|
That's the answer! Tell them it is not as bad
as Three Mile Island and to go about your business.
Dean Chaney, CHP
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:13
AM
Subject: RE: Nova - Dirty Bombs - London
Scenario question
My point (which may not have been too clear) is a radiological bomb would
do more that irritate the target population. It would cause panic and
the "attention-getting" event that Bob Flood says the terrorist
want. More than that, such an event has long term implications. No
one has died since these two events, but we are still irradiating mail in the
DC area, airport security, etc. I certainly would not be dismissive of a
radiological bomb even if no one was killed. Look at all the public fear
that surround the Three Mile Island accident. No one died there.
Radiological fear, whether we like it or not, is strong in the public's
mind.
"Franta, Jaroslav" <frantaj@AECL.CA> wrote:
You
really believe that all that money would have been spent on security if
there had been ZERO body count on 9-11 ?
If you
do, "I have land to sell
you"
Jaro
Consider how much has been spent by our government is the last
year-and-a-half on security. Has anyone died in the U.S. due to
terrorist since Sept 11, with about 3,000 dead? None. How many
people have died from anthrax since Oct 2001, with 5 dead? None.
They both had an impact when you consider how much we have spent in
securing airports, harbors, etc. By the way, we are still at code
"Orange," so I guess these events did more than irritate the
public. I suggest you contact your congressman and senator about the
waste of money with no body count.
If you don't think that a terrorist attack using radiological material
would lead to panic, I have land to sell you.
There is no question that the terrorist have won.
(End of rant)
"Flood, John" <FloodJR@NV.DOE.GOV> wrote:
I think there is a more fundamental issue that is
being overlooked in the press and in our discussion. A terrorist
attack is, at its most basic level, a publicity stunt - an
attention-getting event designed to focus public attention on the
terrorist's cause.
To the best of my recollection, every terrorist
attack in my lifetime has used death as the attention getter - the event
is intended to generate a body count, which in turn gets the attention of
the public, the press, and government institutions. Without the body
count, how much publicity can the terrorist expect? This is an
important concept, because a terrorist organization would have to abandon
this approach to begin thinking of a dirty bomb as a useful
technique. An attack that simply renders the attacked location a
place to avoid and may increase the risk of illness years in the future
would be a dramatic shift in goals for a terrorist. And it carries
the opportunity to fail - if the quantity of radioactive material can be
cleaned up and there are no news items about people being harmed, the
resulting publicity would associate the terrorists' cause with failure,
in! eptitude, ineffectiveness, etc. Something terrorist are not
after.
I don't recall any terrorist attacks that weren't
designed to kill people immediately. If such attacks have happened
and I simply don't remember them, it illustrates my
point.
I can't see spending significant amounts of time,
money, and energy to protect against an attack designed to merely irritate
the target population - body counts are more effective at getting the
desired attention and are, therefore, more likely to be the method of
choice.
Bob
Flood
-- John
John
Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo!
Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more
|