[ RadSafe ] Prevention of radiation and chemical injury
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Mon May 5 11:08:23 CDT 2008
Brian,
These books (unpopular with the media, so now cheap on Amazon.com ) -
amply confirm your wise response : Hell Is Over: Voices of the Kurds - Tucker and
Saddam's Secrets - Sada
Benefit to USA safety ( stopping trillion dollar attacks worse than on 9/11/01) is ignored.
Prevention - by doctors or by military action - is not appreciated.
Howard Long
Director (1of 8) , Doctors for Disaster Preparedness
PS Military deaths each year during Clinton and most predecessors were over 1,000.
In none of Bush years have they been 1,000.
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Riely, Brian P." <brian.riely at ngc.com>
> Clayton
>
> 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
> terrorist.)
>
> 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 .)
>
> Brian
>
> -----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)
>
> Daren,
>
> 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"> net>
> 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.
> Clinton
> 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
>
> Daren Perrero
> The opinions expressed are mine, all
> mine....
> I'm with the government, I'm here to
> help you.
> Daren.Perrero(a)Illinois.gov
>
> -----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
> of
> the information distribution
> chain."
> ****************************
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.
> html
>
> 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:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> 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: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html
>
> For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
> http://radlab.nl/radsafe/
More information about the RadSafe
mailing list