Replies

I responded to your comment about the idea that thousands of people will die and that the place will be uninhabitable. You don't know what you are talking about. What is interesting is that during the 1970's and 1980's I used to have this conversation with anti-nuclear power people all the time. I remember this one guy in technology review, a PHD, he said, who had worked on the bomb back in the 40's. He made the idiotic claim that radiation levels 10 times normal background would result in millions of deaths and be a catastrophe. When I pointed out studies in journals such as Radiation Biology (name could be off, its been awhile) on places in Brazil with 10 times normal background (about 2 rem a year), which showed no increase in cancer deaths whatsoever, he wrote me a somewhat sputtering apology.

To reiterate: Anyone who thinks a radiological bomb, i.e., a bomb with explosives at its core and nuclear waste around it, is somehow going to cause massive casualties from radiation exposure and make an area uninhabitable, does not know what they are talking about. Do the research.

>I responded to your comment about the idea that thousands of people will die and that the place will be uninhabitable. You don't know what you are talking about.

Have you ever been to midtown Manhattan?

Once again, if it must be, I really do hope it's outside your door, unless you live near me.

Vienna, September 21

Terrorists may try to contaminate whole cities by making a "dirty bomb" out of a combination of radioactive materials and conventional weapons, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Friday. "It is entirely imaginable," David Kyd, the spokesman of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He spoke after the organisation adopted a resolution at its annual general assembly underlining the necessity of extra steps to protect nuclear plants.

The Vienna-based agency, which the United States sees as a bedrock of nuclear safety, adopted the resolution as Washington counted the cost of last week's terrorist attacks on New York and Washington which cost thousands of lives.

Kyd stressed that a so-called "dirty bomb" -- which incorporates radioactive material in a conventional explosive -- so far never been used by terrorists "or even by Saddam Hussein".

The IAEA pointed to the importance of "physical protection in preventing the unauthorised removal of nuclear material and the sabotage of nuclear facilities and nuclear marerials by individuals or groups."

Kyd said that if such a bomb were used the town affected would be uninhabitable.

"The bomb would contaminate with radioactivity the area in which it detonates. It could affect the ability of a population to live in the area until it is decontaminated."

Washington, which pooh-poohs many UN agencies, sees the IAEA as essential to its national security interests and had dispatched its Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to the meeting.

The United States had sought adoption of a hard-hitting declaration against the terrorists suspected of carrying out last week's attacks, but realising that this would not receive the support of the 132 member organisation, which include many Arab states, agreed that its demands be watered down into a more general resolution on the necessity of protecting nuclear installations.

"Anyone who thinks a radiological bomb...is somehow going to cause massive casualties from radiation exposure and make an area uninhabitable, does not know what they are talking about."

Maybe not. But would you want to inhabit an area that has been fouled by one of these devices?
Neither would I.