Strong Earthquake Hits Tibet

The USGS is saying the earthquake was a magnitude 6.3, though locally it is being reported at 6.8 and it struck near the mountainous Zhongba County in Xigaze prefecture, close to India in southern Tibet and there are no immediate report of casualties.

The quake hit the region at 9:22 p.m. (6:52 p.m. IST), according to a National Earthquake Network press release.

The epicentre was about 10 km underground at 31.0 degrees north latitude and 83.6 degrees east longitude, Xinhua news agency reported.

The area, at an average altitude of 5,500 metres, is sparsely populated.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

New Study Says New York City Is At Risk For A Massive Earthquake

The study published in the Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, says that the New York City area is at "substantially greater" risk of earthquakes than previously thought, scientists said Thursday.

Damage could range from minor to major, with a rare but potentially powerful event killing people and costing billions of dollars in damage.

A pattern of subtle but active faults is known to exist in the region, and now new faults have been found. The scientists say that among other things, the Indian Point nuclear power plants, 24 miles north of the city, sit astride the previously unidentified intersection of two active seismic zones.

Earthquakes are rare on the East Coast, but they have happened. In 1737, a 5.0 earthquake crumbled chimneys in New York City and the tremors were felt all the way from Boston to Philadelphia, according to LiveScience.com. Less than 50 years later, another quake hit the region, the Web site reported. Then in 1884, a 5.5 earthquake wreaked havoc similar to that caused by the 1737 quake, although the 19th century one affected a wider region.

Researchers said earthquakes of at least 5.0 in magnitude should occur every 100 years, based on their study of 383 earthquakes dating from 1677 to 2007 in a 15,000-square-mile area around New York City and 34 years of new tremblor data, LiveScience.com said.

Despite the infrequency of quakes on the East Coast, the amount and concentration of people and infrastructure make it a particularly risky situation -- one the New York City Area Consortium for Earthquake Loss Mitigation said could cost anywhere from $39 billion to $197 billion, according to LiveScience.

"Today, with so many more buildings and people, a magnitude 5 centered below the city would be extremely attention-getting," John Armbruster, of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, told LiveScience.com. "We'd see billions in damage, with some brick buildings falling. People would probably be killed."

It's possible even magnitude-6 or 7 quakes could strike the area, which could cause 10 to 100 times the damage of a magnitude-5.0, researchers said. A key concern is that earthquakes on the East Coast can't be seen at the surface, which means it could hit from a fault no one knew about.

New Faults have been found near the Indian Point nuclear power plant less than 25 miles north of NYC.

Source 1
Source 2
Source 3

New York State Emergency Radio Network Fails Tests

A $2 billion effort to build a radio network that would connect emergency personnel across New York State has repeatedly performed so poorly in tests that the state should consider dropping the current contractor, the state comptroller, Thomas P. DiNapoli, said on Thursday with the release of an audit his office conducted.

M/A-COM, the subsidiary of Tyco Electronics that the state hired in 2005 to build the network, must fix the problems or face losing its contract without receiving any money, Mr. DiNapoli said. The state has committed to making that call by the end of next week, he said.

“New York is not much closer to a statewide network today than it was when this whole process started,” Mr. DiNapoli said in a statement. “After three rounds of failed testing, it is apparent that this system is not ready to move forward.”

Early planning on the project, the Statewide Wireless Network, began more than a decade ago within the Division of State Police, but the inability of first responders to communicate with one another during the World Trade Center attack on Sept. 11, 2001, intensified interest.

Thousands of police, fire and medical workers cannot use the state’s current system, and large areas of the state are unreachable.

Tests last September on the project’s first phase of installation found that words could not be understood and that communications between relay towers were too often lost. Those problems recurred during retests in April and July, the audit said.

The State Office for Technology, which is overseeing the project, has not yet released the results of the July test. A spokesman for the office said it welcomed the audit findings.

“M/A-COM has an opportunity to remediate existing issues, and we are hopeful they will be able to make the appropriate fixes so we can move forward with the project,” said the spokesman, Rob Roddy. “The state will make a decision whether to continue with the project in its current format in the weeks ahead.”

For more on this story please visit the source: The New York Times

The Fight Over New Business Continuity Standards, DRII -vs- ASIS

The DRII is conducting a campaign to persuade ANSI to reject ASIS’s application to develop a business continuity standard.

Note: This is a long but necessary post.

At the end of July ASIS International, the organization for security management professionals, announced that it is to initiate the development of a new American National Standard for business continuity. (See http://www.continuitycentral.com/news04063.html)

As part of this process it filed a notice called a PINS Form with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI).

Subsequent to the filing, the Disaster Recovery Institute International (DRII) issued a statement saying that it opposed the filing and any development of a new business continuity standard by ASIS. DRII believes that existing standards, as well as planned efforts to improve them, are sufficient and that the proposed new ASIS standard will introduce unnecessary confusion into the business continuity profession.

DRII is encouraging people to oppose the ASIS standard by providing feedback to ANSI before the PINS comment period closes on August 30, 2008.

ASIS has responded to the DRII campaign by issuing the following open letter, which is published verbatim, below:

Re: Comments to ASIS ANSI PINS Standards Project - BSR ASIS BCM.01-200X

Thank you for your interest in the ASIS International (ASIS) Business Continuity Management Standards Project. ASIS International is the official name of the organization conducting this standards development project. The ASIS organization name was formally changed from the American Society for Industrial Security in 2002.

ASIS, an American National Standards Institute (ANSI) accredited Standards Developing Organization (SDO), has filed an ANSI Project Initiation Notification System (PINS) Form with the intention to develop a business continuity management system standard using the internationally recognized and proven method of a process approach with the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) model. As you may be aware, this is an approach used in all ISO management system standards to enable integrated application of standards and avoid siloing of risks. This is a well known globally recognized business approach. There is no American National Standard or ISO Standard in existence today for a management system standard addressing business continuity.

The ANSI PINS, per the ANSI Essential Requirements, is the means of notification of standards development and coordination. Per the ASIS Standards Developing Operating Procedures, ASIS complies with ANSI’s PINS requirements and is in the early stages of developing the business continuity management system standard as a proposed American National Standard. There will be extensive reach out to materially and affected interested parties as is required in the standards development process. Contrary to the DRII release, ASIS has not created a standard on business continuity management and has not moved forward on any unapproved standard with ANSI. Any attempt of this nature is not feasible per the ANSI Essential Requirements, the ASIS Standards Operating Procedures or in the standards development process for that matter. To be exact, ASIS is following the appropriate processes for standards development in the United States, through the ANSI PINS to initiate the standards development process. The PINS serves as a public announcement in an attempt to notify potentially interested parties of the standards activity and allow for the recruitment of participation from interested parties who will use the proposed standard and will be affected by it. Interested parties should contact ASIS in this regard, copying ANSI at one’s discretion. (It is noted here that the DRII release has the mistaken ANSI point of contact information.)

As you may be aware, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently stated that no one standard (management system standard or otherwise) currently exists that addresses the program requirements of Title IX of H.R.1 and Public Law 110-53 “Implementing recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007”. (DHS Private Sector Office and the Office of Infrastructure Protection tele-briefing on the voluntary preparedness standards and certification program, July 31, 2008). ASIS, as an ANSI accredited standards developer and SDO, recognized this issue prior to the DHS statement and as a result initiated the standards development process by issuing the ANSI PINS.

Please note that DRI International (DRII) is not an ANSI accredited SDO. Therefore, they cannot develop and/or publish American National Standards. The DRI International Professional Practices, which forms the basis for the DRII certifications, is not an American National Standard or an ISO Standard, nor have they met the specific criteria of either the ANSI or ISO standards development processes. As you may know, standards development is a well choreographed process under the directorship of organizations such as ANSI, ISO and CEN. ASIS International, an accredited SDO, participates in both national and international standards development activities according to the rigor of strictly defined protocols. Unfortunately, in the United States, and other countries, many organizations who are not SDO’s refer to their proprietary best practices as “standards”. This causes much confusion in an ever changing landscape. We anticipate that when the ISO standard for preparedness and continuity management is published it will level the playing field by making a single international standard that will facilitate trade and business.

ASIS International is an association of over 36,000 members with 205 Chapters in 46 countries. We have a membership presence in over 200 countries. We are well aware of the problem of conflicting national standards. This is exactly why ASIS International has adopted the ISO approach to standardization. It is our view that the time-proven model developed by ISO in other management system standards facilitates trade and minimizes the burden on individual countries and organizations.

We would like to point out that ASIS, as an organization, is not, and never has been, a member of the NFPA 1600 Technical Committee.

The NFPA 1600 provides a list of multiple plans one needs to create for emergency/disaster management, while the ASIS standards project described in the ANSI PINS incorporates a management process approach using the PDCA model giving a single management system that incorporates and connects policies, strategies, resources, and plans. The PDCA approach is the globally accepted approach compatible with management system standards for quality, environment, occupational health and safety, food safety, information security and supply chain security thus also making it consistent with a more general enterprise risk management approach. The NFPA 1600 being devoid of a management system is not directly compatible. It should be noted that the Canadians recently released the Canadian standard Z-1600 to replace the NFPA 1600 due to the NFPA 1600’s lack of a PDCA approach. Compatibility with existing management system standards using the PDCA model is the global trend, which is being adopted in all ASIS standards activities.

The NFPA 1600 is written by the National Fire Protection Association from a first responder's perspective and mainly focuses on emergency/disaster response and planning rather than a business continuity management approach of protecting critical assets, functions, services and products. The NFPA 1600 appears to be an emergency/disaster response and planning standard with minimal reference to analyzing and understanding the business.

We would like to point out DRII’s published position of January 18, 2008: “For the private sector to adequately and voluntarily establish preparedness programs, it should be given the flexibility to choose from various standards, guidelines and best practices that best meet the respective organization’s needs for preparedness. Organizations that have implemented preparedness management controls, best practices or complementary systems which address the core elements should be recognized and “credited” as demonstrating preparedness. Regulated industries should be given credit for their compliance with relevant regulations without the need for duplicative systems.” Source: Framework for Voluntary Preparedness - Briefing Regarding Private Sector Approaches to Title IX of H.R. 1 And Public Law 110-53 “Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007”. Prepared for the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation by ASIS International (ASIS), Disaster Recovery Institute International (DRII), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. (RIMS).

Your participation is strongly encouraged in the development of the business continuity management standard as it is important to have as much as possible a breadth of subject matter professionals, the respective communities that they serve and other affected and interested parties. It is unfortunate that misinformation may have led to uncertainty. Please advise if you wish to serve on the technical committee that will be established after the public announcement stage of the PINS by way of contacting Susan Carioti (email address removed).

Sincerely yours,
[Original Signed by]
F. Mark Geraci
Chairman, Standards and Guidelines Commission
ASIS International

DRII’s statement reads as follows (verbatim):

IMMEDIATE ACTION IS REQUIRED

Your assistance is urgently needed to preserve the integrity of BCP
standards.

Last October, Disaster Recovery Institute International (DRII) issued a position statement regarding the establishment of a standard for Business Continuity Planning. This was in response to the American Society for
Industrial Security (ASIS) attempting push through an unproved and ill-considered standard with the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). We believed that our statement had settled the matter.

However, ASIS has filed two notices with the ANSI called "PINS Forms: Standards Action Public Review Requests." One of these is "BSR/ASIS BCM.01-200x, Business Continuity Management: Preparedness, Crisis Management, and Disaster Recovery". This proposed standard is being drafted "to include auditable criteria for preparedness, crisis management, business/operational continuity and disaster management using a process approach with the Plan-Do-Check-Act model, as required by Title IX of H.R. 1 and Public Law 110-53 'Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007'".

DRI International strongly opposes this filing. We are asking our colleagues and certified professionals in the field to oppose this effort to create a "Business Continuity Management" standard in an industry already beset with multiple and often confusing standards. The comment period for this "PINS" phase of "BSR/ASIS BCM.01-200x" closes on August 30, 2008.

Please send a clear message to ANSI through its designated point of contact, Susan Carioti at scarioti@asisonline.org. We are making every attempt to coordinate this effort and track the comments, which we believe will help in making presentations to ANSI and other appropriate agencies. When you send your e-mail to Ms. Carioti, please send a bcc to standards@drii.org. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.

Suggested Comments for Response
Doesn't a standard for Business Continuity practices already exist?
Yes. NFPA 1600 - Standard on Disaster/Emergency Management and Business Continuity Programs has been the US and Canadian standard for Business Continuity since 1995. NFPA 1600, DRI International Professional Practices and BCI's Certification Standards for Professional Practitioners form the basis for the certifications held by the majority of the world's certified Business Continuity professionals.

Is NFPA 1600 recognized outside the Business Continuity community?
Yes. It is the standard endorsed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency and certified as an ANSI Standard.

Was ASIS given an opportunity to have their opinion heard?
Yes. But, ASIS had an opportunity to provide input to NFPA 1600, as a member of NFPA's Technical Committee, but ASIS declined.

Were BC Professionals involved in creating this standard?
No. ASIS created a "standard" that serves the needs of the security profession without the benefit of comment from DRI International, BCI, RIMS, NFPA and other recognized subject matter experts. ASIS has never approached the business continuity industry itself to participate in the creation of its draft standard.

What's wrong with independent standards?
Briefly, the continuing creation of independent standards in these areas does little more than generate confusion in fields that are already beset with multiple standards and definitions.Such efforts serve only to increase the "noise" in an industry that is already far too difficult for even experienced practitioners to explain to those who look to us to help them manage the complex array of risks that we all face in today's environment.

If a standard needs to be created, how should it be done?
True "standards" come about as the result of communication and collaboration involving experts in the subject matter area to which the particular standard is to apply. This is the only way to ensure that the standards that are created represent a consensus that will be of benefit to both the subject matter professionals and the respective communities that they serve.

www.asisonline.org
www.drii.org

I have received this from multiple sources via email but will only show one source in the post.

Source

Alleged Terrorist Confirms Liquid Bomb Theory

photo by gemsling

The confession of alleged terrorist Raziuddin Naser has confirmed that jehadis are planning to launch large-scale chemical strikes across the country.

Naser was nabbed in Goa early this year when he was trying to hijack a tanker containing 20,000 litres of hydrogen peroxide.

Documents available with MiD DAY indicate that Naser had undergone 45 days of extensive training in the use of destructive chemicals at Dera Ismail Khan in Karachi, Pakistan in November last year.

Forty other trainees also underwent similar training in Pakistan. Naser told officials in Mumbai that he was also taught how to use hydrogen peroxide - one of the most commonly available chemicals - to carry out blasts in the country.

A senior Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) officer said terrorists are changing from explosives like RDX to locally available chemicals so that they are not linked to militant organizations across the border. "It is intended to give a more local look to the sinister plans," he added.

The police have launched a massive manhunt for the 40 jehadis. The police suspect that Abdus Shuban Qureshi alias Dr Taufique Billal could be the man behind the planned chemical strikes. "Taufique is a master in the use of chemical and computer software," informed a senior ATS officer.

Incidentally, Toufique has been named the key mastermind in the Ahmedabad blasts.

Source 1
Source 2