If the Boston Marathon attack had involved dirty bombs
By George M. Moore | 1 May 2013
Terrorists have made few attempts to package radioactive materials and
conventional explosives in dirty bombs, but many experts believe it is just
a matter of time before some terror group uses a radiation dispersal device.
If dirty bombs had been used at the Boston Marathon, the medical and
legal responses would have been greatly complicated and apprehension of the
alleged perpetrators likely would have been delayed.
A dirty bombing would also have political ramifications, giving rise to
proposals for new laws -- some reasonable, some not -- that citizens, the
media, and the government should prepare now to deal with.
Last month's Boston Marathon bombing was horrific enough without getting
into ways in which it could have been worse. But in fact there is one avenue
of speculation worth exploring, because doing so could help keep cities safe
in the future: What if the explosive devices allegedly used by the Tsarnaev
brothers had contained radioactive material? What would be the effect of
such a so-called dirty bomb?
To date, attempts or threats to use radioactive materials as weapons have
surfaced only a few times. (Chechen separatists have been prominent among
the perpetrators.) However, it's common for radioactive materials to go
missing: the International Atomic Energy Agency's Incident Trafficking
Database receives a new report of radioactive material that is out of
regulatory control about every other day. Many experts believe it's only a
matter of time before a dirty bomb or another type of radioactive dispersal
device is used, with some expressing surprise that it hasn't happened
already.
Although the Boston attackers did not use dirty bombs, with a little effort
and planning they likely could have stolen radioactive materials from
commercial or medical users, or from university research facilities. To be
sure, the radioactive material they could have obtained likely would not
have been the most dangerous kind. Plus, it's not clear how effective their
pressure cooker bombs would have been at dispersing it. Many experts have
noted that the most frequently-stolen types of radioactive materials -- such
as the type found in the moisture-density gauges used in construction -- are
unlikely to cause deaths by exposure to radiation.
That doesn't mean, though, that the impact of a dirty bomb attack won't be
significant. The initial physical injuries due to the Boston explosives
might have been essentially the same if dirty bombs were used, but the
presence of radiation would have affected the response at every level.
Within seconds of the Boston blasts, the police and others were working to
render aid to the victims. Some of the first responders probably carried
simple "radiation pagers," devices that can detect the presence of some
kinds of radiation. If the pagers had gone off, it could have hampered
immediate assistance to victims. Police and firefighters would have been
concerned not only with their own safety, but with that of others rushing to
assist.
Had the Boston bombs been dirty bombs, a full-blown radiation response would
have been required. The response planners would have had to deal with the
fact that people not showing visible physical injuries could have ingested
or inhaled radioactive material and been contaminated, or could have been
exposed without being contaminated. Could Boston have established timely
triage and contamination zones to prevent the movement of contaminated
people and material out of the area -- or would the situation have resembled
the chaos in the 2004 movie Dirty War, a fictional account of a dirty bomb
attack in London?
Health Hazards. If the Boston marathon had been attacked with dirty bombs,
hospitals would have received contaminated victims and patients with
radioactive material embedded in them. Protocols for dealing with these
problems could have led to delays and further loss of life.
Even if no victims were killed by radiation, there would be long-term
medical repercussions. Public health officials would have to determine the
radiation doses both to the people who were contaminated and to those who
were merely exposed. The history of the few large-scale radiation exposure
accidents, such as the 1987 incident involving a medical radiation source in
Goiania, Brazil PDF, indicates that the public's fear of all things
involving radioactivity might greatly expand the medical response required.
Medical personnel would need to deal with people who have not been exposed
to radiation, but fear they have been.
Most of the radiation exposure from a dirty bomb would likely have no
immediately observable effects, but could lead to stochastic effects,
primarily radiation-induced cancers, in numbers that would be difficult to
distinguish from normal cancer rates. However, the potential victims would
probably demand to be tracked with programs that could last for many
decades.
The victims of the Boston bombings and their families may suffer lifelong
mental impacts in addition to injuries from the blasts. While the physical
injuries from dirty bombs would be about the same, they could lead to a
wider range of physical and mental effects. There would be a group of
potential long-term victims left to wonder about their status for decades,
uncertain as to whether the exposure they received would cause medical
problems.
Legal Reaction. The forensic response would also have to have been handled
differently if radioactive material had been used. With the crime scene
contaminated, it would have been more difficult to acquire and process all
the photos and videos that turned out to be instrumental in tracking down
the Tsarnaev brothers. Items that technicians were able to examine
relatively quickly, such as parts of pressure cookers and circuit boards,
might not have been available in the same time frame. Normal police forensic
labs are not generally equipped to analyze radioactively contaminated items,
and experts in nuclear forensics are few and far between. The work that the
public observed done so quickly and efficiently in Boston would have
required significant outside assistance. The effects could have delayed
identification of the bombers, and perhaps allowed them to carry out more
attacks.
Had radioactive materials been used, public officials would also have had to
consider what level of cleanup Boston required. Contaminated material would
have to have been removed and treated as radioactive waste, at great cost.
The Environmental Protection Agency has standard decontamination guidelines,
but the public might have demanded even more cautious ones.
Finally, any dirty bomb incident could have major political and legal
ramifications. Modern tragedies of all types have generated calls for laws
to ensure that whatever happened cannot occur again. Some of these new
regulations end up well thought out, while others that initially appear
helpful are counter-productive. Some, however logical, cannot survive the
political process. The reaction to a dirty bomb would probably be just as
messy.
It's not pleasant to think through worst-case scenarios, but in this case
it's essential. The media, citizens, and all levels of government should
undertake a thorough exploration of how to respond to a dirty bomb, so that
they are prepared when one is actually used.
==========================================
(F)AIR USE NOTICE: All original content and/or articles and graphics in this
message are copyrighted, unless specifically noted otherwise. All rights to
these copyrighted items are reserved. Articles and graphics have been placed
within for educational and discussion purposes only, in compliance with
"Fair Use" criteria established in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.
The principle of "Fair Use" was established as law by Section 107 of The
Copyright Act of 1976. "Fair Use" legally eliminates the need to obtain
permission or pay royalties for the use of previously copyrighted materials
if the purposes of display include "criticism, comment, news reporting,
teaching, scholarship, and research." Section 107 establishes four criteria
for determining whether the use of a work in any particular case qualifies
as a "fair use". A work used does not necessarily have to satisfy all four
criteria to qualify as an instance of "fair use". Rather, "fair use" is
determined by the overall extent to which the cited work does or does not
substantially satisfy the criteria in their totality. If you wish to use
copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you
must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
THIS DOCUMENT MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL. COPYING AND DISSEMINATION IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT OWNERS.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment