[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat
Gerry,
I generally agree with your comments. There will be tremendous pressure
to "act."
It just seems to me that folks keep bringing assumptions to the table that
are inappropriate to the situation of an RDD or nuclear detonation. WMD /
RDD situations are not "normal," so "normal" solutions probably aren't
applicable.
As an expansion of my previous points:
1) There will be no private insurance coverage. Most companies have opted
out of terrorist or "acts of war" events. So whoever is affected by these
events will be faced with the potential of significant financial losses.
This may not be a big deal if you're a big corporation, but it IS a big deal
if it's your house, condo, car, or front yard that's contaminated.
2) Are you, Mr. Homeowner, going to abandon your uninsured property because
you might run a 1:1,000,000 (or even 1:10,000) risk of cancer in the distant
future? I don't think so. I think such limits would do more harm than good
(look at Chernobyl for this one; it's now becoming clear that the disruption
in lives from the evacuation of the 30 km zone was far more damaging to
health than the radiation could EVER have been). The financial and emotional
repercussions of the use of routine release limits in this situation are
preposterous. They certainly fail any ALARA formula that I'm aware of.
3) Should the government be the insurer of last resort? If so, then does it
make sense to even CONSIDER using routine EPA release limits in one of these
scenarios, or are we ready to devise some more realistic scenarios as the
basis of limits as it would apply to FINANCIAL and emotional disruption on a
massive scale. The government did provide support funds in the aftermath of
the WTC, but that emanated from a widespread sense of shock and dismay felt
throughout the country. I suspect we are just a little bit more hardened now,
and that the government will not be quite so willing to do the same thing
again if there's a next time around; the psychology will be quite different,
I think.
It does suggest, however, that we should be getting together some type of
gov't assisted insurance arrangements (perhaps FEMA) to deal with these
events. We have the California Earthquake Authority here in LA as private
insurance companies won't touch such insurance after the Northridge and San
Francisco quakes of the 1990's. I think the model would work for terrorism
insurance.
4) Further, I don't think you have to get rid of LNT to address the
situation. I think the point is that when people are confronted with
significant personal financial losses or the option of wholesale
displacement, they will become a bit more willing to tolerate some
radioactive contamination. My concern is that this is not being properly
explored by the regulatory or professional communities in order to try to
come to grips with what IS a reasonable "tolerable living" (not
necessarily "release") criteria for an attack zone. I think that can be
derived within the framework of LNT (I'm not saying LNT is right or wrong
here; all I'm saying is that given the type of losses such an attack would
represent, the tolerance factor of the risk equation would probably be
drastically changed, enough that a regulatory / political solution could be
developed).
5) It may be that we don't really need refined criteria. For example, we
could say that a dose limit of 5,000 mrem per year in an area would be
acceptable (say on a voluntary basis) for the first year post-attack. I have
to think that in most cases, simple decon with hoses would be able to knock
most locations well under that limit. Then EPA (or whoever) could publish
new guidelines or limits based upon an evaluation of the situation as it
existed at the time, and could promulgate it within (say) 6 months post-
attack. But at any rate, the approach should be discussed now; not two days
after an event. The limits could then be refined over time.
==================================
I think it's time to get out of the box and really start taking a look at all
the assumptions being tossed around and come up with contingency plans that
will work in the short, interim, and long term. I think we all understand the
problem now; what is needed is some innovative approaches to resolving it,
not saying that we'll tear down half of New York city because we can't get a
storage closet below 100 dpm/100 cm2.
Jim Barnes, CHP
> 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/
>
************************************************************************
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/