[cdn-nucl-l] Call for action to prevent panic

[AtomicRod@aol.com]

The below is a call for action for people that understand the real effects of 
exposure to radioactive materials.

A conventional explosive wrapped with some radioactive isotopes is not a big 
threat aside from the effects of the explosive itself.

Here is my logic.

Alpha and beta emitters are only a problem if the material is inhaled -- the 
solution is to make sure people understand how to protect themselves. It is 
simple to provide detectors that will warn people of dangerous levels of 
contamination, something that cannot be done with biological agents or even 
many dangerous chemicals.

Gamma emitters are another story, however, how would anyone build and deliver 
a bomb surrounded by powerful gamma emitters? Wrap it with enough shielding 
to protect the deliverers long enough to actually get the bomb to target and 
you have something that no car or plane will be able to lift. 

WE MUST to prevent the panic about dirty bombs.

On the other hand, the risk from actual nuclear explosives is very real and 
very scary. That is the danger that we must focus on trying to solve. A small 
nuclear explosive would make the effects of 400,000 pounds of kerosene seem 
like a pin prick. Four hundred thousand pounds of kerosene has the explosive 
equivalent of about 0.4 kilotons.

A start might be to spend some time reading an old book titled "Nuclear War 
Survival Skills." It is available on the web at 
http://www.oism.org/nwss/s73p904.htm 

Now that is a chilling thought.

Rod Adams


In a message dated 11/10/01 2:55:19 PM, adam.mclean@utoronto.ca writes:

>Having access to such radioactive material, however, is a long way from
>
>making a real nuclear bomb. That would require plutonium and highly enriched
>
>uranium and a lot of technical knowhow. However, the mishmash of nuclear
>
>fuel and radioactive junk being touted in Istanbul over the weekend and
>
>which Mr Puffer saw in Peshawar would suffice to make a "dirty bomb".
>
>
>
>Such a weapon would consist of a rough assembly of radioactive material
>
>clumped around conventional explosives. When detonated, the blast would
>send
>
>up a plume of radioactive particles into the atmosphere killing and
>
>contaminating hundreds of thousands of people for miles around.
>
>
>
>The International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA) was initially sceptical
>
>about the "dirty bomb" threat but has changed its mind since September
>11.
>
>
>
>"We think this is entirely a live possibility," said David Kyd, a spokesman
>
>for the IAEA, which is based in Vienna.
>
>
>
>Mr Kyd said it could be delivered in the same way that the IRA took
>
>explosives into the City of London: inside a medium-sized van or lorry.
>
>Immediate fatalities would be confined to those caught up in an explosion
>
>but over the longer term there could be deaths from contamination. The
>main
>
>problem would be the sense of panic it would create.