[ RadSafe ] Security theatre- was: Dry Cask Spent Fuel Storage -was: Re: Belgium

Brennan, Mike (DOH) Mike.Brennan at DOH.WA.GOV
Mon Mar 28 17:05:14 CDT 2016

I agree.  There actually seems to be a fair number of journalist that also understand this, and make a point of saying that the radioactive material would not add to the destruction, but just increase the reaction. 

Personally, I would rather have The Bad Guys try to make dirty bombs than some of the other things they could spend their resources on.  

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu [mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Bradt, Clayton (HEALTH)
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:51 AM
To: sandyfl at cox.net; RADSAFE <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Subject: [ RadSafe ] Security theatre- was: Dry Cask Spent Fuel Storage -was: Re: Belgium

Sandy wrote:

"More likely that a dirty bomb would contain medical isotopes or other small sources where the emotional impact even without physical damage would be catastrophic. A small Cobalt-60 source or other source would be problematic as well."

The greatest threat from the explosion of a dirty bomb is to the careers of politicians and high-ranking bureaucrats. Thus the disproportionate concern over "nuclear terrorism" among our homeland security professionals - and their bosses. I for one have never accepted the trope that the American people are too ignorant and faint-hearted to understand just what small potatoes a "dirty bomb" really is.

Clayton Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Health

More information about the RadSafe mailing list