[ RadSafe ] RE: Proliferation

BLHamrick at aol.com BLHamrick at aol.com
Fri Jul 11 20:34:42 CDT 2008

I don't think the choices you outline below are the only  choices.  I think 
that this generation perceives the suicide attacks of the  last 10 or so years 
to be something unique in the history of mankind.  I  think this is a 
misperception. I think the  Kamikaze pilots of World War II were regarded with similar 
fear  and disbelief.  I expect one would find a repetition of these type of  
attacks throughout history, if one were inclined to look.
I think we need to be more realistic in our threat assessment.   Whoever has 
an advantage in this world will always be a  target.  Whether it's the threat 
of suicide bombers, or rogue nuclear  weapons, and whether from a 
predominantly Muslim community, or  Japanese community, or the Communists, or the Timothy  
McVeigh's of our own country, we will always be at risk, so long as we have  
something of value.  The question for us, in my opinion, is not how we  ensure 
we are all safe for all time (which is not possible), but how, in  the face 
of so many people's fears, do we maintain those things which made  this country 
great to begin with (our freedom, our rule of law, our checks and  balances, 
and our tolerance of difference).
To bring this back around to radiation safety, I think that this country  has 
spent a ridiculous amount of money looking for an ineffective weapon (i.e.,  
an RDD), while failing to adequately address planning for the aftermath of a  
potentially significant event (i.e., an IND).  I believe we have done this,  
because finding radioactive material in any form is easy, while finding an  
actual IND or planning for it's potential detonation is difficult.  One of  the 
reasons we keep chasing our tails in this manner is because it is  politically 
expedient to act as though one is protecting the public by "picking  the 
low-hanging fruit" (i.e., the RDDs).  By doing this, in the end, we  aren't really 
adding anything to the public health and safety; in fact, we  are diverting 
resources from issues that do have a health and safety  impact.  We are hurting 
ourselves in the name of protecting ourselves, and  apparently hoping the 
public never knows the difference.  That's insulting  to the profession of health 
physics and insulting to the public, in my  opinion.
I think this country is destroying its greatest value by succumbing to  fear, 
and I'm terribly sorry to see that happening.
Barbara L. Hamrick
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little  temporary safety, 
deserve neither liberty." - Benjamin Franklin
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." - Franklin  Roosevelt
In a message dated 7/11/2008 12:33:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
garyi at trinityphysics.com writes:

If you  wish to rebut my post, allow me to suggest some ways to prove me 
wrong.   You could 
show that with any of the following:
=  non-muslims are just as likely to be suicide bombers.
= there  are no muslim suicide bombers, its just an urban myth or a Dan 
Rather  fabrication. 
= suicide bombers are a genetic flaw that is  quickly being removed from the 
gene pool.
= strapping a bomb  to your child is really an expression of international 
good  will.
= if we give money to terrorists, they will decide that  they really like 
infidels (maybe as pets).
= its ok for  jihadists to kill us because OUR heaven is better than  theirs.

**************Get the scoop on last night's hottest shows and the live music 
scene in your area - Check out TourTracker.com!      

More information about the RadSafe mailing list