response to Dirty Bomb

[Norman Cohen <ncohen12@comcast.net>]

Froom another list, but permisssion was granted to post here. Thought you;d be

interested in Greg's opinions.

norm



Greg Wingard wrote:



> Dear friends of all things nuke:

>

> Usually in planning for disaster, you look at the worst case scenario.  For a

> radiological "dirty" bomb terrorist attack, a 100 millicuries source is not

> it.  Indeed it is amusing to see anyone say that is a credible example.

>

> Let's try again with something a little more realistic than a high school

> stunt, which is essentially what the previous post described.

>

> Terrorist hijack, or incapacitate a truckload of high level nuclear waste on

> its way from a nuke plant or weapon facility to say Nevada.  They have a van

> with drums full of fertilizer mixed into a sludge with diesel.  After

> incapacitating the truck, and any armed security traveling with the truck

> (assuming all nuke shipments will have armed escorts), a couple people place

> shaped charges on the nuke waste containers.  Others place the drums under the

> trailer the waste is on.  The drums are set to go off a fraction of a second

> after the shaped charges.  Timing devices with the degree of precision to do

> this are not that hard to come by.  As long as the people pulling off the

> attack don't care that they aren't going to make it out of the scene, other

> than in the form of non identifiable component parts, the logistics are

> probable.  Let's say the truck was on the way from a nuke plant just up river

> from New York.

>

> Want to run your numbers again?

>

> Also, just from scanning reports around the globe, it seems that more cobalt

> sources are stolen and opened, usually by people out to sell the shielding for

> its scrap metal value.  These non terrorist incidents have exposed large

> numbers of people to hazardous levels of radiation, including lethal, with no

> explosive to spread the radiation around.

>

> Having looked through a lot of shipping manifests, it also seems that there is

> a large amount of radioactive cobalt shipped around the world, in the

> commercial market, making it a target as well.  Maybe you should run your

> numbers based on things Americans could relate to.  Given X pounds of various

> radioactive substances (run the numbers for all the ones that are accessible

> due to transport, as well as storage), and a credible explosive force (say the

> Timothy McVeigh bombing), what would the result be?

>

> That would be a credible way to approach the topic.  To put the previous post's

> chosen scenario in perspective, it is like saying that you don't have to worry

> about terrorist using mercury, because if a terrorist blew up a thermometer in

> a shopping mall the resulting exposure would not be significant.  Like the 100

> millicuries example given in the previous post, the only thing remarkable about

> such an attack would be that there are any terrorists stupid enough to waste

> their time, and most likely their lives on pulling such an ineffectual stunt.

>

> I think that such posts are a good measure of how desperate the minions of

> nukes are to push their golden calf, their modern Molak (sorry for the

> misspelling, I did not have a bible handy for the reference to the primitive

> god that mid eastern cultures sacrificed their children to by immolation) on

> society.

>

> There are a number of ways that the industry seeks to lull the populace into

> compliance.

>

> Deny that there are any radiation or chemical releases from the plant.  I had

> the opportunity to catch the Trojan nuke plant operators at this red handed.

> They were on a TV show where they took people, including a camera crew on a

> tour of the plant.  Pointing at the steam coming out of the cooling tower the

> spokes dude said that is absolutely pure H2O.  As it worked out, I was

> interviewed for a program that aired immediately after the one with the tour.

> On that show I held up the results for the camera, which the plant operator had

> signed under threat of perjury, on the concentration of isotopes coming out of

> the cooling tower.  Needles to say it was'nt "pure H2O".  When the owner of the

> nuke plant found out that the shows were going to air consecutively, they tried

> to force the station to cancel the show(s).  Seems that they had some objection

> to their official spokes person being caught out as a liar.

>

> Deny that security is faulty.  This one is obvious.  Look at how many plants

> have failed the infiltration exercises they used to hold.  I understand that

> there is pressure to stop such excersizes, or at least the public reporting of

> them.

>

> Deny that the plants are getting old, and that their original predicted life

> expectancy failed to even consider a number of problems that have come to light

> since the safety, and life time predictions were made for the plants.  Prior to

> its closing, the Trojan nuke plant had an increasing number of its heat

> exchange system, steam tubes, plugged with stainless steel corks, because of

> corrosion cracking, and stress cracking.  The company tried to claim that this

> was no problem, but were unable to get around the fact that heat exchange

> efficiency is a key component of reactor safety.  Each tube you plug reduces

> the efficiency of heat exchange, thus decreasing safety.  This is only one

> example of wear and tear failures experianced by nuke plants.  The fall back

> claim, of course, is that we have multiple, redundant systems.  They of course

> fail to mention that the original safety projections were based on all of the

> multiple redundant systems working at optimum conditions, or at least design

> specifications.

>

> Deny that radiation in the environment is a problem.  This takes two main

> paths.  The first is revisionist.  A great example is Chernobyl, where the

> minions of nukes claim that it is paranoia that killed people around the plant,

> and that the release and resulting exposure has caused no lasting harm.  The

> second tact is the so called sun shine unit approach.  Everyone is exposed to

> "background" radiation, which is "natural".  Any additional exposure is

> minimized, (many times by fraud, like the replaced "clean" milk samples

> downwind of NTS during testing), and then compared to "background" as if the

> exposure, if it is less than background must be safe.  This is a kind of suck

> it up and take your dose argument.  Since the people in Denver are getting much

> more radiation at their elevation, it must be OK to make sure that people at

> Hanford get just as much.  Complain and you are a nuke wimp, and idiot that

> just doesn't understand that radiation is everywhere.

>

> The truth is somewhat different.  Radiation, in terms of natural background is

> most likely a large factor in aging and health problems experianced on a global

> level.  Radiation doses are not discrete separate events.  The impacts are

> cumulative, and anything over background is going to be harmful.  Recent

> studies at Cheranobyl are a good example.  Turns out that there are a large

> number of genetic anomolies showing up from radiation exposure.  The leading

> spin is that such changes do not prove life threatening conditions.  When you

> combine additional radiation exposure with constant chemical insult which most

> of us in the developed world are exposed to, the result is even worse.

> Radiation doses are also target specific, in other words, the dose you get from

> iodine, may be more harmful than radioactive xenon out of a cooling tower.

> Likewise if you are exposed to radon, and it all happens to be very "young" you

> will breathe most of it back out, thus a no harm, no foul situation.  If,

> however, you breathe in radon, and its daughter products, and some portion of

> the radon turns into radioactive metal particles in your lungs, the scenario is

> a little bit more grim.  Of course the powers that be assume that all radon

> breathed is only radon, no daughter products, and it is all "new", ie, not

> going to change to metal particles in the lung.

>

> There is a reason that atmospheric nuclear tests were stopped.  It was because

> of the concern of setting off a world wide epidemic of radiation induced

> disease at a level that would make it obvious what the source of the problem

> was.  World leaders, including Kennedy, figured out that people might become a

> little hard to handle if this information came out.  Hence an agreement among

> parties who were not the best of friends.  So we cut our losses, wrote off the

> down winders both civilians, and military, and buried the facts as much as

> possible.  As more of the facts have come out, the goal has shifted to the same

> one employed with much success by the asbestos folks.  Hold them off until they

> are all dead.  The dead do not collect damage payments.

>

> The example given in the previous post provided data on the amount of source

> material, but provides no information on the size, type of dispersion, i.e.,

> how big a blast, or with what kind of explosive.  The model provided thus lacks

> rigor, is not conservative, and fails to provide the necessary values for

> others to confirm, or replicate the results claimed, a basic tenant of

> scientific method.

>

> Nice try for a piece of propaganda, but does not cut it for science, which it

> pretends to be.

>

> Regards,

>

> Greg

>

> Jim Hoerner wrote:

>

> > [Fwd from RadSafe, not by JH who found it interesting.]

> >

> > Hi All,

> >

> > Reality Check - "dirty bombs"

> >

> > Comments continue to circulate about the possibility for terrorists to

> > explode a 'dirty bomb' or a radiological bomb'.  Indeed, even Warren

> > Buffett, the 'Sage of Omaha' has the other day been reported as saying that

> > a radiological attack is not a question of 'if', but of 'when'.

> >

> > There is however very little written about just what the possible health

> > impact of such an action might be.

> >

> > It is not difficult to make some very general estimates of what the

> > radiation consequences might be, and the findings that I here present

> > indicate that the health effects would probably be very small, although the

> > disruption and the cleanup task might be a serious cost.

> >

> > Let us assume that a stolen source wrapped with explosives has been

> > detonated in a large office block or shopping mall.  There would certainly

> > be serious damage from the explosive, and injuries resulting from flying

> > debris, building collapse and so forth.

> >

> > But I thought I might try to estimate potential radiation doses and hence

> > health risks from such a release...

> >

> > So, here's a little calculation of possible doses to emergency responders or

> > to members of the public who might remain trapped in the building:

> >

> > Example 1.

> >

> > Assume a stolen Cs-137 source of Activity 100 millicuries (= 3.7 GBq).

> >

> > Assume it is exploded and all the caesium disperses into a building of

> > volume 500,000 cubic metres as a fine respirable powder.

> >

> > This implies an in-air concentration of about 8000 Bq/m3.

> >

> > IAEA BSS  (Safety Series 115) Tables II-III and II-VII indicate dose per

> > unit activity by inhalation for Cs-137 is in the order of 5 * 10-9 Sv/Bq.

> >

> > So a person breathing the contaminated air for 1 hour without respiratory

> > protection will incur about  (1 m3 * 8000 * 5 * 10-9 ) Sv or 40

> > microsieverts.

> >

> > This amount is essentially trivial in this context.

> >

> > Example 2.

> > Assume that an Iridium-192 source of Activity 1 Terabecquerel (approx 30

> > Curies) is dispersed in the same building.

> > The airborne activity concentration will then be 2 * 106 Bq/m3 and the total

> > activity breathed in in one hour will be approx 2 * 106 Bq.

> > This will incur (using data from IAEA BSS as above) a dose of   (2 * 106 * 5

> > * 10-9) = 10 mSv,  which is about equivalent to a 'CAT scan'.  In other

> > words, not that much.

> >

> > Please note that in actual fact, it will be quite difficult to get all of

> > the radioactive material into the air in respirable form: it will want to

> > plate out on its surroundings.  So the above calculations are almost

> > certainly unduly pessimistic, and exaggerating the actual doses that would

> > be incurred.

> >

> > So we can say that any injuries or deaths will be from the explosive blast,

> > mechanical injury, or any resulting fire, or from the panic, eg in hasty and

> > ill-disciplined (not to mention ill-advised) evacuation traffic accidents)

> > rather than from the radiation dose.

> >

> > Responding emergency agencies should be informed beforehand, i.e., NOW, that

> > dose control requirements are thus NOT an overriding issue, but rather the

> > control of panic.  Responders should be reassured, NOW, that 'moonsuits are

> > not required', but rather, that first aid and fire control are the essential

> > requirements.

> >

> > [MS]

> >

> > --

> > Hold the door for the stranger behind you.  When the driver a

> > half-car-length in front of you signals to get over, slow down.  Smile and

> > say "hi" to the folks you pass on the sidewalk.  Give blood.  Volunteer.

> >

> > _________________________________________________________________

> > Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

>

> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->

> FREE COLLEGE MONEY

> CLICK HERE to search

> 600,000 scholarships!

> http://us.click.yahoo.com/DlIU9C/4m7CAA/Ey.GAA/7gSolB/TM

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



--

Coalition for Peace and Justice and the UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave.,

Linwood, NJ 08221; 609-601-8583 or 609-601-8537;  ncohen12@comcast.net  UNPLUG

SALEM WEBSITE:  http://www.unplugsalem.org/  COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE

WEBSITE:  http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org   The Coalition for Peace and

Justice is a chapter of Peace Action.

"First they ignore you; Then they laugh at you; Then they fight you; Then you win.

(Gandhi) "Why walk when you can fly?"  (Mary Chapin Carpenter)







************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/