Re: AW: A "dirty bomb" question

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 10/27/2003 5:30:47 PM Pacific Standard Time, 

franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT writes:

Since you address the comment of Ruth and since I have my own opinion of all 

these scenarios of a "dirty bomb" - I regard it as an exclusive US political 

question in order to raise or defend funds for the DHS - I would suggest to 

"would-be terrorists" as the most cost-effective alternative, to explode a few 

fire-crackers at some crowded places in the USA and at the same time informing 

CNN that a dirty bomb was exploded. The panic caused by it would be equal to 

the one caused by an explosion of a real dirty bomb. Perception is, what 

obviously counts in the USA, not reality!!!!

I quite agree, this would probably be quite effective, which is why I think 

the health agencies should be aggressively educating the public rather than 

allowing them to stew in their misperceptions.



One only need reach back to February of this year to know how deadly panic 

can be:



"The Feb. 17 stampede at the E2 nightclub [in Chicago, IL] began when an 

irritant was used to break up a dance-floor fight and patrons fled for the doors, 

crushing one another in their attempts to leave.  Twenty-one people died and 

more than 50 were injured."



The irritant was simply that - irritating, not deadly, but for the panic it 

caused.



Barbara