[ RadSafe ] (no subject)

Riely, Brian P. brian.riely at ngc.com
Mon May 5 09:27:35 CDT 2008


When 9/11 happened, it seems all the experts said that it was not a
matter of if, but of when another major terrorist attack was going to
hit the U.S.  They all guaranteed that a major terrorist attack was
going to hit the U.S in the next 5 yrs (before 9/11/2006).  At that time
hundreds of thousand of Iraqis were killed by Sadam Hussein 

Since 9/11/2001 there has been no major terrorist attack in the US, al
Qaeda has increased difficulty in getting recruits, Iraq got a
constitution in three yeas (much faster than us), there have been free
election in Iraq with a higher percentage of people showing up to vote
than we do when it rains, there are probably less Iraqi deaths due to
the war than there were under the rule of Sadam Hussein, the American
deaths are about 600/ year or what amounts to the number of murders in
any two major American cities such as Philadelphia and Detroit, and the
total number of American soldier casualties is about the same as during
ONE of the major civil war battles (Battle of Gettysburg, Casualties:
51,112; Battle of Chickamauga, Casualties: 34,624; Battle of
Chancellorsville, Casualties: 30,099; Battle of Spotsylvania,
Casualties: 27,399; Battle of Antietam Casualties: 26,134; Battle of The
Wilderness Casualties: 25,416; Battle of Second Manassas Casualties:
25,251; Battle of Stone's River Casualties: 24,645; Battle of Shiloh
Casualties: 23,741;  Battle of Fort Donelson  Casualties: 19,455)

The war in Iraq has been a resounding success, in spite of a national
media and a Congress that gives support to the terrorist (numerous
studies, including one by, I believe, a Harvard professor, supports the
statement that Congress and our national media are encouraging the

World wide terrorism has been on the rise long before we went into Iraq.
The bombing of the World Trade center in 1993 had nothing to do with us
going in Iraq, the attack on the USS Cole had nothing to do with us
going into Iraq, the 9/11 attack had nothing to do with us going into
Iraq, etc.; however, the impetus for the 9/11 attack, according to Bin
Laden, was us pulling the troops out of Somalia.  When Bin Laden saw
that Bill Clinton pulled out the troops he called America a paper tiger;
that America had no stomach for terrorism, and if shown terror, e.g.
chopping off a few heads, Americans would pull out of a war.  (There is
also a  CBS report, which is shown on youtube,  that shows the Sadam
Hussein al Qaeda connection)

Although in the 1992 CNN debate Al Gore castigated George H. Bush for
not going into Iraq,  (The CNN interview given in 1992 by Vice president
candidate Al Gore criticizing George H. Bush for not going into Iraq is
shown on youtube) Al Gore and Bill Clinton did nothing.  It was the
policies of that administration and the attitude that terrorism should
be handled by local law enforcement that allowed 9/11 to occur.  

I am trying to understand your proposal to handle terrorism by law
enforcement.  When we went into Iraq the first time, we discovered that
Sadam Hussein was much closer to having nuclear weapons than we thought.
I guess you are proposing that we should have let law enforcement handle
Sadam Hussein and after he bomb Israel with nuclear weapons Sadam
Hussein should arrest himself; I guess you are advocating letting Iran
build nuclear weapons, as oppose to military-preventative solution of
bombing the factories to prevent Iran from acquiring the weapons, and
after Iran sends Nuclear weapons into Israel law enforcement should
arrest those people responsible; and there should be no military
influence on slowing down Syria's support of terrorism,
rather--somehow--law enforcement should handle this.  (One of the things
that really stood out during Hurricane Karina was that  the National
Guard was an order of magnitude better than local law enforcement and
local government .)


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Clayton Bradt
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 1:03 PM
To: Daren.Perrero at illinois.gov; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] (no subject)


I've re-read MY post and realize that
I over-personalized my response to your original.  I owe you a public
apology and here it is. 

After re-reading YOUR post, I still
disagree strongly that the military
should have been involved in any way.  
For one thing, there is no plausible
nexus between terrorism and radiography cameras. For another, the
appropriate paradigm for dealing with terrorism is through law
enforcement, not the military. 

With perhaps the exception of
Afghanistan, where the de-facto
government refused to cooperate and
hand over Bin Laden & Co., the policy
to follow the military option rather
than pursue terrorists as criminals has proven to be an unmitigated
disaster for this country as well as others.  

CLayton Bradt

----Original Message----
From: Daren.Perrero at illinois.gov
Date: 05/02/2008 11:04
To: "Clayton Bradt"<dutchbradt at hughes.
Subj: RE: [ RadSafe ] (no subject)

Clayton, please reread my post and try
again.....You will find nothing
in it that says I agree with the
current practices and polices.  I only
ask questions and offer
rationalization.  Do I agree with Sen. 
and Rep Markey? Absolutely not.  Do I
think Jazcko is way off base?  You
bet.  Do I think that CsCl irradiators
are a Chernobyl waiting to
happen?  You've got to be joking.

However I do believe that the more
information that is in the system,
the better our chances are at finding
people who are 'Any group of
half-wit n'ere-do-wells' because quite
frankly, our locals don't have
the time, inclination or resources to
run down that type of off the wall
information.  In fact I hope and pray
the n'ere-do-wells try to use
radiation since their efforts would
largely have been a waste of their
time and give us better than average
chance of tracking them down.


Daren Perrero
The opinions expressed are mine, all
I'm with the government, I'm here to
help you.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of Clayton Bradt
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 9:15 PM
To: radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: [ RadSafe ] (no subject)

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
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
is not a military matter.  RDDs are a
figment of the overactive
in DHS an elsewhere in the homeland
security industrial complex.  Never,
the entire long and sorry history of
terrorism has such a thing been
Why has Isreal never been attacked
one? -because they simply do not make
an attractive or effective weapon.  
Radiography sources (Ir-192 and Co-
are  particularly unattractive
for dispersion purposes.  And the
of terrorists using a hidden source
for irradiating unsuspecting
is just ludicrous. 

Any group of half-wit n'ere-do-wells
trying to amass radiography sources
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
You are currently subscribed to the
RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be
sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found

For information on how to subscribe or
unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

More information about the RadSafe mailing list