[ RadSafe ] Radiation Sensors to Scan U.S. Air Cargo

[BLHamrick at aol.com]

I agree that preventing an IND has a significantly better pay-off than  
preventing an RDD.  Unfortunately, detecting an IND is substantially more  
difficult than detecting potential RDD materials.  To make it worse,  Congress 
apparently can't tell the difference between the two.  They'd  prefer to halt all use 
of radioactive cesium chloride than fund projects to  respond to an IND, 
which we need, because it is unlikely we will find it before  it goes off.  Pick 
the low hanging fruit - that's the Congressional  way.
 
Barbara
 
 
In a message dated 9/12/2008 8:21:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,  
Jim.Hardeman at dnr.state.ga.us writes:

If you  make the presumption that the monitoring is primarily designed
to prevent  the detonation of an IND on US soil, the cost-benefit ratio
looks a little  better. I agree that with the possible exception of an
extraordinarily  large RDD delivered to a carefully selected target -- if
you're only  considering RDDs in your cost-benefit ratio, the math
doesn't come out all  that well.





**************Psssst...Have you heard the news? There's a new fashion blog, 
plus the latest fall trends and hair styles at StyleList.com.      
(http://www.stylelist.com/trends?ncid=aolsty00050000000014)