Response to Ted Rockwell's article

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

This letter appeared in today's Washington Post 

--------------

Radiation: The Real Deal

 

   Theodore Rockwell ["Radiation Chicken Little,"

op-ed, Sept. 16] recalls a recent National Academy of

Engineering "dirty bomb" drill as yet another piece of

evidence that our fears of radiation are overblown. As



a technical adviser to the drill's designers, I

understand Rockwell's frustration. Radiation is not as

dangerous as most people imagine.

 

 Yet Rockwell's own characterization of the dirty bomb

threat is misleading. Most realistic assessments of

dirty bomb dangers emphasize that few if any will die

from an attack. Instead, the danger is long-term

contamination, carrying with it social and economic

costs. Rockwell dismisses such concerns.

 

  First, he contends that we will insist upon "a

hypothetical, squeaky-clean condition, scrubbing the

ground and sidewalks down to far less than the natural

radiation background of God's good green Earth," a 

constraint that he deems "inappropriate." He is right

that imposing strict EPA cleanup standards after a

dirty bomb attack would, from a public health

standpoint, be excessive. But easily imaginable dirty

bomb scenarios would contaminate substantial areas to

several hundred times those strict thresholds -- and

to 10 or more times the "natural radiation background"

Rockwell cites.

 

  Imagine a crude, inefficient dirty bomb using the

amount of cesium found in an old Soviet radiation

source, such as one of those your paper has reported

are missing in Eastern Europe. If people did not leave

the area permanently, and if the area surrounding the

attack could not be cleaned up, one in 10 residents

over an area of roughly 20 city blocks would die of

cancer as a result of the attack -- 50 percent more

than typically do. The radiation levels would be

roughly 1,000 times higher than the EPA's

"squeaky-clean  condition."

 

  Rockwell claims that "you would flush any residual

radioactivity down the drain with hoses and be done

with it." But cesium chemically attaches to glass,

concrete and asphalt -- and it does so quickly. If

done quickly, washing off sidewalks might remove half

of the contamination, but removing the rest would

require special chemical procedures or abrasive

techniques, which would introduce major safety,

logistics and cost challenges.

 

  Nuclear power is also on Rockwell's radar, and he is

right to be incensed by "public interest" group claims

that terrorists could turn nuclear power plants into

"weapons of mass destruction" -- they could do 

nothing of the sort. But Rockwell goes further, citing

a Science article (which he co-wrote) as evidence that

"one can do nothing to an American-type nuclear power

plant or its fuel that would create a serious public

health hazard." That study has been widely disputed,

including by Sandia National Laboratory, upon whose

experiments the Science article was based. And the

Science article never discusses attacks on stored

fuel, probably the greatest worry of those who study

power-plant vulnerability. It considers only attacks

on fuel during shipment, while that fuel is 

heavily protected.

 

  Rockwell is right that "if you tell people there is

no danger, and they have no reason to disbelieve you,

they will remain calm."

 

 But if you tell people there is no danger, and

instead there is only a small one, they will lose

faith, assume the worst and panic. The real dangers of

dirty bombs and power-plant attacks are not nearly as 

horrific as many imagine. We should be able to calm

people by simply telling them the truth.

 

    -- Michael A. Levi

  

 Washington

 

 The writer is science and technology fellow in

foreign policy studies at the Brookings Institution.

 

Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/admin/emailfriend?contentId=A37571-2003Sep19&sent=no&referrer=emailarticle

 

-------------------------



=====

"Crime is contagious.  If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law."

Louis D. Brandeis, Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. U.S., 1928



-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/