[dep]

I have a hard time believing anything from an organization named the "Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility."

okay. will livermore do?

"If there were no evacuation, no filtering of air by being inside, and if the cloud did not migrate beyond the city, the population could inhale 80 milligrams of plutonium (0.0002 milligrams per cubic meter x 1 cubic meter per hour x 93 hours x 4300) in 93 hours, which would result in about 960 cancer deaths (12 cancers per milligram x 80 milligrams = 960), in addition to the 860 cancer deaths one expects (20% of the population), from other causes, among 4300 people. . . ."

dep

[craig_eddy]

Yes, that'll do. And I'm not trying to minimize the concern here, just trying to keep it rational. :)

BUT...from the same article:

The public health impact of the illicit dispersal of plutonium into the atmosphere would depend strongly on the circumstances and mechanisms of dispersal. People very near the dispersal site could experience serious acute health effects or significant increased cancer risks, but it is inconceivable that large numbers of people would suffer grave health effects, as implied by the news media. In particular, only someone quite near the source would have a significant risk of being exposed to an acutely lethal amount of plutonium, and that person would as likely be injured by the explosion or fire that dispersed the plutonium.

[FreedomPoster]

If doubling my risk of lung cancer is the likely threat, then my take is that if a dirty bomb goes off nearby, unless I'm really close, I'm probably OK hunkering down and waiting for it to rain a couple of times.