Scrubbing 'Dirty Bombs' - Explosive hype

Reason ^ | June 2006 | Brian Doherty

[JasonC]

You do, of course.

sequitur.

You said in later posts the reaction is irrational. You said in the first it is rational and the author "a moron" for thinking dangers overhyped, when he is of course entirely correct. You said in your last that this was only a narrowing of focus; it isn't.

And you also pretend an enthymeme of your own is a syllogism of mine, which is practically the definition of non sequitur and straw man combined.

It is pathetic, really...

[JasonC]

Fallacy of authority. Also, since not referring to a dirty bomb, the subject under discussion, red herring fallacy. It is dangerous to walk into a burning building, ergo walking into a dirty bomb aftermath is - ergo nothing, there is no relation whatever.

Bug on a windshield...

[Sir Clean Plate Club]

“Sic [sic].”

[ModelBreaker]

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.

A 500 M radius circle contaminated with even low level radiation in downtown manhattan would be a fairly disruptive thing--at least on the order of 911 and probably quite a bit worse.

[Wonder Warthog]

"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."

Give me a Geiger counter, and I'll be glad to go in. I know enough about radiation to know that the author is anything BUT a moron. The major damage from a "dirty bomb" would be psychological. You're wrong.

[Wonder Warthog]

"A 500 M radius circle contaminated with even low level radiation in downtown manhattan would be a fairly disruptive thing--at least on the order of 911 and probably quite a bit worse."

Not even close.

[Lawdoc]

“The major damage from a “dirty bomb” would be psychological.”

If you read my other posts on this topic you would see that I have already said as much.

[RightWhale]

The radiation will have to be cleaned up. Not cheap. Everyone will have to leave the area. Actual destruction would be the same as from any truck bomb plus destruction due to the cleanup. Human loss minimal, economic loss $billions, but all FedGov money.

[ModelBreaker]

Not even close.

Hmmm. I don't do rad cleanup. But I work with folks who do. And the insanity they have to go thru for even really low level stuff like DU is extraordinary.

Plus, how do you get past the people factor? Noone will ever accept that that 500 M (and a large area around it) is safe again.

[Wonder Warthog]

"But I work with folks who do. And the insanity they have to go thru for even really low level stuff like DU is extraordinary."

Yes, and insanity is exactly what it is. Most of that rigmarole is just overkill window-dressing to satisfy some ignorant bureaucrats. Folks who actually KNOW about radiation know better. In my college days I minored in nuclear science, and worked with Co-60, Cs-137, and on a few occasions, Cf-252, so I "do" know the score here.

"Plus, how do you get past the people factor? Noone will ever accept that that 500 M (and a large area around it) is safe again."

Simplest thing in the world. Hand'em a Geiger counter and let'em measure the residual radiation level for themselves. "Dirty bombs" are a minor hazard. The real danger is biological. Read up on some of the stuff the Soviets cooked up in their biowarfare programs and be very afraid.

[ColdWater]

This author is a moron in my view.

Based on what? Your expertise?

[ColdWater]

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.

He doesn't discuss the psyche of the country.

[ColdWater]

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.

'irrational reactions' were outside the scope of the article and not required to be discussed.

[Centurion2000]

Thanks to the overhyped nature of a dirty bomb, anyone using on the US will be subject to nuclear attack.

[GOPJ]

The commission categorizes the dirty bomb not as a weapon of mass destruction, but as a weapon of mass disruption.

What a strange world -- that this is good news...