemplation, instead of simple reflex?


“My God,” we said as the buildings smoldered, “do something!” Our minds were made up before we even had time to think.


I both envy and mistrust such certainty. Some of my neighbors are as unyielding in their pacifism as others are in their wish to fight. Both sides are unwilling to consider that the answer might lie somewhere beyond the confines of their own firm beliefs. (Or maybe that there’s no answer at all.)


There are Americans who believe we can bomb Evil from the earth, while others believe that if we are just kind enough; Evil will wander off on its own, like a child without a playmate. And if we believe that our path — whether it be military action or inaction — offers the final solution, we seem to think we have no moral culpability, no blood on our own hands.


And yet we all must know by now, especially now, that with our convictions come ethical burdens. All we can do is follow the paths of our ideals to their logical ends and hope against all odds that they remain intact.


But they won’t, and that is the true horror of war. To fight means that innocent, precious human life will be lost. To refuse to fight means that innocent, precious human life will be lost. And either way, Evil will remain standing. Guilt clings to us all — like original sin — because none of us has been able to end hate.


This is why Americans weep. It’s why our nights are sleepless and our days are clouded with sadness. It’s why we hold to one another and light candles and why we have flooded our places of worship.


We know now what we never wanted to know: there is no such thing as innocence.

Will Environment Be on Back Burner?

Some environmentalists are concerned that the terrorist attacks on September 11th will hurt the environmental movement. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports:

Transcript

Some environmentalists are concerned that the terrorist attacks on September
11th will hurt the environmental movement. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Jonathan Ahl reports.


Tom Lowe is a professor of environmental management at Ball State University in
Munice, Indiana. He says the reaction to the attacks could lead to bad decisions that would devastate the environment down the road.


“If we continue to spoil the environment, the tragedy of 9-11 is going to be amplified many times by what is going to happen with the environmental impact of global warming and other kinds of problems.”


Lowe says one example is drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge. He says national security interests may push for that now, even though it will be damaging in the long run. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Jonathan Ahl.