Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (276514)	10/24/2008 5:53:47 PM
From: nrg_crisis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793782

Bill/all - a different perspective on 'dirty bombs', worth the read and making the good point that terrorists trade in terror first and foremost. However, without seeing the sources used to write the article - and without knowing the author's background - it's difficult to determine whether or not the less-than-you-might-think claims made about the effects of dirty bombs are warranted. They may well be, but with radiation, erring on the side of caution is more prudent than underestimating the risks. After all - we wash our hands before eating and use topical antibiotics on cuts to eliminate the small chance of a big problem; similar caution is wise when dealing with radiation. I'd particularly like to see the US-Russia study the article mentions. I'm not saying that I think the article is wrong, just that skepticism is warranted until the claims about a subject like this can be substantiated. My academic training is in physics, and I have been (although am not currently) radiation-certified to work in 'hot' areas in a U.S. national lab. Nick