[ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

Bob Cherry bobcherry at satx.rr.com
Mon Sep 8 12:21:07 CDT 2008

Clayton is right about the limitations for SDI and for the sensors, but here
is an even bigger reason they are doomed to fail: The bad guys will take
steps to counteract them.

SDI: Dummy targets, flack, stealth design.

Sensors: avoid them.

-----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 10:55 AM
To: HOWARD.LONG at comcast.net
Cc: BLHamrick at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment

SDI is actually a pretty good analogy.  It works, but only if there is only
one missile at a time and we know its coming and what its trajectory will
be. Detecting nukes at the border would be effective under similar
circumstances: If we know the terrorist is coming, when he's coming and
where, it will be no problem to identify the nuke he's carrying.

Clayton J. Bradt
dutchbradt at hughes.net

             HOWARD.LONG at comca                                             
             09/08/2008 11:23          Doug Aitken                         
             AM                        <jdaitken at sugar-land.oilfield.slb.c 
                                       om>, "'Clayton J Bradt'"            
                                       <cjb01 at health.state.ny.us>,         
                                       BLHamrick at aol.com                   
                                       radsafe at radlab.nl                   
                                       RE: [ RadSafe ] Concerns Could      
                                       Reduce Radiation Sensor Deployment  

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
Adrenalin release causes clots, exhaustion, heart attacks, etc.

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

Howard Long

IMPORTANT NOTICE:  This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or
otherwise protected by law from further disclosure.  It is intended only for
the addressee.  If you received this in error or from someone who was not
authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or
any attachments.  Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.

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:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list