Deadly but difficult to deliver: the chemical threat
smh.com.au
March 19 2003, 12:15 PM
Even a few deaths could panic a city or a nation, but experts say it is easy to exaggerate the deadly potential of biological or chemical agents. Most of the substances are hard to deliver in a way that kills very many people over more than a small area, and in most cases, there are readily available antidotes or treatments.
"My belief is that the only weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear detonation," said Angelo Acquista, medical director for New York City's mayor's Office of Emergency Management.
He said biological and chemical weapons are more likely to kill a few people and frighten millions, as happened in the 1995 Sarin gas attack in a subway in Japan, which resulted in five deaths, and the 2001 anthrax attacks in the United States, which also killed five people.
Acquista is the author of a new book, "The Survival Guide," detailing 15 biological threats and 16 chemical threats, as well as nuclear weapons and "dirty bombs," which are relatively low-tech conventional explosives that disperse radioactive material.
"So much has been said about how bioweapons can injure people, but we've seen very little about how we have therapies and cures for most of the bioagents," he said. "I wrote this book to inoculate people with knowledge."
Scary scenarios are easy to find. A report Monday by three university researchers calculated that about one kilo of anthrax released in the air above a city the size of New York could kill 120,000 people. However, the authors say that such mass destruction is not inevitable, noting that with an improved distribution plan, nearly everyone willing to take antibiotics could be saved.
Acquista says that even if terrorists released germs or deadly chemicals in a city like Philadelphia, most people would have a good chance of survival and their odds improve the more they know and the less they panic.
Reassuring people is tricky, though, because no one can quantify this new risk. "We're in unknown waters now," said Acquista.
Leonard Cole, a political science professor at Rutgers University and author of a soon-to-be released book about the anthrax attacks, agreed: "If there's anything we should have learned from September and October of 2001, it's that there's a heck of a lot we were surprised about and there's no reason to think we shouldn't be surprised again."
"You really get a lot of mixed messages," said Cole, with some experts arguing that the government is overspending on terrorist protection, others that we're not going far enough.
Theoretical scenarios abound while real-life experience with bio or chemical terrorism is scant.
The anthrax mailed in the United States in 2001 killed five people, but many others probably got near the letter-borne spores and didn't get ill. Others fell ill but survived.
Japan had a terrifying chemical incident in 1995, when cult members released highly lethal gas sarin in a subway. Five people were killed but more than 500 were exposed and the vast majority did not get sick at all.
"It's hard to tell what's an overreaction and what's an underreaction because we don't know what we're going to face," said Charles Haas, an engineering professor at Drexel who teaches risk management. Haas said we'll never know whether today's beefed-up security has prevented any terrorism, or whether the people who took antibiotics during the anthrax scare would have otherwise become infected.
"No matter how well prepared we are, theoretically there will always be danger spots that we can't fully control," Haas said.
What's critical, he said, is that people in charge of utilities, transportation systems, large buildings and other vulnerable areas do what they can to protect people, by setting up alarm systems, evacuation plans and sensors to detect contaminants. Haas has worked on techniques to better monitor water supplies so that authorities could be alerted before any contaminated water reached peoples' homes.
Detection systems for chemical and biological agents could catch problems early to avoid panic and save lives, he said, and continued research will bring better and faster sensors to do the job.
Rutgers' Cole said that the country has made great strides in the past two years - amassing enough smallpox vaccine to protect the country, coordinating emergency workers, and alerting doctors to the symptoms of the most common biological warfare agents.
As for individual citizens, he said, the notion of creating a safe room sealed off with duct tape and plastic sheeting may be going too far. But Acquista said it can prevent exposure to anthrax, and can perhaps make people feel safer.
Drexel's Haas said it's not a bad idea to keep on hand a supply of bottled water and some canned foods.
Acquista goes further in his book, recommending that people create an "evacuation kit" and home survival kit including clothes, nonperishable foods, bottled water, tools, battery operated radio, and other gear. "Duct tape is also a good idea," he said. In case the worst happens and someone releases anthrax into the air, he said, you're better off staying indoors and, if you can seal off a room, it could prevent exposure to the spores.
He makes suggestions to improve your odds of surviving an attack in a building, subway, or shopping mall. If terrorists were to release germs into a building, it might take days for people to develop symptoms. If terrorists released a chemical agent, people might develop symptoms within minutes.
If you or people around you start getting sudden acute headaches, blurred vision, pinpoint pupils or watery eyes, he said, you should try to exit the building, preferably keeping a cloth over your mouth, and should try to go uphill and upwind.
And, he said, keep in mind that you are likely to survive most chemical agents. Panic, he said, can cause people to hyperventilate, making symptoms worse.
KRT |
