Homeland security

[briannell]

What do you think of homeland security?

-Brian

Warning: Chemical hazard Wed Jul 13, 6:35 AM ET



Chlorine gas released in a train crash in Graniteville, S.C., in January killed 10 people. A plume of toxic vapor from volatile chemicals at a plant in Dalton, Ga., last year sent 154 people to the hospital. An explosion at a chemical plant in Pascagoula, Miss., three years ago hurled pieces of metal weighing up to 6 tons as far as a mile away.

These were all accidents. Yet they are vivid reminders of the carnage that terrorists could cause by exploiting the lack of security at many of the nation's 15,000 chemical facilities near residential neighborhoods.


More than 100 plants with large amounts of toxic and flammable chemicals are located in some of the nation's most populous communities, according to a Congressional Research Service analysis released last week. In a worst-case disaster, each could endanger more than 1 million people with clouds of poison gas.


Counterterror experts have put the chemical industry at the top of the list for security improvements. The nation's first homeland security chief, Tom Ridge, called for greater federal oversight of chemical plant safety. A Senate committee hearing today is scheduled to revisit the issue.


But don't bet on national security interests prevailing, no matter how clear the threat. Until recently, the industry has used its political clout to block safety legislation. Industry leaders point to what they describe as a successful program of looking for safety vulnerabilities, making improvements and submitting to third-party verification.


Journalists and safety activists, however, have repeatedly demonstrated how easy it would be for troublemakers to get access to chemical sites.


Months after 9/11, a reporter for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Reviewmade news by exposing how easily he got into more than 30 chemical factories, shippers and warehouses in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Illinois and Texas. More than half the plants had "no noticeable (security) cameras, fences or locks at all," and workers often gave him directions to the most sensitive valves in control rooms.


A return investigation found little had been done to correct security shortcomings. The New York Times and others have found dismayingly similar conditions in northern New Jersey and elsewhere.


"Night security is better at most liquor stores ... than what you'll find at our chemical plants," Sal DePasquale, a security expert who helped draft the industry's voluntary standards, told a congressional hearing last month.


A Homeland Security official acknowledged at the same hearing that the industry's measures don't go far enough. "The existing patchwork of authorities does not permit us to regulate the industry effectively," said acting undersecretary Robert Stephan.


But he was vague when asked whether the administration was ready tosupport aggressive security mandates or only a weaker alternative with few tools for enforcement. The leading industry group is belatedly talking about agreeing to some kind of legislation, but, again, with few specifics.


Today, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff is to announce a new risk-based approach to anti-terrorism priorities that should point toward more action on the chemical-security front.


Given the risks, foot-dragging on effective security measures at chemical plants is a scandal waiting to become a nightmare.

[El_Gato]

Problem is, if this story has "legs" in D.C., the folks there will respond by announcing a $10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 program to protect our neighborhoods from chemical plant attacks...

After all, you can't put a price tag on homeland security, right?

[Bleedinbluengold]

All I ask is for a mere 0.1% of the funding to help out.

[Grizlaw]

After all, you can't put a price tag on homeland security, right?

I'm with you on the general sentiment that throwing money at a problem isn't always the best way to solve it.

However, after going through 9/11, I do have to say that I have become somewhat of a belt-and-suspenders guy when it comes to security, possibly because I know that I live in the city that is most likely to be hit again (with the possible exception of DC). I want to see our tax dollars spent intelligently, but I will certainly give Congress a little more leeway on security spending if it prevents a poison cloud from blowing over midtown Manhattan.

[Hell's Bells]

found the link to this article at www.orbusmax.com ...interesting

http://www2.kbcitv.com/x5154.xml?Parent ... eHeadlines

National group says Idaho best-prepared for disasters


July 14, 2005 8:51 PM

The Associated Press

COEUR d'ALENE, Idaho Idaho is ready for just about any health-related disaster.

That's according to a national group, which this week declared the Gem State the only one in the U-S where all of its health districts have plans in place to deal with emergencies such as bioterror, infectious disease or flooding.

The National Association of County and City Health Officials declared Idaho "Public Health Ready."

The state's seven health districts have compiled databases with the names of hundreds of emergency workers and volunteers.

Districts have also been practicing for the worst.

Paul Ziaya (ZEE'-i-uh), public health preparedness planner for the Panhandle Health District in Coeur d'Alene, cautions that districts must remain vigilant.