Re: Dirty Bombs: Response to a Threat

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

Jim,



Let me respond in this manner.....My responses as noted.





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.



Response: Yes RDD or Nuclear Detonations are really not

normal though with a nuke we have the pre-plans

necessary for the most part to act. In the RDD case we

do not and cannot response as if it were a nuclear

detonation. Two very different scenario's though my bet

is that unless we pre-plan for an RDD attack which is

not an "IF" but "WHEN" scenario and there is plenty of

smuggling going on to make this assumption, we will

respond to a nuclear incident in all its glory

compounding the event.



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.



Response: Its going to be a big deal no matter if your

a large company or the home owner if your impacted. The

media and her so-called experts will see to that.

 

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.



Response: Abandon NO. Demand recourse to the 10th

power? Oh you can make book on that one. Homeowners

have done worse when impacted even though slightly by a

superfund site. Add the "R" word (Radiation) to the

contamination and watch what will happen. The

repercussions of the release maybe preposterous to you

and me but to the average Joe on the street they are

not. Last summer we did a survey of 2000 people in NYC

on WMD's. On the bio side, ricin was viewed as the one

most people chose as the worst of the bio weapons,

forget weaponized anthrax. On this note when asked why

ricin,  most responded that it was what the news media

was reporting. On the Nuke side is was not a loose nuke

but a dirty bomb that spooked most people. When asked

if they though the US was prepared the answer by the

majority was, NO. When asked how they would respond to

an dirty bomb event, the majority said they would

depart Manhatten and not return until the area in which

they lived was "ABSOLUTELY CLEAN".  On the nuke side

most people believe in the old Nuclear Safety Rule #10.

Which states, upon seeing the brilliant flash of a

nuclear explosion, immediately assume the safety

position, bending over, placing your head between your

legs and kissing your A$$ goodbye. Meaning there was

not much they would be able to do. Plainly we are

failing to educate the population.



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.



Response: The US Government will not act as the insurer

you can bet on that one. They may provide assistance

through FEMA but thats about it I believe. Of course

Congress would then react and all bets are off. Though

I agree with you that the Earthquake authority model

would very plausible. If established in advance.

However using the current EPA standards for a RDD

release would add to the clean up cost expediently. I

firmly believe that the low level and clean up standard

need to be reviewed and adjusted accordingly, right now.

  

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).



Response: If we do not educate the population to low

level radiation exposure they will tolerate nothing nor

will they trust. If the regulators and congress don't

move they will later on and all bets are off. Your

concern with regard to the community is right on mark

and I agree with the rest of it as well. Then again we

know better, the public does not. Lets not forget add

the "M" factor and it  really screws up the works.

M=Media.



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.



Response: While again I agree but I am of the thinking

that this has to be done before the event not during

the event. Besides the debate that will ensue every

special interest group known to man will be involved

removing rational though from the process.

> 

> ==================================

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.



Response: DITTO! My personal belief is that the

community needs to deal with this now, the threat is

very real. 





Gerry 



_________________________________________________

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/