RE: Response to WashPost ltr

["Ted Rockwell" <tedrock@starpower.net>]

Either way comes out the same.  Either it doesn't bond well and get washed

down the drain, or it bonds well and stays there.



TR



-----Original Message-----

From: S. Fred Singer [mailto:singer@sepp.org]

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2003 3:39 PM

To: Ted Rockwell; RADSAFE; Rad-Sci-L

Subject: Re: Response to WashPost ltr





Levi  may be wrong also in assuming that Cesium be released in its atomic

form and therefore able to "attack"' .



This is no my specialty, but I would assume that it will be in some less

active molecular form .



Does anyone have the answer?



Fred  Singer



PS  My ltr to WP is appended



*********





As Theodore Rockwell observes ("Radiation Chicken Little," Sept 16),

ensuring

public safety in the face of terrorism requires a realistic assessment of

potential threats. Exaggerated scenarios create public panic and advance the

aims of the terrorists.



The so-called "dirty bomb" is a prime example.  It is a device that

disperses

some radioactive material over a certain area. It is not a nuclear fission

bomb

or hydrogen bomb that causes a lethal blast (like any bomb) but also creates

its own radioactivity.  To construct a dirty bomb, one has to first assemble

the radioactive material -- and

that creates virtually insurmountable problems.  Assume the bomb's size is

about

a square foot but that it should contaminate a square mile.  Simple

arithmetic

shows that the required concentration factor is about 25 million.  This

concentrated

radioactivity would melt most any container and would certainly kill the

terrorists who try to assemble the device.



S. Fred Singer

Arlington



703-920-2744   singer@sepp.org

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

















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



At 12:13 PM 9/22/2003 -0400, Ted Rockwell wrote:

>Friends:

>

>I just sent the following words to the Letters Ed, WashPost.  It's awfully

>brief, but I think that gives it the maximum chance (still small) of

getting

>published. Of course, a letter from a third party, such as a State Nuclear

>Engineer or other august official, would probably carry more weight.  :-)

>

>Ted Rockwell

>____________________________________________

>

>Michael Levi agrees (Letters, Sept.20) with the main point of my column

>("Radiation Chicken Little," Sept 16).  He says, "Radiation is not as

>dangerous as most people imagine."  But he makes two serious factual

errors.

>

>He says residual contamination "would introduce major safety, logistics and

>cost challenges" and "one in 10 residents...would die of cancer as a

>result."  This is simply untrue.  He gets this number by multiplying a very

>small individual risk by a very large number of people presumed to be

>exposed.  This process of "predicting" deaths has been judged

scientifically

>invalid by every responsible radiation authority.  If no individual

receives

>a harmful dose, then no one is harmed.

>

>Levi says radioactivity "chemically attaches to glass, concrete and

asphalt"

>and would not be removed by high-pressure water hoses.  But then it would

>not be a health hazard--unless one eats the concrete!

>

>Levi talks about radiation levels "ten times the natural radiation

>background."  But there are many places in the world where people live

>healthily in even higher radiation background--up to 100 times average.

>

>Radioactivity is like any other contaminant--it is not mysterious, unknown

>or unnatural.  We should clean it up to whatever level warrants the cost.

>But our judgment should be based on well-established health risk data, not

>on idoelogically based "zero-tolerance" regulations.



S. Fred Singer, Ph.D.

President, The Science & Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

1600 S. Eads St.,   Suite 712-S

Arlington, VA 22202-2907

e-mail:   singer@sepp.org       Web:  www.sepp.org

Tel:  703-920-2744

E-fax  815-461-7448; notify by e-mail before sending

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

"The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses

to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism

is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin."

 > Thomas H. Huxley

  **********

"If the facts change, I'll change my opinion. What do you do, sir? "

 >J. M. Keynes

***********