[ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

[HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net]

Yes, y'all,
"There is no technological solution to nuclear terrorism."

However, SDI did not work at first, but, gradually, missile defense does work. It is now much less likely that Iran's Ayatollahs could bring their 12th Imam (and destruction of us hedonists) by A bomb via missile. Continued effort might also enable detection in cargo containers, cars, etc, although 
 the usual bureacratic self-service will impede it, I agree.

I am pleasantly surprised that we have not had attacks of sarin, anthrax, a-bomb, etc since 9/11, 
as  predicted then. Could the Bush policy, attacking those supporting alQaeda, and luring  
alQaeda to Iraq (where it is largely beat down, alQaeda says) have prevented attacks on us?

This metastasizing media  makes people sick by selection. 
We are safe, but feel the dangers of the world impending, when exposed to headlines. 
Adrenalin release causes clots, exhaustion, heart attacks, etc.

Ergo  Avoid alarmists, but go on offense against declared attackers.

Howard Long


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: Doug Aitken <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.com> 

> Clayton: I am in agreement with Barb, but I don't think it was really HP's 
> who pushed this, but rather the people trolling for fat government contracts 
> (lobbyists and manufacturers - and maybe the odd research lab looking for 
> funding....) 
> 
> Regards 
> Doug 
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> Doug Aitken Cell phone: 713-562-8585 
> QHSE Advisor 
> D&M Operations Support 
> Schlumberger Technology Corporation 
> 300 Schlumberger Drive 
> Sugar Land TX 77030 
> 
> Home office: 713-797-0919 Home Fax: 713-797-1757 
> ______________________________________________ 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On Behalf 
> Of Clayton J Bradt 
> Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 8:50 AM 
> To: BLHamrick at aol.com 
> Cc: radsafe at radlab.nl 
> Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment 
> 
> Yes, Barb. Once again we are in agreement. Those of us who tried to 
> explain the futility of trying to detect and identify RDDs and nukes at the 
> borders were drowned out by other (otherwise competent ) HPs who saw a 
> chance to make a buck (or promote their careers) by dangling the 
> possibility of a technological 
> silver bullet that would make everybody safe. Of course they didn't put it 
> exactly that way, but they shaped the message so that the politicians 
> thought that's what they heard. 
> 
> This is nothing knew. It's the way the world works. But let's be clear that 
> those on this list who promoted this an other related boondoggles, and most 
> of the rest who simply kept silent, bear responsibility for it. 
> 
> 
> Clayton J. Bradt 
> duchtbradt at hughes.net 
> 
> 
> 
> BLHamrick at aol.com 
> 
> 09/05/2008 11:22 To 
> PM cjb01 at health.state.ny.us, 
> radsafe at radlab.nl 
> cc 
> 
> Subject 
> Re: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could 
> Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a message dated 9/5/2008 6:23:58 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, 
> cjb01 at health.state.ny.us writes: 
> Any competent- and honest HP- could have foretold this. There is no 
> technological solution to nuclear terrorism. 
> As long as there are vendors and careerists willing to tell lawmakers and 
> political apparatchiks what they want to hear, 
> the warnings of those of us who know better will continue to be drowned 
> out. 
> 
> Shame on all those who made a buck from this boondoggle! 
> 
> Clayton, 
> 
> Actually, a lot of competent HPs did tell them this, but they were 
> determined not to listen. We are living Orwell's "1984," with the endless 
> shifting "war on terror," and the use of fear to control, but it's like no 
> one ever read the book. 
> 
> And, to avoid sounding partisan about this, democrats are no better than 
> the republican fearmongers. In California (controlled by a democratic 
> legislature) this session they passed a bill to do biomonitoring (or some 
> such nonsense) for carcinogens, at a cost of God knows what (because their 
> fiscal assessments are generally worthless). HELLO! The five most 
> significant cancer promoters/indicators are 1) smoking, 2) drinking, 3) 
> diet, 4) lack of exercise, and 5) genetics. The contribution of 
> environmental insults is nothing in the big scheme of things. OTOH, I 
> don't want them to get anymore crazy ideas about controlling our personal 
> lives. I would prefer if I could just continue to smoke, drink, eat some 
> potato chips, and lay on my couch, without the government interfering (I 
> can't do anything about my bad genes). And, we're all going to die of 
> something one day. So, let's just accept that, and move on. 
> 
> Seriously. Could we stop with the hysteria about death? Yes, I'm afraid 
> of being in a plane commandeered by terrorists, and yes, I'm afraid of 
> dying a slow painful death from cancer. I just think that, in the end, 
> since we're all going to die anyway, it might be better to spend our 
> capital frugally on improving the quality of all our lives, rather than 
> spending it recklessly to try to extend the quantity, which will in the end 
> be finite no matter what we do. But, politically, saying you're against 
> death, in whatever form, is a winning ticket. 
> 
> This is the problem we have with radiation. In the public's mind: 
> Radiation = Death. What they don't get is that: Chocolate = Death, Beer = 
> Death, Grandma's faulty genes = Death, Laying around watching TV all day = 
> Death, and, in the end, even exercising and eating right = Death, because 
> we all die. 
> 
> Just my two cents. 
> 
> Barbara L. Hamrick, Esq., CHP 
>