There is not an United Nation agreement and,
as consequence, definition for Terrorism, and we can learn in UN documents
that the
lack of agreement on a definition of terrorism has been a major obstacle to
meaningful international countermeasures.
In
many cases, as now in your conclusion: "Get real, people! Terrorism is about
killing people!" colleagues are expressing only in part of more
general context. I do believe it is significant going to US Department of State
homepage and search for terrorism to obtain a better idea, specially to those
that have to communicate to population, student, family, etc about the
meaning of terrorism and it will more practical the connection with the dirty
bomb
Jose
Julio Rozental
Israel
---- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 1:46
PM
Subject: Re: Security Screening
Technique
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."
|
| "JOHN JACOBUS"
<JENDAY1@MSN.COM>
Sent
by: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
12/08/02 11:47 AM
Please respond to "JOHN JACOBUS"
|
To:
<RuthWeiner@AOL.COM>, <liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM>,
"radsafe" <radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu>
cc:
Subject: Re: Security Screening
Technique |
<?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
|