[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dirty Bomb

To: "John Jacobus" <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>, radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu
Subject: Re: Dirty Bomb
From: "RadSafeInst" <RadSafeInst@cableone.net>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:47:15 -0600
References: <20031027205420.83322.qmail@web41604.mail.yahoo.com>
Reply-To: "RadSafeInst" <RadSafeInst@cableone.net>
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

I agree with your position (below) that the distinction between acute and chronic is an important one. Also, the HPS position paper was interesting!                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Ed Battle



Subject: Re: Dirty Bomb

 The problem with using exposures to populations in

 Iran, Brazil, etc. is that the exposures are

 protracted.  First reponders will be receiving an

 accute exposure.  I would prefer quoting the position

 paper of the HPS: 

 http://hps.org/documents/radiationrisk.pdf

References:
- Re: Dirty Bomb
  - From: John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>

Prev by Date: Re: A "dirty bomb" question
Next by Date: Re: A "dirty bomb" question
Prev by thread: Re: Dirty Bomb
Next by thread: RE: Dirty Bomb
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread