|
While WE agree radiological exposures are not a significant issue, why do
governments play it up so much. And let us not blame the NCRP, EPA, ICRP,
etc., as they do not make policy. Do policy planners lack
experts to consult, or are driven by the political motives, such as if anything
happens we will be sued?
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
3050 Traymore
Lane
Bowie, MD 20715-2024
From: J. J. Rozental[SMTP:JOSEROZE@NETVISION.NET.IL]
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 3:24:50 AM
To: Susan L Gawarecki; RADSAFE
Subject: Re: Security Screening Technique
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Today there are hundreds of sites, especially
USA, explaining RCB weapons, what are they, symptoms, consequences,
treatment, protection measures, etc..., many expressing in regular technical
language, however also many to public information as FQ&A. One of the best
is the CDC with many links.
However doesn't matter the type of
weapons, even in the best radiological scenario, as you have described: "Aside
from the potential direct effects of a dirty bomb (explosions are pretty
nasty), the exposure is never an immediate medical
emergency" I agree with the importance of workshops,
seminars and training sessions including among these also Communication
Training and Exercise to Spokespersons to avoid disturbances to public
directly involved.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2002 12:44
AM
Subject: Re: Security Screening
Technique
I have now sat through several
workshops, seminars and training sessions
regarding weapons of mass
destruction, including biological, chemical
and radiological. My
informed preference, were I to be exposed to one
of these agents, is
radiological. Aside from the potential direct
effects of a dirty bomb
(explosions are pretty nasty), the exposure is
never an immediate medical
emergency. As far as the biological and
chemical weapons go, there
are some truly horrific agents out there,
which result in extremely
unpleasant deaths in a matter of minutes to
days. I much prefer the
increased risk of cancer 20 years down the
road.
I think if the
public knew the potential destructiveness of the various
WMD agents that
the government is concerned about, a dirty bomb wouldn't
be nearly so
terrifying in comparison.
. . .
|