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

[Muckerheide <muckerheide@attbi.com>]

Right on Richard,



And we are committed to fan those fears, and then blame the victims because

they believe us!? (I've seen, and gotten feedback from staff, the HPS

President do it on Capitol hill.) Of course, the failure to respond to

outright lies, and hold out your hand for funding to "do a study" is only

the most common mode used to by people.



Thanks.

Regards, Jim Muckerheide





on 11/11/02 7:15 PM, Richard L. Hess at lists@richardhess.com wrote:



> 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>http://www.msnbc.com/news/83333

>> 8.asp?0sl=-12

> Cheers,

> 

> Richard



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

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/