Study Details Catastrophic Impact Of Nuclear Attack On US Cities

[Ian David]

Source: University of Georgia via ScienceDaily

A new study by researchers at the Center for Mass Destruction Defense (CMADD) at the University of Georgia details the catastrophic impact a nuclear attack would have on American cities.

The study, which the authors said was the most advanced and detailed simulation published in open scientific literature, highlights the inability of the nation’s current medical system to handle casualties from a nuclear attack. It also suggests what the authors said are much needed yet relatively simple interventions that could save tens of thousands of lives.

“The likelihood of a nuclear weapon attack in an American city is steadily increasing, and the consequences will be overwhelming” said Cham Dallas, CMADD director and professor in the UGA College of Pharmacy. “So we need to substantially increase our preparation.”

Dallas and co-author William Bell, CMADD senior research scientist and faculty member of the UGA College of Public Health, examined four high-profile American cities – New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C. and Atlanta – and modeled the effects of a 20 kiloton nuclear detonation and a 550 kiloton detonation. (For comparison, the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in the 12 to 20 kiloton range). Bell explained that a 20 kiloton weapon could be manufactured by terrorists and fledgling nuclear countries such as North Korea and Iran, while a 550 kiloton device is commonly found in the arsenal of the former Soviet Union and therefore is the most likely to be stolen by terrorists.

<snip>

The researchers note that in all four cities studied, hospitals are concentrated in the area most likely to be destroyed. Another weak link is the inability of the nation’s hospital system to treat the burn victims a 550-kiloton detonation would create. A 550-kiloton detonation in Atlanta, the least densely populated of the four cities studied, would result in nearly 300,000 serious burn victims.

Read more: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070320103821.htm

---

Apparently the federal government is unprepared!

Imagine that!

[soothsayer]

1. the sky is falling! the sky is falling!

[Ian David]

3. "no one could have anticipated..." n/t

[saigon68]

4. Be Afraid Be Afraid Be Afraid Be Afraid Be Afraid Be Afraid

Hide under your bed

[randycrow]

14. Propaganda department selling unacceptable

actions, a nuclear holocaust, as reasonable.
A biological holocaust is also unacceptable, yet the propaganda department has gone to get lengths to sell it as reasonable.

[Wilber_Stool]

2. Quick, quick

Duck and cover, duck and cover. Now, where's my stainless steel ID bracelet?

[Demeter]

5. Who Paid For This Research?

US Taxpayers? WHo Ordered it? Feith-based government?

AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION>>>>>geiger counters at ports and so forth, jail the Bush regime en masse, work for world peace and equity among people.....or is that too simple-minded?

[goforit]

6. University of Georgia going downhill! Just stick to your neandrethal sports!

[Zynx]

7. 20 Kiloton bomb buildable by terrorists....riiiiight.

The science is easy. Hell, I could do it.

The materials are not.

[firefox_fan]

13. Help, Jack Bauer for prez!

:)

[kath]

8. Terra, terra, terra, fear, fear, fear, Terra, terra , terra, ...

rinse and repeat.

[shanti]

19. and so timely!

:eyes:

[Tesha]

9. Sometimes, I simply don't understand DUers' reactions

Today in America, we have a government and a bunch of Reich
Wing political and religious nuts who are goading America
ever closer to a nuclear confrontation with *SOMEBODY*,
*ANYBODY*.

Here we have a study reminding us that for most of us,
such a nuclear war would not be survivable. We'd (mostly)
all die a variety of horrible, tragic deaths, with the
lucky ones being prompt casualties while the rest of us
die of fallout, famine, and disease, with no health care
system remaining even to offer us palliative measures.

Finally, above me, a bunch of people are mocking this study.

What *IS* it with DUers?

Tesha

[maxsolomon]

10. its what's RIGHT with DU'ers: we reject fearmongering

you don't need a study to know nuclear war is bad for cities - we have the pictures from nagasaki & hiroshima.

we've been cowed into submission with the nuclear boogeyman since friggin Truman. it its coming, i'll be incinerated instantly - i live within blast radius of multiple army, air force, and submarine bases. since i'll be vapor if it goes down, there is no reason for me to live in active fear of an abstract, unlikely threat.

on edit: "UGA College of Pharmacy"? :eyes:

[Tesha]

15. But see, that's precisely my point.

> you don't need a study to know nuclear war is bad for cities -
> we have the pictures from nagasaki & hiroshima.

But see, that's precisely my point: Demonstrably, a large
number of Americans seem to think we CAN win a nuclear
war, escpecially if it only involves blowing up a few of
the godless Blue Cities like NYC, Boston, LA, and San
Francisco.

Tesha

[shanti]

23. it's the TIMING

of these stories that's suspect, not the content. they ALWAYS come out when there's something juicy they want to deflect.

[anotherdrew]

11. it's mocked because it's so damn obvious, no study was needed

hell, our current medical system can't cope with peoples needs today, absent a bomb.

[Tesha]

16. See my reply #15

[anotherdrew]

26. good point

but will it scare them straight or will it make them decide the only way they can be safe is to exterminate all non-Americans on earth? Would even that be enough? After all, there's no way to _prove_ beyond the shadow of a mushroom cloud that someone somewhere isn't building a secret bomb, right now. Knee-jerk reactionary politics has got to stop being our response to everything.

At the same time, there's zero probability that we will tax ourselves sufficiently, and give up to eminent domain the massive amounts of land that would be required to build out hundreds of hospitals that would sit empty and unused waiting for the day a bomb goes off (or a serious viral outbreak occurs).

Sure a creative, industrious, inventive and honest nation could do a much better job of preparation, but are we really any of those things anymore?

[Learn2Swim]

20. exactly... n/t

[Bacchus39]

25. hurricane modeling, earthquakes, global warming, asteroids

are you saying there shouldn't be any scientific research or modeling done on these possibilities because we know they are bad?

[anotherdrew]

27. I just think the Center for Mass Destruction Defense should reach for less low hanging fruit n/t

[Bacchus39]

24. yes, I see no problem with a model describing the impact

of a nuclear explosion in a major city. heck, they even do asteroid impact modeling.

[firefox_fan]

12. Duh! Obviously, if a nuke hits a US city things would be bad.

The point of these "reports" is to try to scare the public opinion so that they'll support dealing with Iran the hard way, fast.

[KamaAina]

17. Yes, it certainly would suck to have 80% of a major U.S. city destroyed

wouldn't it?

[genieroze]

18. Nuclear attacks kill. Duh. terra terra.

[Ian David]

22. The point is that government agencies are (once again) woefully unprepared. n/t

[pampango]

21. I want to conduct one of these studies.

Can you get paid big bucks for stating the obvious? ;)