[ RadSafe ] Revised GAO reports on border smuggling incidents

[BLHamrick at aol.com]

Well, well, well, this is interesting.  I'm glad to see that NIST was  able 
to wash their hands of that, but I am very disappointed to find out that  GAO 
is conveniently not subject to FOIA:
 
_http://www.gao.gov/foia.html/appeals.html_ 
(http://www.gao.gov/foia.html/appeals.html) 
 
And, although they do offer some disclosure, the following information is  
exempt from that policy:
 
"GAO's responsibilities to the Congress precludes the release of records  
supporting work performed in response to a congressional request unless  
authorization to release is obtained from the congressional requester. See _4 CFR 81.6 
 (a)._ (http://www.gao.gov/about/publicrecords/cfrfiles/81_6.txt) "
 
So, it appears they can rely on whatever "outside expert" they choose,  
without having to actually disclose who it is, or what their expert's  credentials 
may or may not be.
 
Anyone up for trying to get Senator Coleman's permission to disclose?
 
Barbara L. Hamrick
 
In a message dated 4/10/2006 2:48:25 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
Jim_Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us writes:

See  below. Looks to me like somebody at NIST got upset at the implication 
that  they told GAO that you could make an effective dirty bomb with 150 uCi of  
Cs-137. Now the question is * who is this supposed "outside  expert"?