|
Home > Archive > Emergency services > October 2005 > Once a relic, idea of civil defense still finds supporters
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Once a relic, idea of civil defense still finds supporters
|
|
| fgoodwin 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
| Once a relic, idea of civil defense still finds supporters
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/200..._3610_15_05.txt
http://tinyurl.com/bqnt8
By: GARY WARTH - Staff Writer
Last modified Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:23 PM PDT
Community fallout shelters may seem like a relic from the Cold War era.
But the idea of having provisions and protection during disasters like
the recent hurricanes in the South and storms in the Northeast have
some people longing for the days of backyard bomb shelters and Civil
Defense air-raid drills.
"It started during 9/11," said George Levitt, executive director of the
American Civil Defense Association in Draper, Utah. "That kind of made
the world aware of the realities that we're not impenetrable. My
12-year-old came to me and said, 'Daddy, are we safe here?' I didn't
really know what to tell her."
Since joining the American Civil Defense Association last year, Levitt
has heard a growing number of people ask that same question. While the
group does not disclose its membership figures, Levitt said it grows by
10 percent each week.
Funded by $36 annual membership fees and supplies sold at its Web site,
www.tacda.org, the association is pushing for the re-creation of the
Cold War-era Civil Defense program in the form of a national community
shelter program, tax incentives for people who build private shelters
and national standards for private shelters.
The association soon will begin sending alerts about disasters to
nationwide civil-defense chapters and is working on a network of ham
radio operators for communication when phone lines are down. Starting
Nov. 15, membership will include an online academy that will support
the chapters.
So far, there are no chapters in San Diego County, Levitt said.
"Here in Utah, we have almost 410 members in one little branch," he
said.
The American Civil Defense Association is an outgrowth of the federal
Office of Civil Defense created by President Franklin Roosevelt on May
20, 1941, when fear of a possible sneak attack from the Axis powers
during World War II prompted a call for every city to create its own
civil-defense plan.
As the Cold War with the Soviet Union heated up, the Office of Civil
Defense in 1961 created the community fallout shelter program to
protect citizens from radiation caused by nuclear attacks. Part of that
protection included air raids and the infamous "duck and cover" drills
taught to schoolchildren.
Local governments provided rooms for large-scale shelters in buildings
such as schools or city halls, while the federal government provided
supplies, including metal barrels of water and boxes of dry crackers.
Members of historical societies in Escondido and Oceanside said they do
not remember any community fallout shelters being designated in their
cities.
Federal funding for the shelter program was cut in 1962, which Levitt
said reflected President Kennedy's belief that the best way to protect
Americans from radiation fallout was to strengthen national defense and
prevent nuclear attacks from ever occurring.
Not everyone agreed, and the American Civil Defense Association was
formed by scientists and other volunteers as a private group to
continue the program.
"They said it would be foolish to let this whole concept go, so they
promoted construction of fallout shelters throughout the country,
thinking there would be broad support," Levitt said. "They were wrong."
The movement to create fallout shelters in schools, apartments and
factories withered over the decades, although interest has rekindled
sporadically.
"In Ronald Reagan's day, with his aggressive stance with the Russians,
28 percent of Americans supported a national shelter program," Levitt
said. "That died out pretty quick."
Since September 2001, however, interest in shelters again has been
building, he said. The association says it knows of at least 4,200
private shelters.
Home shelters cost about $57,000 to build and between $8,000 and
$15,000 to stock, Levitt said, and the association is promoting tax
incentives for people who build them. Such incentives already are
offered in Arizona, he said.
Sharon Packer, president of the American Civil Defense Association,
also is co-owner of Utah Shelter System, one of five or six such
businesses in the nation, and said the new generation of shelters
protect more than just radiation fallout.
"Most of our business is on the East Coast, and it's driven by
hurricanes," she said about the all-hazard shelters people build today.
Besides protection from natural disasters, shelters can be upgraded for
a few hundred dollars more to become nuclear/biological/chemical blast
shelters, Packer said. So far everyone who has bought a shelter from
Utah Shelter System has opted for the upgrade.
Packer said he began building shelters for neighbors and friends 20
years ago and started building them professionally in 1998.
A national shelter program may seem like a daunting project, but Levitt
said many countries already have one in place.
"We believe, like the Russians, Chinese and many Eastern and Western
European countries, that having some sort of program would be a
positive thing," he said.
In Switzerland, every homeowner is asked to have his own shelter, as
are businesses and public facilities, including sports arenas, he said.
Contact staff writer Gary Warth at gwarth@nctimes.com or (760) 740-5410.
| |
| Tim May 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
| In article <1129663988.614493.237920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
fgoodwin <fgoodwin@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Once a relic, idea of civil defense still finds supporters
>
>
> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/200..._times/17_44_36
> 10_15_05.txt
> http://tinyurl.com/bqnt8
>
> By: GARY WARTH - Staff Writer
>
> Last modified Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:23 PM PDT
>
> Community fallout shelters may seem like a relic from the Cold War era.
> But the idea of having provisions and protection during disasters like
> the recent hurricanes in the South and storms in the Northeast have
> some people longing for the days of backyard bomb shelters and Civil
> Defense air-raid drills.
It's useful to compare and contrast the _survival_ (or _civil defense_)
situation with that of _insurance_ (fire, auto, health, etc.).
Survival or civil defense is largely self-funded: stockpiles of
supplies, an emergency bag near the door, a gun or two, and even "safe
rooms" or "fallout shelters."
Insurance is largely bought from underwriters. They advertise
extensively and promote the wisdom of having insurance. Many laws even
mandate various kinds of insurance (auto), lenders require fire
insurance, and so on.
In both situations, one hopes the type of "insurance" will not be
needed.
And if nothing significant happens, the insurance industry continues to
encourage the buying of insurance. A constant drumbeat of how smart it
is to have insurance, "just in case." Children left fatherless are
shown as being provided for with life insurance, "You're in good hands
with Allstate" blares as a house fire rages in the background.
By contrast, those who set aside more than the bare minimum of
emergency supplies are lampooned as "survivalists."
"Hey, Joe, still eating that rice you bought for Y2K? Do those
freeze-dried meals really taste like chicken? Yuk yuk yuk."
or
"Honey, I told you those wildfires wouldn't come up our canyon. Wasn't
it kind of stupid to load up the car with our stuff...now we have to
unload it all."
or
"You wasted money on a boat. Whaddya think is going to happen, the
levees will break? Get real."
Now the preparations of some to acquire Tamiflu or Relenza, the
antiviral medicines which may be useful for H5N1, are being critized in
the press. "Hoarding!" and "Survalist whackos!" are the terms used.
I think the main difference between the two forms of insurance, the
formal insurance industry kind and the self-reliant ("survivalist")
kind, is that corporations dominate and propagandize and set the very
speech patterns for the first kind. The second kind is less talked
about, and is associated with Mormons, Y2K worryers, backyard bomb
shelters, and "extremists."
When nothing happens and normal insurance policies are in place, nobody
says "We were dummies to buy fire insurance, since nothing happened."
But if a flood doesn't come, those who buy boats to prepare for a flood
are dismissed as lunatics. "Hey, Jack, I spent _my_ money on season
tickets for the Saints, while you wasted your money buying Noah's Ark.
What a sucker."
By the way, my earthquake/power outage/other catastrophe supplies add
up to less than what I pay in a single year on various forms of
insurance. And these preparations need only slight amounts of annual
replacing, so the cost is mostly fixed. Over 20 years, less than 7-10%
of the total I'll have paid in mostly "never needed" fire and casualty
insurance.
Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
--Tim May
| |
| Antipodean Bucket Farmer 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
| In article
<181020051406140083%timcmay@removethis.got.net>,
timcmay@removethis.got.net says...
> In article <1129663988.614493.237920@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> fgoodwin <fgoodwin@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's useful to compare and contrast the _survival_ (or _civil defense_)
> situation with that of _insurance_ (fire, auto, health, etc.).
>
> Survival or civil defense is largely self-funded: stockpiles of
> supplies, an emergency bag near the door, a gun or two, and even "safe
> rooms" or "fallout shelters."
>
> Insurance is largely bought from underwriters. They advertise
> extensively and promote the wisdom of having insurance. Many laws even
> mandate various kinds of insurance (auto), lenders require fire
> insurance, and so on.
>
> In both situations, one hopes the type of "insurance" will not be
> needed.
>
> And if nothing significant happens, the insurance industry continues to
> encourage the buying of insurance. A constant drumbeat of how smart it
> is to have insurance, "just in case." Children left fatherless are
> shown as being provided for with life insurance, "You're in good hands
> with Allstate" blares as a house fire rages in the background.
>
> By contrast, those who set aside more than the bare minimum of
> emergency supplies are lampooned as "survivalists."
>
> "Hey, Joe, still eating that rice you bought for Y2K? Do those
> freeze-dried meals really taste like chicken? Yuk yuk yuk."
>
> or
>
> "Honey, I told you those wildfires wouldn't come up our canyon. Wasn't
> it kind of stupid to load up the car with our stuff...now we have to
> unload it all."
>
> or
>
> "You wasted money on a boat. Whaddya think is going to happen, the
> levees will break? Get real."
>
> Now the preparations of some to acquire Tamiflu or Relenza, the
> antiviral medicines which may be useful for H5N1, are being critized in
> the press. "Hoarding!" and "Survalist whackos!" are the terms used.
>
> I think the main difference between the two forms of insurance, the
> formal insurance industry kind and the self-reliant ("survivalist")
> kind, is that corporations dominate and propagandize and set the very
> speech patterns for the first kind. The second kind is less talked
> about, and is associated with Mormons, Y2K worryers, backyard bomb
> shelters, and "extremists."
There is also a big difference between paying someone
else to take care of you, vs relying upon yourself.
Many people view large companies as having effectively
infinite resources. And a large part of the appeal of
buying insurance is the possibility of getting more
$-benefits out of it than you paid in (subsidised by
all of those other policy-holders who didn't have
anything bad happen.)
On the other hand, personal preps, like stocking
supplies and equipment, will only yield the amount that
you directly paid for.
Also, personal preps are more tan gable. The physical
food stash is a constant reminder that something bad
might happen, with personal responsibility to deal with
it. And personal preps are also visibly limited (e.g.
"Two months worth of food.") While the insurance
cheque written each month/6-months/year provides a
feeling of externally-"guaranteed" safety without
actually having to look at it or measure it.
Also, as you mention, lots of people buy insurance
because they are coerced, with immediate or threatened
punishment, such as car and mortgage related policies
required by the gubmint and lien holders. Lots of
people would probably just skate by without those
insurance policies if they could (or thought that they
could) get away with it. Much more fun to spend the
cash on a new TeeVee, to distract their emotional
attention from the risk of loosing everything in a
house fire or car accident.
And, personal emotions are so important. Irresponsible
denial-types tend to be rather hostile towards
responsible, reality-facing people. "My gawd! You
can't be enjoying life if you give any thought to the
possibility of something going wrong! You must be
constantly paranoid and miserable! Yer so UNcool, and
yer bummin' me out!"
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
| |
| editor@netpath.net 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
| Tim wrote:
>It's useful to compare and contrast the _survival_ (or _civil defense_)
>situation with that of _insurance_ (fire, auto, health, etc.).
A much better analogy would be to smoke detectors, fire
extinguishers, or deadbolt locks - things that would actually prevent
the loss or minimize it in the first place, rather than pay to clean up
after an uncontrolled loss.
Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
| |
| r2000swler@hotmail.com 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
|
fgoodwin wrote:
> Once a relic, idea of civil defense still finds supporters
>
> http://www.nctimes.com/articles/200..._3610_15_05.txt
> http://tinyurl.com/bqnt8
>
> By: GARY WARTH - Staff Writer
>
> Last modified Sunday, October 16, 2005 10:23 PM PDT
>
> Community fallout shelters may seem like a relic from the Cold War era.
> But the idea of having provisions and protection during disasters like
> the recent hurricanes in the South and storms in the Northeast have
> some people longing for the days of backyard bomb shelters and Civil
> Defense air-raid drills.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
CD was snake oil at it's best.
As Coventry, Dresden, and Tokyo showed, it is next to
impossible to survive firestorms. By 1980 or so CD
admitted that shelter in place was NOT GOING TO WORK.
And started working on evacuation. Which doesn't have
a real good track record either. CD was a response to
the people screaming "DO SOMETHING". Something is seldom
usefull.
It is real simple. Live in a near or in a target, and if
that target get's crisped you are in deep shit. IF the
wepaons are air burst, and if there is no local fire
storm then a shelter will make sense. IF the target is
hardened and deserves a ground burts to finish it, you
had better not be in the fallout plume. If the hardened
target is near a city you get to trade firestorm for
heavy fallout. And in most cases after a 1000 hours
the fallout willl have decreased to survivable levels.
A 1000 hours is a LONG time. ~41 1/2 days.
It makes perfect sense for smart people to build their
own shelter. But community shelters are a really bad idea.
Think AstroDome times 1000. Makes more sense to try to
pick an area that is not likely to be a target, to have PI
on hand, to have and know how to use radiological survey
equipment have food and shelter etc etc.
BTW a surplus CD gieger counter or ion chamber is next
to useless. I coolect such things and none of mine will
hold calibration and mine have been stored under very good
conditions. The most accurate CD units are the penlike
dosimeters. But buying this ,or any radiological gear is
a waste of money unless you have the training to use it
properly. Some of the early 1980 "shelter manager" and
"radiologic officer" are very usefull. A little too limited
for my tastes but much better then nothing.
I uspect the vast number of people pushing for a restored CD
are really wanting to go back to the "simpler" times of the
1950s. Like most retreats into the past it shows an inability
to deal with the less then pleasnent realities of today.
FWIW I was trained as a shelter manager, and radiologic
officer. Plus I had college level physics and radiology
training to boot. Radiology isn't all that complex,
compared to writing computer programs it is a snap. But
anyone buying good gear is a fool for not getting the
training. And after seeing just how lame CD/FEMA had become
by the early 1980s I left in disgust. A lot of wishfull
thinking.
Terry
| |
| editor@netpath.net 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
| R2000sw wrote:
> As Coventry, Dresden, and Tokyo showed, it is next to
>impossible to survive firestorms. By 1980 or so CD
>admitted that shelter in place was NOT GOING TO WORK.
But as London showed, shelters DID work in many - if not most -
attacked areas, and did drastically cut casualties even in
heavily-targeted areas.
The reality is that shelter in place DOES work - if you aren't
stupid enough to live in the bullseye! No, it won't save you if you
choose to live in downtown Washington and the place gets nuked - but a
well-stocked basement shelter really is likely to save your XXX if you
live at all far from even a nuked target. And it certainly will save
your XXX from tornados, shrapnel from any kind of bombing, etc.
No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
| |
| Steve & Susan 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
| On 18 Oct 2005 12:33:08 -0700, "fgoodwin" <fgoodwin@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Once a relic, idea of civil defense still finds supporters
"Civil Defense" is to professional emergency managers as "ambulance
driver" is to paramedics.
Steve
| |
| r2000swler@hotmail.com 2005-10-20, 6:52 pm |
|
editor@netpath.net wrote:
> R2000sw wrote:
>
> But as London showed, shelters DID work in many - if not most -
> attacked areas, and did drastically cut casualties even in
> heavily-targeted areas.
> The reality is that shelter in place DOES work - if you aren't
> stupid enough to live in the bullseye! No, it won't save you if you
> choose to live in downtown Washington and the place gets nuked - but a
> well-stocked basement shelter really is likely to save your XXX if you
> live at all far from even a nuked target. And it certainly will save
> your XXX from tornados, shrapnel from any kind of bombing, etc.
>
> No $4 to park! No $6 admission!
> http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"but a well-stocked basement shelter really is likely to save your XXX
if"
compare to
"Community fallout shelters may seem like a relic from the Cold War
era."
I think individual shleter are a great idea. But I still stress that
anyone with any interst in surviving any sort of nuke event, from a
reactor melt
down, through a dirty nbomb, to the grand daddy H-Bomb, will need more
the
a 100 count bottle of PI. They will need calibrated radiation
monitoring
gear. And the training to use it. Failure to have the gear and the
training negates any serious or real effort at surviving any nuke
event.
I think they are more for shelter from tornados then H-bmombs.
Community shelters strike me as a bad way to die. BTDT via training.
Can you imagine
any community staying on top of rotating the food supply for even 100
people?
Old style public fallout shelters were designed to be used for a few
days.
Very unrealistic for even moerate (300RAD) fallout.
As to other then nuke bombing, in today's world the only realistic
threat for non nuke bombs comes from our own governemnt. But there will
in all likelyhood be little or no warning. Hence a shelter won't be of
much use for that imagined threat.
Besides, if they can't bomb you into submission they will send in the
HRT
or other peace goons to deal with you.
Terry
|
| |
|
|