Re: Dirty Bomb - CNN Accuracy?

[SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM]

In a message dated 6/10/02 1:32:21 PM Pacific Daylight Time, FStrydom@NACINTL.COM writes:



> CNN has also had some fairly good (i.e. not anti-nuke biased) coverage on 
>
> this issue. 


Radsafe:

While some of the content of the CNN.com site on the subject of "Dirty Bombs" is non-inflamatory as pointed out above, some of the content is to my reading simplistic and even antinuclear. CNN seems to give undue credibility to some claims of spent fuel diversion being an easy matter which has been alleged  by many antinuclear groups since 9/11.


The excerpt below is from CNN.com/In-Depth

"Terrorism Q& A"


Full section citation:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/cfr/stories/dirty.bomb/index.html

=====

Do terrorists have such radioactive substances?

 

It's hard to say, but some experts think they might, and many experts worry that determined terrorists could acquire them. The International Atomic Energy Agency, a Vienna-based division of the United Nations, has documented almost 400 cases of trafficking in nuclear or radiological materials since 1993. Many such supplies are subject to few controls or are poorly guarded, particularly in the former Soviet Union. Reports also have cited weak protection of spent fuel at U.S. nuclear facilities; other experts worry about the security of the nuclear facilities in Pakistan, India, and other developing countries. 

======


CNN's claim of  nuclear power plant/facility spent fuel's weak protection in the red highlighted sentence above, with possible or likely diversion is completely naive and misleading.


How is someone going to steal fuel bundles? Are Al Queda terrorists going to break into a nuclear plant, take over the fuel crane,  and cart out a bare fuel rack hidden under their coats?  They wouldn't get far with a bare bundle. It's laughable.


Stewart Farber

email: SAFarberMSPH@cs.com