|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, June 11, 2002"In the long term, a dirty bomb would add at most one new case of cancer out of every 100 persons exposed, according to the Federation of American Scientists, a Washington research and advocacy group. Unlike a nuclear bomb or a nuclear plant fire such as the one at Chernobyl, a dirty bomb would produce radioactive material that would be either too small or too big to stay in people's lungs, said Dallas, who spent a decade studying the health effects of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Someone can spend hours unprotected in the aftermath before reaching a dangerous dose, but "you wouldn't want to spend days there," Dallas said." I believe them. The atomic bombs were much more destructive just because of their powerful explosive force. Their radiation was the lesser evil. The health effects of radioactive contamination from a dirty bomb would be more akin to the radiation exposure after a nuclear power reactor accident, like Chernobyl. As bad as that might have been, it's still better than being leveled by a traditional atomic blast. posted by Sydney on 6/11/2002 08:29:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
