Re: Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat

[james.g.barnes@att.net]

Good morning;



One of the things that bothers me about these analyses is the use of current 

EPA limits as a measure of the impact of an attack scenario.  The EPA limits 

derive from a cost/benefit model that assumes a steady state, "normal" 

financial and political balance.  In this scenario, then perhaps a "1E-6 / 1E-

4" process makes some sense.



However, in a dirty bomb scenario, we would be FAR from a steady state 

financial or political situation, and this would drastically change the 

equation regarding the cost/benefit analysis.  Thus, I wouldn't be surprised 

to see much higher limits being tolerated (say) for a ten year residency 

time, or for a "voluntary" residency limit being developed. I simply can't 

imagine that this society would PERMIT a trillion dollar loss because of some 

low level contamination, despite what the rhetoric may be in today's scene.



Do you think for a second that a homeowner is going to abandon an (act of 

war) uninsured $ 350K home because it's above the current EPA limits?  What 

then; legal proceedings to condemn the house? No, I think folk's tolerance of 

things radioactive will change mightly when the potential loss is THEIR loss, 

not some diffuse, amorphous social cost.



We badly need some reanalysis of this point in our planning and discussions.  

WMD is not business as usual; we need to get some realistic assessment going 

on this point so we will know what to do if and when such an attack occurs.



Similar situation applies to dose limits for first responders, etc., but 

that's a discussion for a different day.



Jim Barnes, CHP

> Again this is an excellent brief on RDDs from the

> Federation Of American Scientists. It  shows the

> complexities of such an event. Unfortunately in action

> by Congress has not changed the current picture at all. 

> 

> Gerry Blackwood Ph.D

> PS: My apologies for any typo's in my previous posts. 

> 

> Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat

> 

> Henry Kelly testified before the Senate Foreign

> Relations Committee on March 6, 2002 on the threat of

> radiological attack by terrorist groups. This excerpt

> is taken from the text of his written testimony, based

> on analysis by Michael Levi, Robert Nelson, and Jaime

> Yassif, which can be found by clicking here. 

> 

> Surely there is no more unsettling task than

> considering how to defend our nation against

> individuals and groups seeking to advance their aims by

> killing and injuring innocent people. But recent events

> make it necessary to take almost inconceivably evil

> acts seriously. Our analysis of this threat has reached

> three principle conclusions: 

> 

> http://www.fas.org/faspir/2002/v55n2/dirtybomb.htm

> 

> _________________________________________________

> FindLaw - Free Case Law, Jobs, Library, Community

> http://www.FindLaw.com

> Get your FREE @JUSTICE.COM email!

> http://mail.Justice.com

> ************************************************************************

> 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/

> 

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

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/