[ RadSafe ] Re: Dirty Bomb Material Report

Kim Merritt k.merritt at larc.nasa.gov
Tue Apr 4 13:59:48 CDT 2006

Actually they were water and vegetation samples and the levels 
detected were well below the EPA drinking water limits. Tritium would 
probably be the most ineffective isotope I can think of for a dirty 
bomb.  Just because you can detect something doesn't make it 
hazardous.  I think this is what really defines the difference in 
mind sets between HPs and IHs.  The IHs know how to put their foot 
down and declare something low enough to be nonhazardous.  HP's will 
spend thousands of dollars trying to measure something that is 
essentially not capable of giving anyone a measurable dose yet alone 
causing an actual health effect.  I mean really, why would you even 
bother to look for tritium at the WTC?  Wouldn't the risk of silica 
and asbestos exposure far exceed the risk for a few exit signs?  If 
there had been some geologic survey or weld inspection companies in 
the WTC that had sources capable of actually causing exposure than I 
could see there being some radiological concern.

Don't even get me started on the industrial safety issues present on 
the immediate aftermath of 9/11, a steel beam falling on you has no 
latency period.

Kim Merritt

At 02:14 PM 4/4/2006, you wrote:
>Tritium gas released from building signs and aircraft instruments
>destroyed at the former World Trade Center was readily detected in air
>samples.  Report at
>Rick Orthen
>CEC Inc.

More information about the RadSafe mailing list