[ RadSafe ] (no subject)

Clayton Bradt dutchbradt at hughes.net
Tue Apr 29 21:14:38 CDT 2008

Daren Perrero wrote:

"After the 9/11 commission met and 
after much post report comments by
other parties the biggest issue 
identified was sharing of information.
Too many people kept 'their part of 
the puzzle' to themselves.  Since
that time there has been a strong 
effort made to share the data so that
trends and leads can be more easily 
tracked.  One camera may be no big
deal, but does one a month raise your 
hackles? Or 10 on a given day
throughout the southwest?

We can debate the health impacts on 
collective risk of those items and
the radiation effects of a WMD were 
those items used, but I don't think
we would disagree that by using the 
information to identify a group of
near-do-wells would be a bad idea. 
That is the intent behind the
Departments and Agencies being part of 
the information distribution

Come off it, Daren. "9/11" has been 
the preface of nearly every ill 
conceived public policy of the past 7 
years.  Security of radiography sources 
is not a military matter.  RDDs are a 
figment of the overactive imaginations 
in DHS an elsewhere in the homeland 
security industrial complex.  Never, in 
the entire long and sorry history of 
terrorism has such a thing been used.  
Why has Isreal never been attacked with 
one? -because they simply do not make 
an attractive or effective weapon.  
Radiography sources (Ir-192 and Co-60) 
are  particularly unattractive choices 
for dispersion purposes.  And the idea 
of terrorists using a hidden source  
for irradiating unsuspecting passersby 
is just ludicrous. 

Any group of half-wit n'ere-do-wells 
trying to amass radiography sources for 
nefarious purposes would be 
appropriately handled by local law 
enforcement and the radiation control 
agency.  No military or federal 
entanglements needed.    

Clayton J. Bradt
dutchbradt at hughes.net

More information about the RadSafe mailing list