Tag: security

Not Quite Ready for Bioterrorist Attack

  • Mock evidence of radiological material to make a dirty bomb gives trainees an idea of the kind of materials they might find in a terrorist operation. (Photo by Lester Graham)

Since 9/11, emergency responders have been practicing for new kinds of emergencies. In addition to fires and hazardous materials spills, emergency personnel have been training to deal with terrorist attacks. Recently, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham was allowed behind the scenes in a terrorism attack training exercise:

Transcript

Since 9/11, emergency responders have been practicing for new kinds of emergencies. In
addition to fires and hazardous materials spills, emergency personnel have been training
to deal with terrorist attacks. Recently, the Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester
Graham was allowed behind the scenes in a terrorism attack training exercise:


(coughing)


These two men are the victims of some kind of biological toxin. They were investigating
an abandoned rental truck and now they’re writhing on the ground after a package
spewed some kind of liquid.


(chatter between mock victims) “You alright, man?” “What was that?” “I don’t know
what that was. It hurts.”


These guys are acting. They’re part of a huge training exercise put on by the
Environmental Protection Agency. Dozens of firefighters, emergency medical personnel,
EPA investigators, the FBI and people in t-shirts identifying themselves with acronyms
for agencies most of us have never heard of. They’re all working through a couple of
scenarios. So far today, they’ve discovered radioactive material to make dirty bombs and
some kind of lab set up to make a chemical like sarin nerve gas… and then there’s the
rental truck which is loaded with nasty chemicals.


Mark Durno is the U.S. EPA’s On-Scene Coordinator…


“We have some very distinct objectives with this exercise. One is to practice responding
to unusual situations that might involve weapons of mass destruction. In this particular
exercise, we’re practicing chemical agent and radiological agent response.”


There are lots of new things to learn. Coordination between agencies… and new
techniques. In this exercise, Detroit city departments are learning to work with federal
agencies. Melvin Green is with the Fire Department’s Emergency Medical Services. He
says this exercise is good. He’d rather see his medical technicians make mistakes here
than during a real emergency… where his worst fears might be realized.


“I would have to say that, you know, them become casualties, that’s probably my biggest
fear. This is why we want to educate them on—and this is why the exercise is so
important. We want to educate them on the possibilities. Keeping our people safe
reduces casualties.”


That’s because if the emergency medical personnel are hurt… fewer people will be
treated.


The idea of a terrorist attack with radiological or biological agents is the kind of
nightmarish scenario that no one really wants to think about… but it’s something
emergency responders HAVE to think about.


During this day-long exercise… these trainees are upbeat, they’re confident in their
response. They feel they’ve come a long way in the nearly three years since 9/11.


But other emergency service experts are not quite as upbeat. Just 40 miles from this
training exercise… at the University of Michigan Hospital’s Department of Emergency
Medicine, Administrator Peter Forster says there are weaknesses in preparedness for
terrorist attacks.


“We’ve made a lot of progress from where we were, but we’ve got a long ways to go.”


Forster says when victims start showing up at the hospital emergency rooms…. there will
be bottle-necks…


“Most emergency preparedness activities have been geared toward local events with
relatively small numbers of victims. When we start talking about hundreds of people or
thousands of people injured or hurt, or exposed to some toxic or contagious substance,
then I think the health system would have a significantly difficult time expanding to meet
that requirement, regardless of how much, uh, how well we’re trained or how prepared
we are. We don’t really have the capacity on the health care side to manage a significant
influx of patients.”


Forster says plans to set up emergency medical facilities in auditoriums, school gyms,
and maybe even hotel rooms need to be completed… arrangements made… and supplies
stockpiled.


(sound up of training exercise, generators, etc.)


Meanwhile, back in Detroit… investigators are putting on bulky chemical protection
suits—the ones that look like big space suits…blue, yellow, olive, with teal-colored
gloves and orange boots… you’d think of circus colors if the subject matter weren’t so
serious. After examining the mock lab, spending about an hour in the sweltering suits,
they come out for decontamination before their air tanks run out. The local agencies help
with decontamination… spraying and scrubbing the suits down.


(sound: beeping, scrubbing)


The training site has all the sights and sounds of a real emergency. Lots of emergency
vehicles… the noise of generators and the smell of diesel. But it’s fairly relaxed. There’s
none of the tension, none of the urgency of a real emergency.


The U.S. EPA’s On-Scene Coordinator, Mark Durno, says there are some things you
can’t bring to a drill…


“You can never simulate the adrenaline and the potential panic that’s associated with a
real event, especially when you hear the words ‘chemical’ and ‘radiological’ agent.
However, we can practice those little tools that we’re going to need to be absolutely
proficient at to ensure that when the panic hits, we’re ready to roll without any
hesitation.”


The days’ training has turned up a few glitches. Communication between agencies is
still a problem. Emergency radio frequencies need to be sorted out and coordinated. And
there are still some major gaps in preparedness that are not part of this training… such as
the emergency room capacity problem. But one of the bigger issues is money. Federal
money has been promised to local governments… but it’s been very slow in coming.


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

Related Links

Study Finds Website Info Not a Threat

Federal officials began taking information off government websites after the September 11th attacks. They feared terrorists would use the information to plan future attacks. Now, a new study says much of that information wouldn’t be useful to terrorists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush explains:

Transcript

Federal officials began taking information off government websites after the
September 11th attacks. They feared terrorists would use the information to
plan future attacks. Now a new study says much of that information wouldn’t
be useful to terrorists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has
explains:


Researchers at the Rand Corporation spent a year analyzing 629 federal
websites. They looked at sites that had information about things such as
bridges, power plants, transit systems, and chemical factories. They found
that less than one percent of the websites they analyzed had information that
would be useful for a terrorist to mount an attack.


Beth Lachman co-authored the study. She says agencies need to develop
better methods before pulling information off of their websites:


“Stuff that we think may be very sensitive may not be quite as sensitive as
you thought. Just because you have to really analyze, ‘Well how useful is
this? How unique is it? Is it out there in a lot of different sources? What
are the cost and benefits associated with putting it out there and
potentially restricting it from being out there.'”


Lachman and the other researchers say if the information isn’t useful to a
terrorist, it should be made available to the public. They say people have
the right to know about information such as what chemicals are stored
in their neighborhoods.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.

Related Links

Pilot Program to Help Protect Food Supply?

States around the region are taking measures to protect against terrorism against agriculture. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Maria Hickey reports on a pilot program that will begin tracking the food supply:

Transcript

States around the region are taking measures to protect against terrorism against agriculture. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Maria Hickey reports on a pilot program that will begin tracking the food supply:


States record the number of livestock and the amount of grain grown in each county. But it’s not clear which farms are raising the meat and produce. As a food security measure some states want to keep track of animal and produce movement. In Illinois, Department of Agriculture Director Chuck Hartke says a satellite tracking system will allow the state to pinpoint food producers, grain elevators, food processing facilities and distributors as well.


“Right now we don’t know exactly where things are going, and how much, so this tracking
system is a first step in identifying our resources in a given county and then we can do it
statewide.”


A computer program will allow the state to develop disaster plans. That will help the state deal with terrorism, diseases such as mad cow and natural disasters. If the one-county pilot program works, the project will be extended statewide in Illinois. Other Great Lakes states are looking at similar programs and trading notes on what works.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium I’m Maria Hickey.

Related Links

Nuclear Waste Shipped Secretly

Activists want the National Academy of Sciences to investigate secret shipments of spent nuclear fuel that roll across the Great Lakes states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Activists want the National Academy of Sciences to investigate secret shipments of
spent nuclear
fuel that roll across the Great Lakes states. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Lester Graham
reports:


The Department of Energy secretly shipped by rail several cars of high-level nuclear
waste from
western New York to an Idaho lab this summer. Reportedly, it was one of the largest
such
shipments ever. The group Public Citizen says if these shipments are going to be
made,
Department of Energy officials should at least notify members of Congress and
emergency
officials along the rail route.


Brendan Hoffman is with Public Citizen.


“You know, we feel like if they’re going to keep all this stuff secret, it really
interferes with the
whole concept of having an open government and accountability and transparency.
But, at the
same time we don’t feel this is safe.”


Public Citizen has asked the National Academy of Sciences to confirm the shipment
and wants
the shipping casks carrying the radioactive material to be better tested in accident
and terrorist
attack scenarios.


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

New Federal Rules to Tighten Port Security

Final regulations requiring all ports to be secure against terrorist attacks will be released next month by the federal government. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports that port officials are hoping the new rules come with some new money:

Transcript

Final regulations requiring all ports to be secure against terrorist attacks
will be released next month by the federal government. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Mike Simonson reports that port officials are hoping the new
rules come with some new money:


With 50 nations using the St. Lawrence Seaway,
sending
hundreds of ships, dropping off and picking up
goods, Great Lakes ports have a lot
to make secure.
The Marine Transportation
Security Act makes sure all ports big and small assess risks and come up
with a plan to make things safe from terrorism.


Duluth-Superior Port Security Official Captain Ray Skelton has been working
with Washington on these new regulations. He doesn’t expect any surprises.


“The final regs, if they came out that we have to have armed guards
at piles of limestone, I’d go back to Washington and start a fight. But if
everything stays reasonable, we’ll just go ahead and comply.”


Tighter security may mean some guards, surveillance cameras, fences and alarms.
Skelton says these things are costing ports money without much financial
help from those making up the new rules. Skelton won’t say how much
Duluth-Superior has spent, but he says so far they’ve had to foot the bill.
Ports will have one year to comply with the Marine Transportation Security
Act.


For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mike Simonson.

Chemical Plant Security in Question

The General Accounting Office has released a report saying that there’s no way to know how secure the nation’s chemical plants are from terrorist attacks. The Congressional Research Agency says that no federal department has looked into the problem yet. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports:

Transcript

The General Accounting Office has released a report saying that there’s
no way to know how secure the nation’s chemical plants are from
terrorist attacks. The Congressional Research Agency says that no
federal department has looked into the problem yet. The Great Lakes
Radio Consortium’s Bill Poorman reports:


The GAO released the study last week. It says that there are 123
chemical plants in the U.S. that are in areas where more than a million
people would be effected by a toxic release. But the GAO says the
government has failed to take a comprehensive approach to addressing
chemical plant security. Kate McGloon is spokesperson for the American
Chemistry Council, an industry trade group. She says many
chemical-makers have already taken steps voluntarily to increase
security since 9/11. But they don’t want to reveal what those
are.


“Homeland Security has stressed to us that one of the best ways to keep
potential terrorists from knowing what they’re doing is to be
unpredictable and random and not tell people what you’re doing.”


McGloon says many chemical companies would welcome federal legislation
putting the government in charge of assessing and enforcing chemical
plant security. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Bill Poorman.

Terrorist Threats to Our Water Supply

Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, things we used to take for granted as being safe are now being questioned. Resources essential to life can be used as vehicles for terrorists’ attacks. Even drinking water is among those things now considered vulnerable. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Since the terrorist attacks on 9/11, things we used to take for granted as
being safe are now being questioned. Resources essential to life can be
used as vehicles for terrorists’ attacks. Even drinking water is among
those things now considered vulnerable. The Great Lakes Radio
Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:


In Afghanistan, as U.S. intelligence agencies began sifting through the
material left behind by cells of the Al Qaeda network, the United States
government became more concerned. It looked as though the World
Trade Center and the Pentagon were just the beginning of targets in
America.


When President Bush gave his State of the Union address at the
beginning of this year, he told the public about some of the disturbing
evidence the members of Al Qaeda were holding.


“And the depth of their hatred is equaled by the madness of the
destruction they design. We have found diagrams of American nuclear
power plants and public water facilities.”


While the President revealed that water systems were a possible target,
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency was
assuring groups that the nation’s water supplies were safe. Christie
Todd Whitman told a group of environmental journalists that with
everybody on heightened alert, it was unlikely a terrorist would be able
to contaminate a water source with chemicals or biological agents.


“It would be extremely difficult for someone to perform
this kind of act, taking a truckload – and that’s what it would be, a
tanker truckload – up to a reservoir and dumping it in, given the
heightened security we have today.”


But an expert on the risk of attacks on water supplies says it wouldn’t
have to take a tanker truck… or anything close to that given the nasty
nature of some of the contaminants available to terrorists.


Jim Snyder was a member of a presidential commission assigned to
look at infrastructure and its vulnerability to terrorist attacks.


“If you put a backpack or a couple of backpacks of that
material in a ten-million gallon reservoir, which would be a medium
sized above ground tank, you would kill half the people who drank one
cup.”


And Snyder says it wouldn’t even take that much to cause
wide-spread panic… to raise the so-called ‘fear factor.’


“You don’t have to put enough stuff in the water to kill people.
You have to put enough stuff in the water so that people can’t
drink or use the water. If somebody says they put something in your
water, you’re not going to drink the water.”


Still, the government tries to assure the public there’s not much to fear.
Again, EPA Administrator Whitman…


“The vast majority of contaminants about which we’re worried, we know
how to treat. We know what steps to take. And those where we’re not sure
of what we need to do, we’re working with the CDC to develop a protocol to
respond.”


But the tests conducted daily at a water purification plant don’t look
for the kinds of contaminants that a terrorist would likely use. Jim
Snyder says the first clue that anything was wrong with the water would
likely be sick or dying people.


While the EPA continues to reassure the public, the agency knows of
the shortcomings of security at the thousands of water systems across
the nation. But treating contaminated water would not be the
government’s first choice. It would rather try to prevent an attack.
That’s why it’s offering the water systems grants to figure out the best
way to make their systems less likely to be targeted by terrorists. Again,
Jim Snyder…


“So, right now, you’ve got water systems all over the country
performing or getting ready to perform fairly sophisticated
vulnerability analyses which lead to recommendations on which
components need to be secured and how they should be secured and
what kind of risk reduction one could expect from adding levels of
security.”


Some things are easy, such as locking access gates, and patrolling
lakes and reservoirs. Others are more expensive and challenging. They
might include changes in how the water plants operate, using less
volatile chemicals in the purification process. Jim Snyder says
probably it will take years to beef up security… but even then a
determined terrorist could still strike.


Another terrorism prevention expert, Peter Beering with the City of
Indianapolis, says people should not be too alarmed about the
possibility that their water source could be poisoned. He says of all the
things to attack, water is probably low on the list.


“The good news is that these are comparatively uninteresting targets to
an aggressor. And, as we learned, unfortunately, in New York
and in Washington, that certainly there are much higher profile targets
that are of much greater interest to people who are upset with the
United States.”


But, Beering notes that water systems across the nation still should
take prudent measures to protect the public’s water supplies… just in
case.


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

Cracking Down on the E.L.F.

  • The Earth Liberation Front claimed responsibility for burning this house under construction near Bloomington, Indiana in 1999. Photo courtesy Herald-Times, by Jeremy Hogan.

The Earth Liberation Front is an underground group that attacks institutions it believes harm the environment. During the past five years, its members have caused approximately $40 million in damages. E.L.F’s most notorious acts of destruction include torching a luxury ski resort, destroying the executive offices of a forest-product company, and setting on fire university labs involved in genetically-modified crop research. For some time, environmentalists and others have debated whether this sort of activity was simply a public protest, or acts of terrorism. But since September 11th, that debate has escalated with increased efforts to label those involved in such attacks as terrorists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Todd Melby has this report:

Transcript

The Earth Liberation Front is an underground group that attacks institutions it
believes harm the environment. During the past five years, its members have caused
approximately $40 million in damages. E.L.F.’s most notorious acts of destruction include torching a luxury ski resort, destroying the executive offices of a forest-product
company, and setting on fire university labs involved in genetically-modified crop research. For some time, environmentalists and others have debated whether this sort of activity was simply a public protest, or acts of terrorism. But since September 11th, that debate has escalated with increased efforts to label those involved in such attacks as terrorists. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Todd Melby has this report:


On a cold, January night in St. Paul, Minnesota, one or more members of the Earth Liberation Front set fire to a construction trailer parked on the University of Minnesota campus. Flames quickly spread to an adjacent building, causing $40,000 in damages.


(Construction site sounds)


But while the Crop Research Building burst into flames, the real target was the university’s proposed Microbial and Genomics building – a $20 million undertaking.


(Construction sounds go silent)


The attack wasn’t a surprise to Peggy Leppick. She’s a state representative, who chairs the Higher Education Committee in the Minnesota House of Representatives.


“A lot of the research that goes on at the university is fairly obscure and people don’t know about it, but when you build a building that is essentially a monument to genomics and genetic engineering, it becomes a bulls-eye.”


That’s why university officials are asking the Legislature for nearly $4 million to beef up security. They’ve also ratcheted up the rhetoric. University of Minnesota president Mark Yudolf has no qualms about using the word “terrorist” to describe E.L.F. members who’ve attacked his campus more than once.


“People who blow up facilities and buildings and who may try to avoid risking human life, but almost inevitably something can go wrong: that is my definition of a terrorist, yes.”


But attaching labels to actions doesn’t come so easily for others. There’s a fine distinction for some between terrorist and protesters.


“The definition of terrorist is a very political definition.”


Katherine Sikkink is a political science professor at the University of Minnesota.


“In this country, we have words for it. It’s called ‘crime.’ We don’t have to jump to the term ‘terrorism.’ When people destroy property it’s called ‘crime.’ We have police forces that are here to deal with crime and I think they should do it.”


Not surprisingly, Leslie James Pickering, a spokesman with the E.L.F. press office in Portland, Oregon, agrees with Sikkink’s characterization.


“If they were terrorists they would be engaging in violent terrorist actions. What they do is sabotage property. They’ve never harmed anybody. They never will harm anybody because it is against their code.”


That code, Pickering says, ensures that human life will be protected. When E.L.F. activists set fire to a building, they say it’s searched before flames engulf the facility.


“They are vandals. They are arsonists. They are engaging in illegal activity, there’s no question about that, but there is a difference between sabotage and terrorism.”


But that distinction may be lost in the rush to deal with terrorism, both foreign and domestic. The government appears on the verge of adding environmental groups such as E.L.F to its “War on Terrorism.”


A top F.B.I. official has called E.L.F. “the most active eco-terrorist” group in the United States. A Congressional Committee recently subpoenaed Leslie James Pickering’s predecessor in the E.L.F press office to testify. When committee members weren’t satisfied with his answers, they threatened him with contempt of Congress.


And now U.S. Congressman Gil Gutknecht, a Minnesota Republican, is calling for the death penalty if politically-motivated arsons or other actions result in a fatality. Gutknecht also wants the federal government to establish an “eco-terrorism” clearinghouse so law enforcement officials can do a better job of tracking environmental activists involved in illegal activity.


These proposals have drawn the ire of Chuck Samuelson, the executive director of the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union.


“September 11 has been a boon for people who are interested in making laws more strict, regulating society and limiting freedom.”


Samuelson says Gutknecht’s death penalty proposal won’t stop politically-motivated murders. And he’s also opposed to a federal clearinghouse that tracks E.L.F. members, saying it’s likely to be secret.


“The question that always comes up is about the privacy rights of people, how that information gets put in, who gets to change that information and who gets to use that information. If it’s secret and is not available to the public, so that you as a reporter couldn’t go see it or do an investigative piece on how they’re doing it, it’s got to scare you.”


Although Samuelson is quick to criticize the government’s proposed crackdown on E.L.F., he’s no defender of the group. He scoffs at the E.L.F. code, saying no matter their ‘no-harm-to-human-life’ intent, it’s only a matter of time before someone is killed.


Professor Sikkink also questions the group’s tactics. While some protest movements have historically engaged in property damage to score political points, she says it comes with a high price tag.


“So these tactics, you know, of destruction of government property are not unheard of, they’ve been around for a long time, but I do think they really run the risk of alienating the people you want to convince.”


Despite the increased pressure on E.L.F to halt the violence, Leslie James Pickering, the group’s spokesman, says he doesn’t expect its members to change its ways anytime soon. For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Todd Melby in Minneapolis.

Earth Day in Time of Turmoil

Earth Day is upon us once again, but in this time of war we may not grasp its relevance. Great Lakes Radio Consortium commentator Bob Hamma suggests that this year’s theme – “Protect Our Home” – can lead us to reconsider what kind of future we want, not just for ourselves, but for the world we live in:

Transcript

Earth Day is upon us once again. But in this time of war, we may not grasp its relevance. Great Lakes Radio commentator Bob Hamma suggests that this year’s theme. “Protect Our Home” can lead us to reconsider what kind of future we want, not just for ourselves, but for the world we live in:

Upon his return to Earth after the Apollo 11 mission, the astronaut Michael Collins chose the word fragility to describe how the Earth looked from the moon: “The Earth appears fragile above all else,” he said.

This image of fragility seems an appropriate one for Earth Day 2002. We have learned so much about the fragility of life since September 11. People kissed their loved ones good-bye, went to work, boarded airplanes, all expecting to be home soon. Even now, more than six months later, we are keenly aware of how fragile life is. This tear in the fabric of ordinary life is not easily mended; it has forced us to look more deeply at what we value most, and how to preserve and care for that.

The theme for Earth Day this year is “Protect Our Home.” It is a call to remember that the Earth on which we live is indeed a fragile jewel of life. And in a time of ever-increasing hostility, the earth and those who dwell on it are endangered. How can we protect our home?

Our first instinct is to defend what we treasure, by force if need be. While there is a necessary place for homeland security and military action, these strategies are not the whole solution. Violence can be suppressed by force, hatred cannot. Perhaps Earth Day can be a time to take a look at our situation from another perspective.

If we could view our planet home from a distance today, with all we now know about the Earth and all we have experienced recently, I think we might recognize that the fragility of life on Earth is not only an ecological reality, but a human responsibility. We hold the future of the Earth in our hands. Life on our planet depends on us, on how we use and distribute its resources, and on how we resolve the differences that fuel the destructive power of hatred.

We live in a biosphere where all life is mutually dependent. If we ignore this interdependence on the level of relations among nations, races, and religions, we set in motion a process that imperils life on all levels. The fragile axis of life turns with delicate balance.

This Earth Day invites us to reconsider the idea that we are separate and independent, and that our needs and rights take precedence over those of the global community and of the Earth itself. If we can begin to see the Earth as our shared home, perhaps then we can hope for a better future. Only then can we truly protect our home.

Host Tag: “Bob Hamma is the author of “Earth’s Echo – Sacred Encounters with Nature,” published by Sorin Books. He comes to us by way of the Great Lakes Radio Consortium.”

Related Links

Group Criticizes Medical Waste Company

An environmental group is criticizing the nation’s largest medical waste disposal company for not living up to its mission of being environmentally responsible, but the company says its record speaks for itself. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham explains:

Transcript

An environmental group is criticizing the nation’s largest medical waste disposal company for not living up to its mission of being environmentally responsible. But the company says its record speaks for itself. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham explains:

In a new report, the group Health Care Without Harm accuses the medical waste company, Stericycle, of not doing enough to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste. It also criticizes one method of disposal. Charlotte Brody is the director of the group.

“We need Stericycle to stop incinerating, but when we’ve asked them to actually pledge to do that, they’ve backed away.”

Stericycle says it is reducing incineration. Tony Tomasello is the company’s chief technical officer. He says, as the company expanded it acquired other companies’ incinerators.

“We have shut down over half of those. So, I feel we’ve made substantial reduction in the amount of incineration used in the industry.”

Tomasello notes certain waste, such as human tissue and medical records, is required to be incinerated. He adds that Stericycle educates health care providers on how to reduce waste, but the reduction methods aren’t always enforced.

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