|
Mark -
Sorry ... I have to disagree ... the objective of terrorism is "terror" ...
that's scaring people. Killing people is just a means to that end. If your sole
objective is to kill people, there are far more effective ways of doing it that
using radioactive materials.
My $0.02 worth ...
Jim
>>> <mark.hogue@SRS.GOV> 12/9/2002 6:46:09 >>> The crux of the matter is what is a credible threat. It seems that Health Physicists have been coddling neurotic people for so long that we think of "terrorism" in terms of what will scare the same people who worry about a fuel shipment. Get real, people! Terrorism is about killing people! You don't need to go to all the trouble of stealing plutonium (and then blowing yourself up!?) to scare members of Greenpeace. Mark G. Hogue, CHP mark.hogue@srs.gov "But we surely overrate the usefulness of what we like to call "stimulation" and underrate the need for time, peace of mind, mature reflection." - Susan Haack "DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent Westinghouse Savannah River Co. or the United States Department of Energy."
<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /> To get this thread back on track: The danger, as such, the knowledge that it is radioactive. I argue that it is the knowledge that the material is radioacitve is what causes the fear, which is the terror act. Exposure is something we, on this list, have a knowledge of but the public, including the first responsers and those making decisions on evacuation, do not. While we need to educate the public, do not be surprised if the actions we anticipate to be taken do not occur. A great number of us are technically orientated in our knowledge and experience. Many of the public are not, do not trust us who are technically savy, but will believe those who they trust, like Cristy Brinkley. -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist jenday1@msn.com ----- Original Message ----- From: RuthWeiner@aol.com To: liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM Sent: Saturday, December 07, 2002 9:47 PM Subject: Re: Security Screening Technique In a message dated 12/6/02 12:08:35 PM Mountain Standard Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes: Many dangerous radioactive materials would not create a high level radiation field, for example, Pu-239. Thus, even a low level radiation field could indicate a problem. In and of itself, what is so dangerous about EXTERNAL exposure to Pu-239? It's not very radioactive. The danger (problem, whatever) is that enough would be sequestered to produce a criticality. Other that the danger of criticality with fissile materials, what is dangerous about external exposure to radioactive materials that have a low specific activity? Ruth Weiner, Ph. D. ruthweiner@aol.com |