Re: Surviving a Dirty Bomb -Agenda Journalism/Politics

[SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM]

In a message dated 6/14/02 1:54:54 PM Pacific Daylight Time, loc@icx.net writes:



> You have probably heard public officials and terrorist experts say a
>
> dirty bomb's real threat is psychological. And that it is a weapon of
>
> terror, fear, panic and disruption rather than one of mass destruction.
>
> But what else does the public need to know about dirty bombs? How bad
>
> are they, really? Here's the dirt:
>
>
> What could happen if a dirty bomb went off in downtown Washington?


========

Radsafe:


On the subject of terrorism and who's using it for their own agenda, see the recent comment below [in red - my emphasis added] from the American Physical Society's "What's New" email update. 


It appears increasingly clear that not only predictable antinuclear media outlets, but many politicians on every side of the nuclear risk issue, are using fears of terror and dirty bombs for their own narrow purposes. When I saw the news conference earlier this week with the initial statements by Atty. General John Ashcroft concerning a  plot to perhaps assemble a dirty bomb linked to the suspect Jose Padilla aka Abdullah Al Muhajir in federal custody, I was quite amazed to hear inflammatory rhetoric from the Atty. General about possible health consequences. 


To date there has been no evidence presented that this petty criminal Padilla was anything but the Homer Simpson of would-be dirty bomb terrorists. If he ever got his hands on any significant quantity of radioactive source material he would most likely have succeeded only in hurting himself in attempting to handle it and fabricate a weapon. Why should our own government be going out of its way  to terrify the public about radiation risks from terrorist use of dirty bombs? 


Padilla appears to clearly have had ties outside the US to discussions about terror  based on evidence in the public record. However, it appears his story was manipulated by our own national leaders to maximize fear and even panic about the "dirty bomb" threat.  Now everyone from Anti-Yucca activists, to general nuclear power foes is taking advantage of the exaggerated fears to advance their agenda. It's been said that "In war, truth is the first casualty". It's regrettable that the war against terrorism is bringing such spin and misrepresentation to so many energy and environmental issues. The public interest is not being well served.


Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

email: SAFarberMSPH@cs.com

======

What's New for Jun 14, 2002 

Date:   6/14/02 1:52:42 PM Pacific Daylight Time    

    


From:    whatsnew@aps.org (What's New)


2. DIRTY STORY: IF YOU CAN'T CLASSIFY IT, CREATE A NEW HEADLINE. 

On Sunday, FBI screw ups prior to 9/11 were on every talk show. 

By Monday, congressional committees were fighting over who would

get to hear the first public testimony from FBI whistle-blower

Coleen Rowley.  The White House urgently needed an intelligence

success.  So what are news managers for?  On Tuesday, it was

announced that Abdullah al-Muhajir, described as the key figure

in a plot to explode a dirty bomb in Washington, DC, had been

arrested at O'Hare International Airport.  Failures of the FBI 

vanished from the news.  Lucky timing?  Not exactly.  Muhajir, a

US citizen, had been arrested a month earlier, and was secretly

held in a military prison, without charges, until he was needed. 

The media did the rest, feeding on the public's exaggerated fear

of radiation   even pictures of mushroom clouds.  President Bush

was shown on television explaining that "Padilla is a bad guy." 

It's probably true, but then, that's why we have trials isn't it?