RE: So, you think you have problems with radioactive sources?

["Richard L. Hess" <lists@richardhess.com>]

At 05:08 PM 11/11/2002 -0500, Ted Rockwell wrote:


> Granted
>
> that a loose Co-60 source could hurt a lot of people if they handle it
>
> without knowing what they have.  That's a real problem.  But I
>
> resent their tying it to a "dirty bomb."  That's
>
> phony.


For the sake of those who did not click on the article, here is a very

interesting quote:



"Although far less lethal than traditional nuclear weapons, dirty

bombs could be attractive to terrorists because they can inflict

widespread disruption for relatively little cost. With conventional

explosives and a few ounces of cesium 137 or strontium 90, a dirty bomb

could contaminate large swaths of real estate with dangerous radiation,

unleashing panic and rendering some areas uninhabitable for

decades.


"In a computer simulation of a dirty-bomb attack on New York, the

detonation of 3,500 curies of cesium chloride in Lower Manhattan — about

50 grams or 1.75 ounces — would spread radioactive fallout over 60 city

blocks. Casualties would be limited to victims of the immediate blast,

but the after-effects, including relocation and cleanup, would cost tens

of billions of dollars, said Michael A. Levi, a physicist and director of

the Federation of American Scientists’ Strategic Security Project, which

conducted the study.


"“The financial costs, from the loss of property to business losses,

could be huge,” Levi said. “People may refuse to return, and others may

be unwilling to travel to the area. The threshold for scaring people away

from some activities is very low.” "


Actually, a careful reading of the above is

that the losses are based on people's fears, not the actual effects of

the radiation. Interesting. Irresponsible?


Comments?




> http://www.msnbc.com/news/833338.asp?0sl=-12
Cheers,


Richard