[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: RE: MEDHP-SEC: Article: High Security Trips Up SomeIrradiatedPatients, Doctors Say



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
John P. Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024

e-mail:  jenday1@msn.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Hardeman [mailto:Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us]
Sent: Friday, December 06, 2002 12:47 PM
To: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu; Jacobus, John (NIH/OD/ORS)
Subject: RE: RE: MEDHP-SEC: Article: High Security Trips Up Some IrradiatedPatients, Doctors Say

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.
 . . .