This time last year, Radio National's Science Show (run by the rather Left leaning Robyn Williams) had a show in which the risks of a radioactive "dirty bomb" were portrayed as being just a scaremongering invention of the media. He took extracts from a BBC documentary as follows (Adam Curtis is the BBC producer):
And the media took the bait. They portrayed the dirty bomb as an extraordinary weapon that would kill thousands of people, and in the process they made the hidden enemy even more terrifying. But in reality the threat of a dirty bomb is yet another illusion. Its aim is to spread radioactive material through a conventional explosion. But almost all studies of such a possible weapon have concluded that the radiation spread in this way would not kill anybody because the radioactive material would be so dispersed, and providing the area was cleaned promptly the long-term effects would be negligible. In the past both the American army and the Iraqi military tested such devices and both concluded that they were completely ineffectual weapons for this very reason.
Adam CurtisHow dangerous would a dirty bomb be?
Interviewee: The deaths would be few if any, and the answer is probably none.
Adam CurtisReally?
Interviewee: Yes. And that’s been said over and over again, but then people immediately say after that, but you know people won’t believe that and they’ll panic. I don’t think it would kill anybody and I think you’ll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise. The Department of Energy actually set up such a test and they actually measured what happened. The measurements were extremely low. They calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose, not life threatening but fairly high, and I checked into how the calculation was done and they assume that after the attack no one moves for one year. One year. Now that’s ridiculous.
I always felt sceptical about this story. Even assuming only a few people die relatively quickly from a dirty bomb, people are not going to feel comfortable about having a possible increased risk of cancer for the rest of their lives. To call the threat "an illusion" when it would also require the evacuation and cleaning of a large area, and probably involve the public not coming back into that area again for a long time, seems to be downplaying the significance of the economic threat too. I mean, if a dirty bomb was let off in Times Square, just how soon do you think the public would be comfortable living and working in any building within, say, a kilometer radius?
Anyway, a very disturbing article in the International Herald Tribune now says the polonium death in London has made analysts realise that a dirty bomb using such alpha emitting radioactive could make a very deadly weapon, capable of killing tens or hundreds of people if set off in a crowded area. The relative ease with which enough polonium could currently be purchased is also discussed, which seems a dubious thing to be explaining to terrorists who read the paper.
Back to the drawing boards, BBC and ABC, to find another way to portray a dirty bomb as a right wing fear invention?
No comments:
Post a Comment