Skip to comments.Government has 'dirty bomb' cleanup guide
Posted on 01/03/2006 9:38:36 PM PST by neverdem
WASHINGTON -- The government issued cleanup standards Tuesday for a "dirty bomb" terrorist attack that would in some cases be far less rigorous than what is required for Superfund sites, nuclear power plants and nuclear waste dumps.
After such an attack, long-term radiation exposure could remain at levels that would be expected to produce cancers in one of every four people who return to the contaminated sites, anti-nuclear watchdog groups said after analyzing the new federal guidelines.
Dirty bombs - largely theoretical terrorist weapons - would use conventional explosives to disperse radioactive material without a nuclear explosion. Such weapons, which could use Cesium 137 or other radioactives, would be useful as terror devices because they can render an area dangerous or uninhabitable.
The guidelines issued by the Homeland Security Department say the impact from detonating a crude nuclear device or a dirty bomb could vary widely, from contaminating a small area, such as a single building or city block, to conceivably many square miles. So, it said, cleanup requirements also could vary widely.
In some cases, the document suggested, long-term radiation exposures of as much as 10,000 millirems per year - a level equivalent to hundreds of chest X-rays a year or 30 times the annual exposure to radiation from natural "background" sources - could be allowed for areas that are returned to general use.
If there is widespread contamination from a dirty bomb or an "improvised nuclear device" - which could cause a crude nuclear explosion - some areas may have to be put off limits permanently, the guidelines said.
The guidelines, which go into effect immediately but could be modified after a public comment period, brought sharp criticism from some environmental groups and nuclear watchdog organizations.
Long-term radiation levels of 10,000 millirems a year as would be permitted by the guidelines in some cases can be expected to produce a cancer in one of every four people exposed, said Diane D'Arrigo, of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a Washington-based nuclear industry watchdog group, citing government radiation risk assessments.
The federal guidelines do not establish specific numerical standards for cleanup, but they cite radiation "benchmarks" established by other agencies or international organizations that would be acceptable.
Among those benchmarks that could be used under the guidelines is one established by the International Commission on Radiation Protection which cites a long-term release of 10,000 millirems a year as an acceptable exposure standard after cleanup.
By comparison, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not allow exposure to the public of more than 100 millirems per year in its cleanup standard. The exposure at a future Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site has a limit of 15 millirems. Background radiation from natural sources averages about 350 millirems, while exposure from a chest X-ray is about 6 millirems.
Donald Tighe, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology, said the guidelines specifically avoided setting a numerical cleanup standard for long-term radiation exposure. Instead, he said, it is hoped the guidelines will help state, local and federal officials choose appropriate cleanup standards depending on circumstances.
"It would be very inaccurate for anyone to characterize this as leaning toward any one side of the range of (cleanup) standards" that might be available, said Tighe.
But Daniel Hirsch, of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, a nuclear watchdog group in California, said the guidelines are so lax that it opens the way for cleanup efforts to fall short of what is needed to protect public health.
The Department of Homeland Security "is proposing a nuclear Katrina, a formal policy of allowing the public to be exposed to massive radiation doses from a dirty bomb while the government does nothing to protect them," he said.
Dirty Ditch Bombs - terrorist propaganda weapons - use American-born shills to disperse incendiary, baseless accusations of the Bush administration and hope for a media explosion. Such weapons, which use Cretin-238, Anti-Americum 137, Sheehanium-666 or other Marxist isotopes, are used as terror devices because they can render an area uninhabitable by making an enormous mental sucking sound.
LOL...good one, Blur!
Oh, for petes sake....they'll be lucky to be alive if a dirty bomb hits anywhere NEAR THEM.....and they BITCH about clean up GUIDELINES..
Roflmao... It just occurred to me that I could probably make some good money selling radiation proof athletic "cups."
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
The Dirty Bomb is not meant to make an area uninhabitable. It is meant to make it impossible to meet the current cleaner-than-clean clearance standard we have imposed on ourselves for nuclear reactors and remediation sites.
While it might make sense to clean small sites to such an exacting standard and to require nuclear reactors to contain all the radioactivity they generate, it makes no sense to apply this standard to decontamination after a military strike. If we kept the old standard, we would be loading a gun, pointing to our own head, and looking the other way while al Qaeda pulls the trigger.
After the bomb goes off, it will be too late to promulgate new standards. Witness the continuing acrimony over the WTC clean-up. People just don't trust the government enough to believe they are being protective enough when there is major money at stake. So issue the guidelines now, listen to the howls of the people who will howl, and when the time comes, you will have an achievable target.
The alternative to the new standards is abandoning the site of any dirty bomb explosion forever. It would simply not be possible to decontaminate one of these sites to the cleaner-than-clean standards, no matter how much money was thrown at the problem. As with all things, the first 99.9% is easy, and that last 0.1% will cost you everything you have.
The best cleanup for a dirty bomb is a fusion weapon air-burst over Tehran and other choice locales.
These kinds of devices are not too extremely difficult to make and since we are such a wide open country, driving up to a site and detonating it is a piece of cake. I do not believe AQ would use bio or a dirty bomb. They are after another thriller, they want big explosions that get televised - then they get new recruits for the jihad. Our real efforts are and should continue being spent on making sure a real nuclear device is never acquired by AQ.
I agree with your analysis. Other than getting the equivalent of a tactical decontamination, what else can be done for a piece of critical real estate or infrastructure? As usual, by calling it "a nuclear Katrina" the envirowackos offer nothing but fear.
Thanks for the ping.
You just know that this guy is bitching about the NSA surveillance which is designed for him not to have to worry about 'nuclear cleanup'.
I'm sure the irony would be lost on him.
"Well, if al Qaeda gets a real nuke, we'll have to decontaminate from that, as well."
Very true and I agree. I was not intending to imply that we should not have decontamination plans, just not go overboard and keep our resources where they are and should continue to belong, preventing AQ from getting that nuke.
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.