[ RadSafe ] Government eyes Supertanker for dirty duty

[Maury Siskel]

Please accept advance apology for my laziness, but if anyone would look 
back a couple years in  http://radlab.nl/radsafe/archives/  I'm sure 
there was extensive discussion of dirty bombs. All things are possible, 
but I think the upshot was that the effectiveness of such a device was 
near nil except for explosive effects and panic responses.  Probably a 
more effective terrorism device to explode a keg of baking soda to 
spread fears of anthrax .....?

But maybe it would be constructive to coat all the people and cars 
running aound with a sticky gel to slow folks down so they go back 
indoors to take a cold shower .... <g>
Best,
Maury&Dog
=======================

Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:

>At the most likely end of the spectrum of possible dirty bomb events, I
>would place a crude explosive with some medical or consumer-available
>rad material, with the goal being to create panic far in excess of what
>the explosive itself would cause.  The chances that aerial bombardment
>with gel or foam would help is very small.  
>
>I am not sure I believe in a sophisticated dirty bomb in which its
>lethality is enhanced by adding radioactive material (beyond that
>material causing first responders and policy makers to make ill-advised
>and misinformed decisions, which likely would cause extra casualties).
>The fact of the matter is that the better the explosion is at dispersing
>the radioactive material, the lower the concentrations of said material,
>and the lower the dose rate.  
>
>A nuclear weapon is a different story.  The source term is so much
>higher, at least initially, so you can get dangerously high dose rates
>over a large area, and the explosion is hot enough to loft fallout high
>enough to go a long way.  But even in this case, is a tanker of gel 12+
>hours after the event going to do anything useful?  I am doubtful.
>
>This program will cost at least a billion dollars, and have, in my
>opinion, very limited value.  A better use of that money would be to
>develop GOOD educational material on radiation issues and teach it in
>school.  A billion dollars could produce a lot of informed citizens. 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Doug Huffman [mailto:doug.huffman at wildblue.net] 
>Sent: Thursday, August 20, 2009 5:11 PM
>To: Brennan, Mike (DOH); radsafe at radlab.nl
>Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Government eyes Supertanker for dirty duty
>
>Have we that may know merely dirty from 'bomb' ever put a sharp pencil
>on one?
>
>I find it hard to believe that an effectively dirty bomb is much
>different from a nuclear device or that a practical dirty bomb is
>particularly dirty at all.  'Practical' constrained by mass, specific
>activity and so on.
>
>Brennan, Mike (DOH) wrote:
>
>  
>
>>For dirty bombs, the first thing to do is keep ignorant policy makers
>>    
>>
>from doing stupid things, like requiring wounded people be deconned
>before they are treated, or ordering evacuations when shelter in place
>is called for.  As for deconning big chunks of a city; fire hoses and
>the storm drain system will be more useful than airplanes full of hair
>gel.
>  
>
>_______________________________________________
>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/
>
>  
>