|
John -
Another good point, and I don't have a witty comeback ...
Jim
>>> "Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov> 12/6/2002 13:08:24 >>> Jim,
My comment is that why should we (the
government) assume they are going to not going to I-131.
Terrorists will use what they can to disrupt our normal daily lives to
frighten us. Killing people is frightening, but so is the fear of
smallpox, VX, etc. Even if you don't have it, saying you dose
frightens our government. If we focus on "radionuclides of concern,
we will start thinking of only certain options, like when the police were
focused on a white truck during the sniper attacks in the DC area in
October.
This is the kind of thinking that dismissed
the suggestion that aircraft would be hijacked in the 1990s.
-- John e-mail: jenday1@msn.com
John -
Good point, but why would they use something for which we have "the
miracle drug"? (he said tongue firmly implanted in cheek). Why not use
something for which all those "magic anti-radiation pills" are useless?
P.S. For "national security reasons", they didn't identify the particular
"radionuclides of concern", but it doesn't take a mental wizard to figure out
what they are.
Again, my $0.02 worth ...
Jim
>>> "Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)" <jacobusj@ors.od.nih.gov> 12/5/2002 22:30:33 >>> My guess is that they are focused on radionuclides that could pose a "real" threat of long term exposure, like Cs-137 or Co-60. However, it the purpose is to frighten people, why not use I-131? Once again, we are not thinking creatively. . . . |