Re: Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat

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

Mr. Barnes,



While I agree with you I can imagine a lot of pressure

being placed on the US Government and politicians to

react. The problem is just that. We wait and then

react. If 911 is used as an  example of how Congress

would react in the event of a RDD explosion in lets say

NYC all bets are off. And yes I believe people as

uneducated in this arena as they are would not just

walk away they would demand recourse. There are plenty

of examples of how people overreact to environmental

contamination even if its so low level as to be funny.

Where do you want to start? How about asbestos? We

treat asbestos as a methyl ethyl nasty stuff even

though in most cases it is not friable nor any where

near the TWA or TLV criteria. I just shake my head to

see responders walking around in Level B in a asbestos

incident. Moreover I believe we should be pre-planning

and setting the stage now not waiting for an event to

occur.



Gerry Blackwood



On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:49:29 +0000,

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/



_________________________________________________

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/