RE: Study Raises Projection For 'Dirty Bomb' Toll

["Jaro" <jaro-10kbq@sympatico.ca>]

That sounds like an excellent idea John -- unfortunately I don't think its

going to go anywhere, because it runs counter to the need for radiation

scare mongering :-)



Maybe in order to make some headway, we ought to make people sick of the

current scheme by adding more trivial radiation sources to the list of

reported lost sources -- like those "lost" in the urine of patients treated

with I-131.



 Jaro



http://www.cns-snc.ca/branches/quebec/quebec.html



^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^





What I would like to see is some scale like the IAEA's International

Radiological Event Scale (IRES) to quantify the risk to the public.  For

example, if the last material would result in an exposure of less than 100

mrem (1 mSv) to the public in one year should have the lowest level of risk.

A source that was easily disperable and had a high risk of uptake would have

the highest risk level.  Then, we could report that 100 lost sources had a

risk level of 5 (lowest), 20 had a risk level of 4, etc.



What are your thoughts?





************************************************************************

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/