[ RadSafe ] RDD's and the news media.

[Jerry Cohen]

   Unfortunately, the public will believe almost anything the news media 
conditions them to believe. Sensational stories attract attention, thereby 
selling newspapers, increasing viewer/listener ratings and generally improving 
profits. Having been initially scared, the frightening images will be retained 
by the public regardless of any facts subsequently brought to light. Many people 
still believe that the TMI accident caused thousands of deaths.
I have a theory that there is an unwritten policy in journalism schools that any 
student who displays an understanding of science and technology is not allowed 
to graduate. If my theory is correct, it would certainly account for a lot of 
what we have been observing.

Jerry Cohen 



________________________________
From: "GEOelectronics at netscape.com" <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>
To: radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu
Sent: Mon, February 14, 2011 9:23:04 AM
Subject: [ RadSafe ] RDD's etc.

From: <GEOelectronics at netscape.com>

Date: February 14, 2011 10:55:19 AM CST

To: <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>

Subject: RDD's etc.




Bernard L. Cohen said>

"I meant that a large segment of the public believes that exposure would 
cause many immediate severe health impacts and deaths. Since these would 
not occur, this segment of the public would be productively educated.

On 2/11/2011 2:32 PM, Stewart Farber wrote:
> Dr. Cohen writes below about a dirty bomb attack. As he notes the goal 
> is fear and chaos, and:
>
> "This could only work once, because when the public recognizes that no 
> one was harmed by the plutonium, it would be a very useful public 
> information event".
>
"

According to a couple of updated courses I just retook:
Johns Hopkins/ Bloomberg School of Public Health;

"Practical Aspects of Preparing for, and Responding to, Radiological Terrorism"

and 
"Radiation Terror 101"

RDD's are considered to be the top possibility for the next 
major attack on US soil trumping all other CBR methods. Therefore sooner or 
later, the public will find out what it's all about.

RDD (Radiological Dispersion Device)is generally perceived by the lay public as 
being a "Dirty Bomb". The "Bomb" scenario seems to always
utilize explosives, and plans for dealing with same are abundant.

"Dispersion" would rely on chance winds, efficiency of the explosive and 
a myriad of other factors that would enhance or minimize the effects.

RDD in the sense of DISTRIBUTION is quite another matter.
In this mode the radiological material is transported to and distributed onto 
the desired target. This method is 100% efficient, but the mode is
not necessarily aerosol (it can be of course). 

We have agreed not to go into details out here in the open, so I'll bite my 
tongue and leave it at that.

My main contribution is detection methodology. Because of this I tend to think
about scenarios that circumvent our equipment.


George Dowell
New London Nucleonics Lab

GEOelectronics at netscape.com

314-603-9284


_____________________________________________________________
Netscape.  Just the Net You Need.
_______________________________________________
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://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://health.phys.iit.edu