RE: A "dirty bomb" question

["Jaro" <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca>]

In their DRDC ( Defense R&D Canada) Suffield First Responder Course - 2001,

the assumed RDD is in fact the equivalent of millions of smoke detectors (

or about the same as the current number in buildings & houses in the city of

Montreal, which was the scene of the hypothetical RDD scenario).



They assume 10 x 10Ci Am241 logging sources (I believe it might not be too

difficult to get a hold of one or two such devices, but 10 seems rather

far-fetched -- I doubt any oil company would have that many, of that size,

in one spot).



See Module 8 - Radiological Dispersion PDF (3.2 Mb) at

http://www.dres.dnd.ca/Meetings/FirstResponders/ , starting on page 9.



They conclude that the consequences of such an RDD event would contamination

of millions of square kilometers of land down-wind of Montreal, costing

billions of dollars to decontaminate.

But as you say, comparison to high-background areas like Kerala, Ramsar or

Guarapari, would make this sort of thing largely a non-event.....

Of course they didn't do that in the DRDC study, so it became a terrific

media bonanza, splashing color diagrams from the report all over the front

page of the local daily newspaper, back in June 2002 (something to resurrect

for the coming Halloween ?)



 Jaro



http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec_main.html



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^







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

From: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

[mailto:owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu]On Behalf Of LNMolino@AOL.COM

Sent: Saturday, October 25, 2003 10:10 AM

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

Subject: Re: A "dirty bomb" question





Ted in the here and now of emergency response any reading above local

background will bring a MAJOR response that has been discussed on this list

to the point of ridicule by some on this list towards emergency responders.

I am trying to change that BUT i am but one lone non RAD emergency services

instructors. I understand your point about health effects BUT you will see

panic in the streets as it were if a meter goes whacky at a bombing. Since

my first class under FEMA as a RAD monitor using the God awful CDV 700

series monitors I have been taught and later I taught that above background

was cause for alarm. I NOW know that si not true but you have a responder

mind set that is just as I describe.



In a message dated 10/25/2003 9:00:48 AM Central Daylight Time,

tedrock@starpower.net writes:

I think it's important not to imply that anything above local background is

an "effective weapon."  I believe the criterion should be a level high

enough to cause a significant health problem if exposed for say an hour or

less.  That would require thousands of smoke detectors on a theoretical

basis, and millions on a practical basis.



Ted Rockwell



Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

LNMolino@aol.com

979-690-3607 (Home Office)

979-458-0795 (Fire Field Office)



"A Texan with a Jersey Attitude"



The comments contained in this E-mail are the opinions of the author and the

author alone. I in no way ever intend to speak for any person or

organization that I am in any way whatsoever involved or associated with

unless I specifically state that I am doing so. Further this E-mail is

intended only for it's stated recipient and may contain private and or

confidential materials retransmission is strictly prohibited unless placed

in the public

domain by the original author.



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

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/