|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Radiological Weapons II: Bomb Would Cause Few Deaths, Much Panic A radiological bomb — or “dirty bomb” — would probably cause few fatalities, but the ease of building such a bomb and its potential to spark panic has raised concerns, according to reports (see related GSN story, today). Some people could be killed in the initial conventional blast from a dirty bomb —consisting of conventional explosives laced with radioactive substances — but few would die from the spread of radioactive material, experts said (see GSN, Dec. 5, 2001). A blast would spread the material but also disperse it to the point that a person would be very unlikely to be subjected to lethal doses of radiation, said John Poston, a nuclear engineering professor at Texas A&M University. More might die, however, from “people panicking, killing each other in automobiles, arguing over who has the right way,” Poston said. According to a report from the Center for International and Strategic Studies, a 4,000-pound TNT bomb laced with 1« pounds of radioactive cesium detonated in front of the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington could contaminate an area in which tens of thousands of people live and work. The bomb, however, would add only 25 percent to the amount of radiation people receive from normal activities (Matthew Wald, New York Times, June 11). According to the model on which the report is based, such a bomb would contaminate 20 percent of downtown Washington, but only people in the blocks closest to the explosion would be at risk for increased rates of cancer or cataracts. A radiological bomb detonated in downtown Washington or New York would cause few if any immediate deaths, but panicked people might overburden health-care systems and city blocks might be abandoned for decades, experts said. More people might be exposed to radiation from people fleeing the area of the blast, said Phil Anderson of CSIS. Despite concern among U.S. officials, emergency responders were “clearly not prepared to deal with” radiation discovered near a bomb blast, according to the CSIS study. Might Be Easy to Use … Building a radiological bomb would be much easier than obtaining a nuclear weapon, analysts said. Security is much more relaxed around the many sources of radiological materials, such as medical and food irradiation equipment, than around nuclear weapons (see GSN, May 10). In some states, there is no inventory of radioactive materials, the Los Angeles Times reported (Willman/Munn, Los Angeles Times, June 11). According to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, there were 107 reports of lost or stolen radiation sources in the six months ending March 31 (see GSN, May 6). “The dirty bomb is something that is so easy to execute, I could go so far as to say I believe that one person who has done their homework, acting alone today, could do significant damage, certainly more psychological than real,” Anderson said (Wald, New York Times). “There’s no question in my mind that terrorists could, fairly readily, find some radiological material that they may wish to use,” William Potter of the Monterey Institute of International Studies said. “It is easer than I previously believed. And with the knowledge and the motivation of terrorists, that has me uneasy” (Willman/Munn, Los Angeles Times). … Maybe Not Some analysts, however, said practical problems would pose obstacles to potential terrorists wishing to build dirty bombs. Some radiation sources are shielded and very heavy, and some food irradiation devices weight 10,000 pounds. Terrorists could remove the shields to significantly reduce weight but would expose themselves to enough radiation to kill them before they could use the device, some analysts said. Radioactive materials would be “difficult to handle and difficult to disperse” but might cause “terrible economic damage,” said Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (Wald, New York Times).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
