[ RadSafe ] Government eyes Supertanker for dirty duty

[Perrero, Daren]

Agreed, and yet as regulators and responders we are forced to ask the
question 'but what if the perpetrator(s) are 'significantly motivated'
such that the unlikely becomes realized?' (i.e. why wouldn't some one
want to learn how to land an airliner if they are taking the time to
learn to fly?)

Daren

The opinions expresses are mine, all mine.....
I'm with the government and I'm here to help you (ack!)
daren.perrero(a)Illinois.gov




-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Huffman [mailto:doug.huffman at wildblue.net] 
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 9:59 AM
To: Perrero, Daren; Radsafe
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Government eyes Supertanker for dirty duty

It seems that to be effectively dirty the specific activity would be too

high to handle without acute health effects in assembly.

Perrero, Daren wrote:
> Thank you Barbara for the quick interject.  
> 
> I'd also add that dirty bombs run a range of effect just like raising
> the kiloton yield on a fission device gives a range.  In the case of a
> dirty bomb it could be a small black powder pipe bomb with a solid
> source strapped to it creating radioactive shrapnel to a fertilizer
> device with a dispersible radioactive powder (and various combinations
> of the above), but in ALL CASES, no where near comparable in results
> when it comes to the radiation/radioactivity that's released in a
> fission event.
> 
> The opinions expresses are mine, all mine.....
> I'm with the government and I'm here to help you (ack!)
> daren.perrero(a)Illinois.gov
>