AW: A "dirty bomb" question

["Franz Schoenhofer" <franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT>]

    -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----

    Von: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]Im Auftrag von LNMolino@AOL.COM

    Gesendet: Montag, 27. Oktober 2003 22:28

    An: RuthWeiner@AOL.COM; liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM

    Cc: tedrock@starpower.net; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

    Betreff: Re: A "dirty bomb" question





    In a message dated 10/27/2003 12:47:05 PM Central Standard Time,

RuthWeiner@AOL.COM writes:

        As I also said (which was ignored) that I can't think of a "dirty

bomb" scenario that would cause sufficient harm to cause panic.  And I

absolutely can't think of a situation that is helped by panic.

    My entire point is that not one person need be harmed to cause the panic

and that the panic in and of itself could be seen as a terrorist event.



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

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



    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!!!!



    Best regards



    Franz