Hospitals have been conducting disaster training classes to prepare for mass casualties, active shooters, bombings, and natural disasters. Now a new potential catastrophic disaster looms on the horizon. Nuclear war. This is a very disturbing thought.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is planning a briefing
for healthcare professionals on how to respond to a nuclear detonation. The Grand Round briefing will take place at 1 p.m. Tuesday, Jan. 16 at the CDC Global Communications Center in Georgia and will be webcast live
and later available on-demand
Here is the official announcement from the CDC
Next for hospitals in disaster planning: How to prepare for nuclear war.
While a nuclear detonation is unlikely, it would have devastating results and there would be limited time to take critical protection steps. Despite the fear surrounding such an event, planning and preparation can lessen deaths and illness. For instance, most people don't realize that sheltering in place for at least 24 hours is crucial to saving lives and reducing exposure to radiation. While federal, state, and local agencies will lead the immediate response efforts, public health will play a key role in responding.
Join us for this session of Grand Rounds to learn what public health programs have done on a federal, state, and local level to prepare for a nuclear detonation. Learn how planning and preparation efforts for a nuclear detonation are similar and different from other emergency response planning efforts.
CDC's Public Health Grand Rounds Presents:"Public Health Response to a Nuclear Detonation"
Tuesday, January 16, 20181:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. (ET)
Global Communications Center (Building 19)Alexander D. Langmuir AuditoriumRoybal Campus
Quote from aquakenn
God forbid a nuclear attack, BUT if there was, I doubt anyone would survive. Once one missle is launched, there will be several more to follow. Not only would the earth be covered in radiation, it would be covered. These nuclear weapons would kick up so much dust, debris, cars, buildings, cars, etc, that the "clouds" created by the bombs would take several months, if not years, to dissipate. The cloud would be so thick, that the sun would be blocked. This would lead to extreme cold and a freezing over the planet. Thus, the beginning of a new ice age. Also, people seeking underground shelter would be trapped and die of loss of oxygen.
No no no
Nothing you said matches reality, not even at the peak of the unfounded nuclear winter hysteria when arsenals were 10s of thousands of multimegaton weapons on each side of NATO/WarPac.
I could go on at length, but the 1983 TTAPS model was too simplified to draw real conclusions and instead was a politically motivated study aimed at pushing an arms control agenda. A total exchange back then might have reached the equivalent of "the year without a summer" caused by Mt Tambora in 1816 (VEI7).
A current NATO/Russia total exchange would involve <3000 weapons almost all much less than a megaton. It would only compete with a mild volcanic winter say Pinatubo (1991 VEI6) or Krakatoa (1886 VEI6). It would disrupt food production (as would the infrastructure interruptions). While a total exchange would be the worst cataclysm in recorded history and would end some national societies as we know them, it wouldn't end civilization much less human existence.
OK... one thing probably matches reality: an exchange between two nation states tends toward a total exchange between those states. However, with a smaller arsenal, say NK, unlikely to see more than a handful of nuclear detonations in an exchange with the US, probably with only single digits (or 1) in the continental US.
The takeaway here is that preparing for and responding to a single nuclear explosion is worth considering whether the cause is terrorism, accident, or the single successful strike of a small arsenal nation state.
Last edit by SummitRN on Jan 10