
US government conducted airflow tests on NYC subway to understand bioterror risk - skennedy
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160621-how-to-fight-bioterrorism-on-subways
======
jgmrequel
I am curious to find out how many reports they got from riders who saw the
researchers. I know that if I saw someone releasing gas like in the picture in
the article, I'd quickly find someone to talk to about it.

That said, hopefully they can validate models which will provide optimum
locations for detectors, as well as action plans once a detection occurs, such
as kill all cars near the detection and change venting airflows.

~~~
rconti
Nothing to worry about, they're wearing orange vests and carrying clipboards.

~~~
fapjacks
A guy in one of my old units used to carry a clipboard in the Army everywhere
he went. He explained to us some years later that the clipboard was how he
avoided being chosen for work details for years and years. Phenomenally clever
idea.

~~~
Declanomous
Similar note, I found I could walk out of class anytime in high school and
wander the halls as long as I looked sufficiently stressed. As long as you
look like you have a purpose people will not bother you (unless you look like
you have a purpose that you aren't fulfilling I suppose).

~~~
fapjacks
Yeah, totally. It works for avoiding too much attention from authority
figures. I will never forget one time I was having a BBQ in an unauthorized
area with my mom and ex-wife when this fat Air Force dude rolls by on his
Segway. I turned to them and said "Just look like we're supposed to be here"
but both of them, not being very good liars, continued with the deer-in-
headlights look that guaranteed the guy started asking questions and
eventually got us kicked off that part of the beach.

------
grandalf
In terms of the potential for economic damage, a full-fledged bioweapon attack
is not all that much more effective than a low-sophistication attack (or
several, staged at the same time).

So while it is useful to understand the way subway systems may disperse
particles, this kind of research does not reduce the risk of economic damage
from low-sophistication attacks targeted at the subway system.

It is difficult to obtain Anthrax or similar chemical agents, and the number
of people needed to pull off a successful attack is fairly large. Machine guns
or simple explosives (like those used in the Boston Marathon attack), however,
are 100x more likely to succeed and cause the intended economic damage, so
long as they either create a fear of traveling by subway or lead to security
checkpoints that drastically reduce the subway's throughput.

The key takeaway, in my opinion, is that nobody with access to the NYC subway
really wishes to harm it or do terrorism.

~~~
jorblumesea
Fear is a huge part of any terrorist endeavor and small invisible particles
killing you while you commute is far scarier than someone with conventional
arms. Further, NYC subways would be closed for weeks, the US's largest city
and an economic powerhouse would grind to a halt. The economic damage is such
an event would be huge.

~~~
grandalf
It would be very easy for a single unskilled attacker to kill upwards of 20
people using a conventional firearm or stuff that can be found at any hardware
store.

I'd estimate that such an attack would result in the subway being closed for
weeks, particularly if several happened successfully a few days apart.

Similarly, small explosions dispersing any remotely harmful smoke or chemicals
(even chemicals that are easy to obtain) would be amplified by media coverage,
and politicians would close the subways as a knee-jerk response.

Sure, an actual banned bioweapon/chemical would be worse, but my point is that
terrorism (the tactic not the alleged existential threat) works because it
requires little skill, technology, or access to difficult-to-obtain materials
to create fear.

------
dimino
This is super important research, due to what the article calls, "low security
threshold and high passenger count".

I wish the research results would be given to the public, though I understand
why we won't see the results for some time, or possibly never.

It's also kind of scary that their only listed "remediation" is to have more
accurate contamination maps. It really hits home the concept that, once a bad
guy actually gets a weapon to a crowd, there's not much more that can be done.

~~~
dmlorenzetti
Part of the idea behind "more accurate contamination maps" is to mobilize the
appropriate response -- personnel, drugs, and so on. So it isn't just about
knowing where to clean up (although it involves that, too).

These sorts of tests also aim at helping guide the first response. For a long
time, there was an ongoing debate about the proper response to an attack on a
subway (it's probably still going on, but I haven't talked with this crowd in
a few years). For example, suppose a CCTV spots a bunch of passengers going
down in a particular terminal. Should you shut down the ventilation system, in
order to try to contain the material? Or should you crank up the system, in
order to dilute the hazardous material? How should those decisions change
depending on the type of material, the amount released, the atmospheric
conditions, and the timing of the response? Should you stop all trains in the
tunnels, or should you run them to the nearest station for evacuation? All of
this requires estimating potential health impacts, to those on the platform,
in the rest of the system, and downwind of the affected stations.

~~~
woodman
> ...there was an ongoing debate about the proper response...

I don't know about subway specifics, but the matter was settled a long time
ago for buildings - and it didn't take long to arrive at the conclusion.
Containment is the policy. The first thing that happens when any toxic
substance is suspected, in a security conscious facility, is the shutdown of
HVAC followed by the restriction of uncontrolled movement (elevators sent
home, security posted in stairwell, etc). Even in areas equipped with
filtration systems (like mail rooms). I've never heard anyone suggest
dilution, you'd have to have NBC sensors that can instantly detect every toxic
substance in order to avoid unknowingly spreading anthrax piggybacked on an
irritant like CS. Such sensors do not exist.

------
html5web
I recently saw the air analyzers in some stations across NYC. Thanks for doing
this!

------
Aelinsaar
I appreciate the research, but I'm not sure what could possible be done to
change the situation materially. "Making more accurate contamination maps"
strikes me as only useful in a really best case scenario.

~~~
noobermin
Better than doing nothing I suppose. Also, sometimes the research needs to be
done to know whether we can do nothing or whether we can.

~~~
Aelinsaar
A very fair point, but in this case installing filters or a reasonable hope
for decontamination isn't really an option; the only thing we can do is
prevent, detect, and evacuate.

~~~
TallGuyShort
Which makes faster detection a huge deal - I'd imagine one of the conclusions
drawn from the results will be how best to detect ASAP without putting sensors
literally everywhere.

~~~
Aelinsaar
I'm not sure that's feasible. It sounds like releasing an agent anywhere in
the system is going to lead to it being pistoned through the entire system.
You don't even need to do it at a stop. You'd need sensors at stops though,
and presumably in the tunnels all along the way to sense a release. Nothing
else would give more than a second or two of warning, that would initiate a
lethal panic.

------
kiba
So we allowed people to go on trains in large number without lengthy security
checks but not for airline travelers?

What's the difference?

~~~
patrickmay
It's hard to fly a train into a building.

(That doesn't excuse the TSA's security theater, obviously.)

~~~
scrollaway
It's also easier to stop a train, get off a train, or prevent collateral
damage in case of malice/accident. Survivors are also a lot more likely if
there is an accident, mostly because of gravity.

~~~
jagger27
Very true. Even in the worst train derailments you never hear that there were
no survivors.

~~~
Declanomous
Assuming passenger trains of course. I think a freight hijacking is far more
likely. The danger posed by a hijacked freight are evident from the huge
numbers of lives lost from exploding petroleum trains over the past few
decades.

------
knz
They did something similar in the 1950's -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-
Spray](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea-Spray)

------
donohoe
My understanding was this was done before. The main take-away was that
anything spread by air in NYC subway wouldn't get too far as there is enough
mixing with the outside.

Still, this may be more thorough.

------
PeCaN
For something that involves the US gov, anthrax, and a crowded public place,
that was remarkably ethical.

Clickbaity title IMO, but I'm not sure what to suggest. I think the current
title suggests malice on the part of the US gov, but they were actually just
doing some interesting research.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Can you point to a word, or collection of words in the title that you think
suggests malice? Or, is it the whole title that makes the suggestion?

As I am reading the title, no malice is suggested. It seems to just be a plain
statement of fact.

~~~
biot
They conducted _airflow_ tests in order to understand and model how airborne
material would spread. They didn't conduct _bioterror_ research.

~~~
ghaff
Well, they conducted airflow tests related to bioterror threats which is most
of what makes the story newsworthy. But that's getting a bit long for a
headline.

------
justratsinacoat
...man, I was all ready to get out the pitchforks in response to "bioterror"
research in a public place, but it turns out it's more "fluid dynamics
research prompted by the risk of particulate bioweapons". It's not a clickbait
title, but it asymptotically approaches one.

~~~
mtgx
If it's written by BBC, it's probably not going to be something very damning
about the U.S. government, quite the contrary.

~~~
michaelvoz
Let us not make wide sweeping statements about the journalistic relationship
between one of the world's largest news organizations and one of the world's
largest nations. Seems a bit blunt.

