[extropy-chat] Suitcase nukes (was: let's say)

[Bret Kulakovich]

... I am guessing the difference is between "Don't go out in that 
field/hillside" vs. "Don't go to work today."

It could be argued that the hillside doesn't affect the GNP, and so on. 
Being "next to" and not "steeped in".  Etc.



Besides, the alpha particle protection afforded by our dead skin cells 
doesn't exist in the body's interior - alpha particles can cause damage 
lodged anywhere in the pneumatic/gastrointestinal track just as good as 
any other radiation.


]3


On Mar 21, 2005, at 12:59 PM, J. Andrew Rogers wrote:

> Spike wrote:
>> Terrorists might choose to use the fission elements
>> to make a dirty bomb we could suppose, perhaps even
>> using a subway to spread radioactive material.  Subways
>> might be a technological dead end, for they appear
>> inherently undefendable against this sort of thing.
>
>
> I don't consider "dirty bombs" a real threat, so this type of thing 
> does
> not concern me to any great extent.  Dirty bombs are primarily a
> psychological weapon, targeting the same irrational response that makes
> it politically impossible to build nuclear power plants.
>
> What's a few kilograms of radioactive material scattered to the four
> winds, when thousands of metric tons of the same materials are 
> scattered
> to the four winds near population centers by industry?  This is the 
> same
> perceptual asymmetry that makes the depleted uranium indignation so
> absurd.  A few tons of DU in the desert is an outrage, dumping a few
> THOUSAND tons of *un*-depleted uranium (and worse, thorium) next to an
> American city is not worthy of mention.  Fear and outrage is very
> selective when it comes to anything nuclear.
>
>
> j. andrew rogers
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>