Re: Dirty Bomb

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 05/15/2002 2:42:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time, KINGVA@INEL.GOV writes:



> The conclusion below is correct -  when you start putting real numbers with
>
> 'dirty bomb' scenarios, it is difficult to make the risk consequences very
>
> significant (other than from the bomb itself).  If you have enough
>
> radioactive material to be truly hazardous, it becomes a life-threatening
>
> proposition (to the terrrorist) to handle the material while preparing a
>
> dispersal device.  And if you succeed in preparing such a device and
>
> setting it off, the dispersion will most likely reduce the concentration of
>
> material to be below levels that would be immediately harmful to anyone.


I have also done calculations on this issue and come to similar conclusions.  The explosives will generally be far more dangerous than any harm from radiation dose associated with a dirty bomb.  Once you reach the level of adequate radioactive material to kill people in and of itself, you would need a coordinated "bucket brigade" of suicide bombers to collect the material, and manufacture and deliver the device, and one would face a myriad of engineering problems due to decay heat and degradation of associated (i.e., explosive) materials from the extremely high radiation environment.


As a community, our biggest problem is disproportional fear and panic, creating a potentially violent situation due to human factors alone, the extreme stress caused by the fear, and the ultimate question of remediation of contaminated areas, which may well be politically, rather than scientifically, driven, and therefore cost the victims untold fortunes, when a little common sense would solve the problem in a much more economical manner.


Barbara