On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae <n...@domino.org> wrote: > It would’t remove the access to the site. It would just mean you needed > a lot of volunteer to spend a short amount of time in the location. A dirty > bomb like this would most likely do little damage to the infrastructure in > the location. > > Regards, > Neil. >
That sounds good but it really isn't going to happen. You won't be allowed to expose civilian volunteers to Caesium dust until the area has been decontaminated and getting the POPs back up is not going to be the first priority. I agree that there will be very little physical damage (compared to something like Grangemouth going up) but the buckets of diesel toting volunteers won't get through the army cordons. >a lot of volunteer heh that's you bankrupted from the class action brought by the first people to get cancer post event whether it is linked or not. Inhaled caesium can be horrendous and removal of access is part of the reason for these bombs (maximises both terror and disruption) http://www.aristatek.com/drjbomb.aspx that was based on one ounce of Ce137 Also, just for fun, try doing some stuff in an NBC suit and do some costings on decontamination units that are suitable for this threat (eg not just asbestos grade) bearing in mind that the demand for them locally might be *quite* high. If I was part of the team controlling the MI and you came to me asking for entry to fill your genny I would be disinclined to allow it and unless the facility is filtered to clean room standards the whole lot is junk anyway. I might even be cheeky and ask you why you weren't regionally diverse in your connections but i would be under a fair bit of stress at the time. :) mike </derail>