Posted on 06/04/2007 11:07:45 PM PDT by neverdem
Print Edition
Since 9/11, politicians and pundits have repeatedly warned that terrorists who can’t get their mitts on a fully functioning nuclear device could still spread radioactive death with a “dirty bomb,” a conventional explosive combined with radioactive material. Such a weapon, they claim, would scatter the material far and wide, rendering a large area unlivable and turning rescue efforts into suicide missions.
The results of tests involving controlled dirty bomb explosions, reported at a February meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, cast doubt on this scary scenario. Physicist Fred Harper of Sandia National Laboratory in Albuquerque, who led the experiments, said even first responders on the scene of a dirty bomb attack probably would not need full radiation suits. The tests indicated that most of the radioactive material would attach to large fragments of debris and end up on the ground, not in the air, making for an easier cleanup. And the very smallest particles, which could cause radiation damage if inhaled, tend to float above most people’s breathing space.
Steven Musolino of Brookhaven National Laboratory, who worked on the dirty bomb experiments with Harper, summed it up this way: “Pretty much everything bad happens within 500 meters, and to a large extent [the bad effects] don’t happen.” That conclusion jibes with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s fact sheet on dirty bombs, which says the long-term health risk of limited exposure to radioactive particles is probably “extremely small.” The commission categorizes the dirty bomb not as a weapon of mass destruction, but as a weapon of mass disruption.
Pretty much what I’ve been saying for a long time (based on some reading and also some SWAG, good to see it experimentally confirmed.)
People are flat out nutty about radiation, though - you’ll see chain smokers refuse to go within 50 miles of a dirty bomb attack location, etc. if one ever happens.
OK, I nominate the author to accompany 1st Responders on the scene and document the destruction and reconstruction from the ground zero of the first dirty bomb that gets detonated. 500 meters of radioactive destruction in a highly urban area such as, (insert your most vulnerable high value target here), and calculate the loss in human and economic terms. This author is a moron in my view.
And this conclusion is based on...what, exactly?
The greatest danger of a dirty bomb is panic, not the bomb itself.
I agree it won’t be Hiroshima in radioactive terms, but it doesn’t have to be to totally screw up the psyche of the country. And, with say Cobalt 60 or something of that ilk you do end up with a potentially catastrophic outcome in a small area.
I recall an article in a local paper with the headline, "Radiation spill at Easton Hospital" ( Easton, Pa. ) The article recounted an incident where a patient had a radioactive tracer being fed into a vein while he was on a treadmill, and the needle came loose, and some drops of the radioactive tracer spilled onto the floor! I remember thinking, "Man, there's no hope."
These weapons aren’t really intended to cause casualties so much as to cause people to avoid the affected areas. So, for that matter, were most tactical applications of chemical weapons, which these weapons resemble much more closely than they do actual nuclear explosions. They are “area denial” weapons. Their effectiveness depends on frightening the public, not killing.
I welcome all terrorist attempts to attack nuclear reactors as it distracts them from attacking easier targets they might actually damage.
It's sort of amazing that the media has gotten leftist and envirowhacko attitudes towards nuclear power to become so pervasive they even are routine on a conservative board.
“And this conclusion is based on...what, exactly?”
The fact that the author over simplifies the equation. Little or no consideration for the choice of target, the isotope(s), the dispersal details, the psychological effects to the citizenry, the non-local economic ramifications, the policy changes that would result, yada yada....
Any way you cut it a dirty bomb would be a horrendous event even with limited casualties.
Well, when terrorists figure out how to pack up an entire poorly-designed Soviet reactor complex and transport it to the US, let me know. I have a feeling even the most clueless customs agent is going to notice that in someone's trunk.
BTW, you are aware that the estimated number of deaths at locations away from the immediate vicinity of Chernobyl has been drastically reduced over the years from the initial very high estimates, right?
I think you're missing the deeper point - it's only a horrendous event because the frantic overhype of dirty bombs cause people to THINK it's a horrendous event.
I am not missing the point. Rather, I am acknowledging it is a reality that effects the equation and wasn’t. It matters not that the public reaction is not rational, you still have to calculate the irrational reaction as part of the damages.
In other words if you are in the path of a stampede, you have to get out of the way regardless of how trivial the event that started the stampede was.
I agree idiocy is idiocy, but if you have good reason to expect an idiotic reaction you still have to plan for it or else your the idiot!
What a world!
Sic.
Still claiming nonsense about the peril of the first responders?
I stand by my premise that the author oversimplified a complex problem. The fact that I narrowed my focus in subsequent posts to discussing a predictable frenzy that will be doubtlessly chummed by the media should not be misinterpreted to mean I in any way back down from my other statements. That reasoning is non sequitor.
Nice try though. Who looks silly now?
Ever been a first responder? I have. It is very dangerous. Catch a clue.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.