|
I watched the NOVA "Dirty Bomb" program Tuesday
night and came away with the following thoughts:
- Technical details about post bomb explosion risks
were fragmented and interspersed with statistical mumbo jumbo that left one
with the feeling that any amount of radiation is hazardous.
- Lack of information about the fact that most of
the residual radioactivity in a city can be high pressure washed off buildings
and down the drain.
- Had too much inaccurate information concerning the
health effects of the Chernobyl accident.
- Stated correctly the hysteria following such a
device going off and the need to ensure that our health care facilities are
not overwhelmed by the public due to their fear of being
contaminated.
- Compared exposure rates to natural background, but
did not establish the variance in world wide background levels that would give
a dose greater than those from the dirty bomb.
- Liked the discussion about residual radioactivity
clean up limits. However, I believe the EPA and not the NRC would be
responsible for establishment of the limits. In California it would
be zero - and we would confine all contaminated persons to the blast area,
demolish all affected buildings and remove all soil above background.
Then we would ship it to Utah or Idaho for disposal since it is not fit for
disposal in sunny California. Both Utah and Nevada would balance their
state budgets due to California's ignorance. Contaminated persons would
be vigorously decontaminated to below background (K-40 background) or the
offending part exercise and disposed of in a suitable disposal area (Utah or
Idaho). :-)
- Had many good points about the lessening of
exposure due to transient nature of the public, but were probably lost by the
watchers due to a following commentary where they discussed how the
smallest exposure to radiation can cause cancer.
Basically the program gave interesting information,
but due to the uncheck commentary about the dangers of radiation at any level,
we may have created a problem with people accepting the routine use of nuclear
medicine.
It would have been nice if Larry Grimm's article on dirty bombs was
referenced to give some balance to the subject.
Just some rambling thoughts.
Dean Chaney, CHP
Fairfield, CA
- ----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 5:48
AM
Subject: Re: Nova - Dirty Bombs - Who is
their expert - FYI
John,
I assume you are joking.
John Andrews <andrewsjp@chartertn.net>
wrote:
. . .
>
My thought while reading this is that perhaps we should ignore
the
radioactivity of the dirty bomb. I mean hide the reality of the
radioactivity from the general population! The bomb can do local damage
and the radioactivity will do little real damage even over the lifetime
of the exposed individuals. If they are never told of the
radioactivity, then the psychological trauma will never occur. What
would happen if we did not look for radioactivity or radiation? What
would happen if we took our readings and called them all zero to the
press and the government controllers? Would we all not be better off in
the long run. The Soviet Union did this in Chelybinsk! Of course that
was a MAJOR release. But they did not tell anyone about it for what, 25
years! Nor do most people in the US, or the world for that matter, know
anything about that event. Perhaps this would be a better way to handle
the dirty bomb scenario.
. . .
--
John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:
crispy_bird@yahoo.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
|