[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat
Rather than focusing on what limits to use for
decontamination purposes, I would like some thought
about the costs such an enterprise would entail. As
examples, how much did it cost to clean up the
contamination incident in Goiania, Brazil? Was it
worth the expense? My first thought that it was have
been worth it as it was done. As a more extreme case,
how much did it cost to clean up the World Trade
Center site? While it did not involve a radiological
event, I think the cost must have been acceptable
since it was done.
Simply put, resources will be expended no matter what
the level of contamination or damage.
--- james.g.barnes@att.net wrote:
> 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/
>
=====
+++++++++++++++++++
"Style is knowing who you are, what you want to say, and not giving a damn"
Gore Vidal
-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail: crispy_bird@yahoo.com
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing.
http://photos.yahoo.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/