On 30 October 2013 21:16, Neil J. McRae 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
