Re: Cannot have it both ways

["jjcohen" <jjcohen@PRODIGY.NET>]

      The public is not completely irrational. Given that the government  requires massive expenditures to clean up trivial quantities of residual radioactive contamination, how can we suggest that consequences of any "dirty bomb" events would be no big deal?



        ----- Original Message ----- 

        From: Fritz A. Seiler 

        To: LNMolino@AOL.COM ; radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu 

        Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 3:44 PM

        Subject: RE: " Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud "





        Hi All,



            I don't understand what the precise meaning of the word "dud" is 

        here. Nuclear devices can be duds, when only the conventional C4

        or so goes up.  I hope that this is not what is meant here.  Otherwise,

        the power of an RDD is defined by the size of the chemical explosive.

        That is also where in my opinion most of the danger to nearby people

        comes  from.  What I do know is that an RDD works best if it uses a

        conventional explosive,  a TNT-derivative or C4 or so, to disperse a 

        pre-existing invaluable radioactive aerosol.  

            In this context, let us also always remember to give thanks to not 

        only the anti-nukes who spread lies, but also to the inventors and the

        sustainers of the LNT Model, as well as to the ALARA enthusiasts 

        (with their nonsensical statement "Every little bit hurts!") for helping to

        create that widespread and unreasoning fear in our public of anything

        even remotely connected with radioactivity. Without their contributions,

        an RDD would just be a bomb, fearful enough, but just a bomb.  What

        we really don't need, is this added fear created by bad science.  And

        by bad science I mean the kind of science that is created by people 

        who deliberately choose to ignore the strong experimental evidence 

        for the effects of radiation hormesis that strongly contradicts the LNT 

        and its properties and that has contradicted it since long before the 

        LNT was given paradigm status.



        Best regards,



        Fritz



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

        Fritz A. Seiler, Ph.D. 

        Sigma Five Consulting:       Private: 

        P.O. Box 1709                   P.O. Box 437 

        Los Lunas, NM 87031         Tome', NM 87060 

        Tel.:      505-866-5193         Tel. 505-866-6976 

        Fax:      505-866-5197         USA 

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



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

        "This is the hour when democracy must justify 

        itself by capacity  for effective decision, or risk 

        destruction or desintegration. Europe is dotted 

        with the ruins of right decisions taken too late." 



        "America's Responsibility in the Current Crisis" 

        Manifesto of the Christian Realists. May, 1940. 

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





         -----Original Message-----

        From: owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu [mailto:owner-radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu]On Behalf Of LNMolino@AOL.COM

        Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 10:38 AM

        To: radsafe@list.Vanderbilt.Edu

        Subject: Re: " Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud "





          It does NOT have to be about bloody bodies! Terrorism is about FEAR. An RDD "dud" can generate fear just. The fact is that if your focus on the body count, damage, etc., Yes then a Dirty Bob is a dud BUT if you manage to generate fear with the panic that can and will occur you may well have achieved your goals if you are the BAD GUYS.



          Louis N. Molino, Sr., CET

          FF/NREMT-B/FSI/EMSI

          LNMolino@aol.com

          979-690-3607 (Home Office)



          "