We Need to Educate the Public about Dirty Bombs
The weapon is a dirty bomb, a conventional explosive mixed with radioactive material that would be dispersed across a community (it's technically known as a radiological dispersal device). In the aftermath of the Paris attacks last November Belgian authorities discovered evidence that the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks were surveilling a high-level Belgian nuclear official who had access to radioactive material—not the kind that could be used to build a nuclear weapon, but perfect for a dirty bomb. And Reuters reported that radioactive material was stolen in Iraq last November from an oilfield company that was using the material to test the integrity of oil pipelines. No one knows who took it, or where it is.
The prospect of such a bomb seems terrifying, but anyone who knows the basic science of radiation biology knows that it wouldn't cause much health damage, because the dose of radioactivity to which most people might be exposed would be very low. And experts know, based on the 65 year Life Span Study of the survivors of atomic bomb explosions in Japan, that even at extraordinarily high doses, ionizing radiation only raises lifetime cancer mortality rates a little bit—just two thirds of one percent for survivors who were within three kilometers of ground zero. And despite popular belief, it causes no genetic damage that is passed on to future generations. At the low doses most people might get from a dirty bomb, the health risk is infinitesimal. Not zero, but tiny.
But most people don’t know that. They believe that any exposure to nuclear radiation is really dangerous. Radiophobia is deeply carved into public belief. So if a dirty bomb goes off, and the global media screams with dramatic alarms about the danger of radiation, fear will spread faster and further than the isotopes of iridium or cobalt or whatever nuclear material terrorists have used. And that fear will do immense harm.
Should such a weapon go off in a city, much of that city will be shut down, and major areas evacuated, for weeks or months. Tens of millions of people in the wider surrounding region, especially downwind, will be afraid. The economic costs will be vast. So will the health effects—not from radiation, but from the sweeping physical impacts of stress, including increased cardiovascular risk and weakened immune systems. A dirty bomb will likely produce a global cry for dramatic retaliation against known terrorist havens, and heads of state will find it hard to resist. Short of the disastrous physical harm of a nuclear weapon itself, it’s hard to imagine a terrorist attack that could do more damage.
More at site
____________________________________________________________________________
Spin, spin, spin and make it be less threatening......
The weapon is a dirty bomb, a conventional explosive mixed with radioactive material that would be dispersed across a community (it's technically known as a radiological dispersal device). In the aftermath of the Paris attacks last November Belgian authorities discovered evidence that the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks were surveilling a high-level Belgian nuclear official who had access to radioactive material—not the kind that could be used to build a nuclear weapon, but perfect for a dirty bomb. And Reuters reported that radioactive material was stolen in Iraq last November from an oilfield company that was using the material to test the integrity of oil pipelines. No one knows who took it, or where it is.
The prospect of such a bomb seems terrifying, but anyone who knows the basic science of radiation biology knows that it wouldn't cause much health damage, because the dose of radioactivity to which most people might be exposed would be very low. And experts know, based on the 65 year Life Span Study of the survivors of atomic bomb explosions in Japan, that even at extraordinarily high doses, ionizing radiation only raises lifetime cancer mortality rates a little bit—just two thirds of one percent for survivors who were within three kilometers of ground zero. And despite popular belief, it causes no genetic damage that is passed on to future generations. At the low doses most people might get from a dirty bomb, the health risk is infinitesimal. Not zero, but tiny.
But most people don’t know that. They believe that any exposure to nuclear radiation is really dangerous. Radiophobia is deeply carved into public belief. So if a dirty bomb goes off, and the global media screams with dramatic alarms about the danger of radiation, fear will spread faster and further than the isotopes of iridium or cobalt or whatever nuclear material terrorists have used. And that fear will do immense harm.
Should such a weapon go off in a city, much of that city will be shut down, and major areas evacuated, for weeks or months. Tens of millions of people in the wider surrounding region, especially downwind, will be afraid. The economic costs will be vast. So will the health effects—not from radiation, but from the sweeping physical impacts of stress, including increased cardiovascular risk and weakened immune systems. A dirty bomb will likely produce a global cry for dramatic retaliation against known terrorist havens, and heads of state will find it hard to resist. Short of the disastrous physical harm of a nuclear weapon itself, it’s hard to imagine a terrorist attack that could do more damage.
More at site
____________________________________________________________________________
Spin, spin, spin and make it be less threatening......
