Re: Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat

["Gerry Blackwood" <gpblackwood@justice.com>]

Carol,



I used the FAS site to show the complexities of such an

event not for the science it may or may not have

provided. Which i should have noted and did not.

However you pointed to the real problem here. The lack

of rational discussion over this issue  and the

plethora of opinions that it generates ending in a lack

of sound management and regulations. Hence while all

are debating this issue the threat is very much real.

My point is simple why wait and react when we can

pre-plan properly. But for anyone to say that this is a

minor problem in the scheme of things is far from the

truth.



Gerry Blackwood Ph.D





On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:01:46 -0800, Carol Marcus wrote:

 





At 06:02 AM 12/11/2003, Gerry Blackwood wrote:

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.



Dear Radsafers:

I read the brief, and while it has a number of good

points, it has some

drawbacks as well.  First of all, it assumes the truth

of the

linear-no threshold (LNT) model for radiation

carcinogenesis, which is

the basis of EPA guidance.  I think that the use of the

LNT model is

severely flawed, and should not be used here at all. 

It vastly

overestimates radiation carcinogenesis, and attributes

cancer production

at low radiation levels which have never been shown to

cause cancer, and

which have, on many occasions, been shown to have

hormetic value

instead.  

In addition, recall that 38% of women get cancer, and

42% of men (this

does not count most skin cancers), and 23.5% of

Americans die of

cancer.  Raising the risk by one in a thousand or one

in a hundred

isn't very much of a risk increase.  Other factors,

such as living

in cities with dirty air, are probably much more

deleterious to health

than a little radiation.  

The EPA standards are, in my opinion,  dangerously

oversimplistic

and inaccurate.  Once they are removed and replaced

with something

scientifically  more appropriate, we can get a better

idea of the

consequences of likely scenarios.  

Second, the FAS has not considered the use of "water

planes" as

are used in California and elsewhere to fight fires. 

Dumping huge

quantities of water over contaminated areas soon after

detonation of an

RDD would probably wash a significant quantity of the

loose radioactive

material into the sewer.  In Los Angeles, this goes out

several

miles into the Pacific Ocean, which is a rather large

body for dilution

and dispersion, even though particulates will probably

take a long time

to dissolve, if ever.  There are also some

decontamination resins

recently developed that could improve the efficiency of

plain

water.

Third, the FAS has an inadequate concept of "security". 

While some sources may be secured to a greater extent

than at present,

nothing is secure against terrorists willing to die.  A

source

behind a locked door with a guard at the door is a

deterrent, but the

guard can be shot and the lock exploded.  The source

can be

detonated in situ by suicidal terrorists, and there is

your RDD,

despite "security".  

Fourth, the FAS thinks that we should substitute other

techniques for

those using radioactive material because of a fear of

RDD consequences

that is, I believe, blown completely out of

proportion.  It sound

like the terrorists have succeeded without an RDD.  The

FAS

is already terrified.  There is no substitute for

radioactive

material in Nuclear Medicine.

And as far as abandoning Manhattan, well, remember that

we bought it for

$24 worth of trinkets, and I'll be happy to buy a few

contaminated square

miles of Manhattan for prices like that, on the belief

that it won't stay

abandoned for long at all.

Ciao, Carol

Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.

<csmarcus@ucla.edu>



_________________________________________________

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/