Jewish World Review Dec. 28, 2001 / 13 Teves, 5762

Drs. Michael A.Glueck & Robert J. Cihak

The Medicine Men
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Who's afraid of a 'dirty bomb'? -- AS terror tension escalates, are we just scaring ourselves to death, again? First we feared percussive plastics, then bio-fear and bugs and now comes Nuc-fear or the fear of nuclear weapons of mass destruction in the hands of fanatics. More recently, the media has been spreading stories about dirty radioactive bombs. Is this concept even dangerous or just another dumb dumb-bomb idea?

As radiological physicians (radiologists) we did diagnostic radiological work for decades. We're worried that the term "radiological bomb" sometimes used to describe these devices might catch on and demean our entire profession. "Dirty bomb" is better but "dirty radioactive bomb" or "dirty radioactive dispersion device" are better and more accurate descriptions.

But first, we are not referring to nuclear FISSION or thermonuclear FUSION devices (aka atomic and hydrogen bombs) which release vast amounts of energy from reactions in atomic nuclei; these are indeed weapons of mass destruction. Even so, the effect of even these is limited to the immediate area impacted, for example a city, such as Washington DC, and areas downwind receiving fallout.

We are talking about the latest idea of using a chemical explosive to disperse intensely radioactive material. The dirty radioactive bomb idea is to set off high explosives wrapped with highly radioactive stuff on the outside, like a vest, so that the explosion disperses the radioactivity. Such a device could indeed be a weapon of "MASS DISRUPTION" - unless we get a grip on the realities of radiation and the limitations of such a device.

Once again, the media and the public need to get a handle on reality and not immediately panic because some papers blowing in the wind in Afghanistan had crude sketches of crude ideas written on them, including printouts of Internet web sites satirizing the "How to Build a Nuclear Bomb for Fun and Profit" idea.

To meet this "threat," we need to corral some of our irrationally exuberant fears about radiation. Too much ionizing radiation can indeed kill you, just as too much aspirin can kill you. And, like aspirin, low doses of radioactivity can enhance human health. Remember, human beings have always lived in a world pervaded by low levels of ionizing radiation. And once radioactivity (like aspirin) is diluted enough, it has essentially no effect.

And remember, terrorists have problems too. For example, building and handling such dirty radioactive bombs is a risky venture for the wannabee terrorists who might get fried by radiation before they delivered their payload.

In an interview with us, John Toman, former Nuclear Test Group Director at the Nevada Test Site for testing nuclear devices, says the radioactive material itself, if intense enough, might generate enough heat to cause the chemical explosives to ignite prematurely, truncating both the mission and the terrorists' lives. According to Toman, adequate shielding around an intensely radioactive device could cause it to be the size and weight of the 15,000 pound "daisy cutter" bomb used in Afghanistan. This could not be packed in a suitcase and, lacking your own personal B-52, would be difficult to deliver.

When we spoke with James Muckerheide, President, Radiation, Science and Health, Inc., and Massachusetts State Nuclear Engineer, [] he compared the dirty radioactive bomb concept with the results of the very wide dispersal of a huge amount of radioactivity from the disastrous accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power reactor in the former Soviet Union. That reactor failed because it did not have many of the safeguards routinely included in nuclear power reactors outside Communist countries. The Chernobyl accident released thousands of times more radioactivity than any conceivable dirty radioactive bomb. Last June, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) reviewed the Chernobyl accident at a conference in Kiev, Ukraine. []

According to Muckerheide, the UNSCEAR report found that "not a single member of the public was killed by the Chernobyl accident" despite the dispersal of a much larger amount of radioactivity than is conceivable from a dirty radioactive bomb. Of three cases of fatal thyroid cancer, two afflicted people who received so little radiation that scientists concluded that Chernobyl radiation was not a factor; a third person died because of inadequate treatment.

Muckerheide notes "It's a whole lot easier to kill people with shrapnel from a high explosive than it is to kill people with radioactivity dispersed by a high explosive device." Any radioactivity scattered by a dirty radioactive bomb could be readily and safely cleaned up with well-established techniques.

Most all of these doomsday scenarios are science fiction, as are the pseudo-scares released by people seeking attention and power.

And whatever you do please don't call the dirty radioactive bomb a "radiological" bomb. That would hurt the feelings of a lot of people -- including us and 20,000 other radiological physicians!

Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., of Newport Beach, Calif., writes on medical, legal, disability and mental health reform. Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of Aberdeen, Wash., is president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. Both JWR contributors are Harvard trained diagnostic radiologists who write numerous commentaries and articles for newspapers, newsletters, magazines and journals nationally and internationally. Comment by clicking here.


12/21/01: End of medicine?
12/14/01: More heroes: Docs deserve a little credit after 9/11
11/16/01: Do we need 'Super Smallpox Saturdays'?
11/09/01: Why the post-9-11 health care debate will never be the same
11/01/01: Common sense good for our mental health
10/26/01: Your right to medical privacy --- even in terror time
10/12/01: Failed immigration policy ultimately bad for nation's mental health: Enemy within leads to epidemic of jumpy nerves
09/28/01: Can legal leopards change their spots: A treat instead of a trick
09/21/01: Civil defense again a civic duty
08/30/01: Shut down this government CAFE
08/23/01: School Bells or Jail Cells?
08/15/01: Time to take coaches to the woodshed
08/10/01: Blood, Guts & Glory: The Stem of the Stem Cell controversy

© 2001, Michael A. Glueck & Robert J. Cihak