|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
 |
 |
    |
|
|
|||
 |
|
||
|
|||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
U.S. Suggests Acceptable Radiation Limits Following Dirty Bomb or Nuclear Weapon Attack
The U.S. Homeland Security Department is suggesting that cities and states take into account the costs of cleanup or abandonment of contaminated areas when determining acceptable radiation limits following detonation of a radiological “dirty bomb” or a nuclear weapon, the New York Times reported today (see GSN, Nov. 2). The agency made the recommendation within “protective action guidelines” that do not give fixed numbers for acceptable radiation levels but “balance protection with other important factors,” according to the text of the guidelines. The DHS document states that a dirty bomb or nuclear weapon could overwhelm the United States’ ability to house evacuated people or decontaminate the effected area following the attack. The federal government has specific levels of permissible radiation exposure for industrial workers and people who live near nuclear dumps or power plants. The trade magazine Inside EPA first published the guidelines, which are expected to be released in the coming weeks. Government officials confirmed the document’s content yesterday, the Times reported. Edward McGaffigan Jr., a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and one of the document’s authors, said that strict rules “only aids and abets al-Qaeda or any other terrorists.” Officials said that decision on what level of radiation to allow would be made in the days or weeks after an attack. The guidelines plugged a hole in existing regulations, which only set limits for power plants and dump sites, said officials involved in drafting the guidance. Acceptable radiation limits have already been established for emergency personnel immediately responding to an attack, but no limits were set for cleanup, according to the Times. A 2003 simulation of a dirty bomb attack in Seattle showed the need for better long-term planning for cleanup. McGaffigan said that federal agencies participating in the exercise offered different advice on steps that had to be taken before people could return to an impacted area (Matthew Wald, New York Times, Nov. 7).
| ||||||||||
Back to top
