Since we in the free world are clearly -- whether we wish it or not -- in this ‘war on terror’ for the long haul, we must eventually confront the possibility that those without the value for human life, true beliefs or human feeling might somehow obtain the capacity to use a nuclear device against humanity.

It’s a question we must ask sooner than later. Lately that Beating Heart of Terror, Iran -- not Iraq, which one suspects the current US president has all but fetishized simply because it would provide him with an excellent chance to remove the greatest black mark against his daddy’s good name, the still-reigning Saddam Hussein -- has conducted a successful series of tests using its own ballistic missiles, each “with the capacity to reach Israel,” according to a story in the New York Times.

Of course, the missiles aren’t topped with nukes -- not yet, anyway. According to the Times however, evidence suggests a cash-poor Russia may have been slipping Iranian scientists a few ballistic secrets. If true, it might be hard to know what other secrets may have been slipped to the country that still calls the U.S. “the Great Satan.”

Muslim countries with nukes aren’t really a new thing. Pakistan, for instance, has nukes, and has been perhaps the most helpful of all Muslim nations in helping the rest of the world find those who kill innocents in the name of Allah. The Pakistani government considers the stopping of such extremism an Islamic duty, to remind the rest of the world that such people do not represent Islam.

Iran, it hardly needs to be said, is not Pakistan.

Then again, we at S.O.S. are not interested in bringing up arcane possibilities perhaps better suited for a Tom Clancy novel, but in bringing up the most obvious contingencies and offering the best solutions. While S.O.S. will deal with the possibility of a nuke explosion in another segment -- or what may happen if America's favorite terrorists somehow got The Bomb -- we must say straight-out that the best information has convinced us that is a long shot at best.

Three reasons:

1.) If millionaire terrorists like You-Know-Who or terror-supporting nations like Iran would steal or buy a bomb from anywhere, it would surely be Russia; the complete collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 created an economic vacuum that continues to this day.

A starving, brilliant nuclear scientist who may be tempted to sell his or her secrets to the highest bidder is trouble in anyone’s book; however this apparently has not happened, not even during the hardest times of the post-Soviet era. With Russia looking more stable (if not much else), and the country now having its own terrorist problems with many of the same people the rest of the world is having trouble with, it’s a scenario that seems more and more unlikely.

2.) Even if these “evil” entities did buy such secrets, there would almost certainly have to be a battery of nuclear testing done before terrorists were certain they have the kind of nuke we usually think of -- and a nuclear blast is a damn hard thing to conceal, especially these days.

3.) Even if they somehow get the secrets to the Bomb, most lack the means to deliver it to anyplace that could do a deal of damage. Having the baddest nuke in the world ain't gonna matter if it just sits in the middle of Afghanistan -- it has to be a payload on a missile of some kind to be effective. And, with the gov’ts around the world watching the planes, and the higher-ups thruout the Middle East being ‘moderates’ (whatever that means), even in Iran, this last option doesn’t appear to be a very realistic one.

If a terrorist can’t even light a pair of explosive shoes on a plane these days without being stopped, we at S.O.S. doubt they can sneak a nuke on board, take control of the plane, and slam it somewhere. Possible, but not likely.

If we do suffer a nuke attack, S.O.S. has determined it will almost certainly be thru either:

A.) The use of a ‘dirty bomb’ -- a small, relatively normal explosive that uses a radioactive agent to also release radioactivity at detonation, enough to infect a whole city block. Certainly not a ‘nuke’ in the traditional sense, but one that can do a great deal of damage to people nonetheless.

USA Today’s Dan Vergano wrote a story in Nov 2001 detailing the worries that surfaced at a weeklong meeting of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), hosted in Vienna at the end of October that year. Held a mere month and a half after the attacks on New York and Washington, the IAEA devoted its time to discussing ways to combat nuclear terrorism in the post-Sept. 11 world.

“[The IAEA] warned . . . that terrorists may steal radioactive medical or industrial waste materials to build ‘dirty bombs’ aimed at subways, train stations and other public places,” Vergano wrote. “Exploded with dynamite, a dirty bomb might kill hundreds through radiation poisoning and could contaminate large areas and stoke nuclear fears.”

Vergano reported that about 18 pounds of stolen plutonium would be needed to craft a bomb. He’s right in recognizing the matter’s importance, since nuclear materials appear to be stolen rather often. Since 1993, the IAEA has confirmed 376 cases of illicit sales of stolen radioactive materials.

B.) An attack on a nuclear power station, nuclear facility, or vehicle carrying radioactive material. This could be an interesting scenario; in doing the story on airline security, S.O.S. discovered that the privately-owned security companies protecting most nuke plants now are the same ones who were thrown out of the airline industry after 9/11 -- Argenbright, the same boys who messed up so badly that day at the Boston airport, now handles security at most nuke plants.

In fact a secret, gov’t-sponsored test on nuke plants’ security conducted a few months after 9/11 found that the guards are at least quite consistent. A number of gov't spooks were given orders to try out the guards at these plants, by getting firmly inside the nuke plants without being stopped.

A great number succeeded.

"The security guards at half the nuclear power plants in the United States have failed to repel mock terrorist attacks against safety systems designed to prevent a reactor meltdown. These are so-called "force-on-force" exercises supervised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC refuses to take enforcement action in response to the failures, and is in the process of weakening the rules of the game in response to industry complaints.

Sabotage of nuclear power plants may be the greatest domestic vulnerability in the United States today. This is the time to strengthen, not weaken, nuclear regulation."

Paul Leventhal, Commencement Address Franklin & Marshall College 2001

And, since a nuclear plant harnesses 1,000 times the radiation released by the average nuclear warhead, it is the Big Worry. One successful attack could create 100,000 deaths and the loss on untold billions in contaminated areas, buildings and equipment, according to some experts.

But don’t shake yourself to death with worry just yet. Consider these words from Bernard L. Cohen, Sc.D. Professor at the University of Pittsburgh, in his paper called Risks of Nuclear Power:

The nuclear power plant design strategy for preventing accidents and mitigating their potential effects is "defense in depth"--- if something fails, there is a back-up system to limit the harm done, if that system should also fail there is another back-up system for it, etc., etc. Of course it is possible that each system in this series of back-ups might fail one after the other, but the probability for that is exceedingly small.

The Media often publicize a failure of some particular system in some plant, implying that it was a “close call” [toward] disaster; they completely miss the point of defense in depth, which easily takes care of such failures.

Even in the Three Mile Island accident where at least two equipment failures were severely compounded by human errors, two lines of defense were still not breached -- essentially all of the radioactivity remained sealed in the thick steel reactor vessel, and that vessel was sealed inside the heavily reinforced concrete and steel lined "containment" building which was never even challenged. It was clearly not a close call on disaster to the surrounding population.

The Soviet Chernobyl reactor, built on a much less safe design concept, did not have such a containment structure; if it did, that disaster would have been averted.

Risks from reactor accidents are estimated by the rapidly developing science of "probabilistic risk analysis" (PRA). A PRA must be done separately for each power plant (at a cost of $5 million) but we give typical results here:

A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.

Though one must always ‘consider the source’ when reviewing information, and Prof. Cohen would certainly be on the side of those who try make nuclear power appear as safe as possible, his research is reassuring nonetheless.

In any case, the ‘dirty bomb’ and the blowing-up-of-a-nuke-plant scenario seem like the most realistic possibilities. Both use the simple release of radioactivity as its ‘weapon’, rather than anything approaching a nuclear explosion. Both would also be far cheaper, and far more in line with traditional Muslin Terrorist methods.

Other possibilities could include a nuclear waste truck or train thievery, or ‘accident’; after all, one out every 50 HazMat shipments contain radioactive materials, and about three million packages of radioactive materials are shipped thruout the United States each year, to paraphrase the < A HREF=http://www.radshelters4u.com/>Nuclear Blast and Fallout Shelters FAQ Webpage, part of a site dedicated to studying the possible effects of radioactivity and nukes on a population. But that may conceivably be less of a hazard even than a ‘dirty bomb’ -- and, in these days of heightened security, perhaps even less of a possibility.

Now that you’re good and scared -- why exactly are we so worried about radiation?

Nuclear Power Is Our Friend

Let’s start by exploding a great misconception about nuclear energies (no pun intended). Firstly, the idea that radiation is by and of itself a harmful thing.

Most of the time that doesn’t appear to be the case at all.

Radiation, after all, is simply the waves of energy that’s created when bundles of energy called photons travel around an ordinary atom. It’s therefore around us all the time.

Some everyday examples are the microwave ovens used to cook food, radio waves from radio and television, light, and x-rays used in medicine. Natural waves and particles make up our visible light, ultra violet (UV) light, and microwaves (not ovens, but literally, ‘tiny waves’) with a spectrum of energies.

Radioactivity, however, is the by-product of unstable atoms whose photons have built up such a speed that the ensuing waves tear the atoms apart. The process, whereby electrons are torn from their orbits around an atom’s nucleus, is called Ionization or Ionizing radiation.

Either a lower-energy atom of the same form will result or a completely different nucleus and atom will be formed, depending on how the nucleus loses this excess energy. This is called radioactive decay.

These excessive radiations are of such high energy that when they interact with materials, they can remove electrons from the atoms in the material, causing the same decay in that substance as well. And so on and so on. This effect is the reason why ionizing radiation is hazardous to your health, and provides the means by which radioactivity can be detected. In short, ionization will literally cause the molecules and atoms making up your body to decay, while you live all the while to enjoy every new crumbling of your body into dust.

Examples of Ionized radiation are gamma rays and neutrons; radiation itself is measured in many ways, though it is commonly expressed in units of RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose).

The RAD -- or, sometimes, Gray (Gy) -- is a unit used to measure a quantity called absorbed dose. This relates to the amount of energy actually absorbed in some material, and is used for any radioactivity and any material. One gray is equal to one joule of energy deposited in one kg of a material. ‘Absorbed dose’ is often expressed in terms of hundredths of a gray, or centi-grays. One gray is equivalent to 100 RAD.

But while the units RAD and gray can be used for any ionized radiation, they do not describe the biological effects of the different radiations. Besides, not all radioactivity has the same biological effect, even for the same amount of absorbed dose. The most effective way to measure radioactivity’ s effect on living tissue is by calculating the equivalent doses in Sievert (Sv).

The sievert is a unit used to derive a quantity called equivalent dose. This relates the absorbed dose in human tissue, or the effective biological damage of the radioactivity. To determine equivalent dose, you multiply absorbed dose -- Gray, or (Gy) -- by a quality factor (Q) that is unique to that amount of incident radiation.

Nice and confused now? Just remember that RAD and Gray are the usual ways to measure the amount of radioactivity absorbed by a particular object; 100 RAD equals one gray. These are fine measurements, but they tell us nothing about any effect all this has on living tissue.

That’s where Sievert comes in. Multiplying the amount of radioactivity (expressed in Gray -- Gy) to a number expressing the adverse effect, or quality (Q), that amount of radioactivity is sure to have on living tissue gives you the effect a particular blast of radioactivity will have on humans and animals.

An ‘equivalent dose’ is often expressed in terms of millionths of a Sievert, or micro-Sievert.

Terms Related to Radiation Dose

Chronic dose

A chronic dose means a person received a radiation dose over a long period of time.

Acute dose

An acute dose means a person received a radiation dose over a short period of time.

Somatic effects

Somatic effects are effects from some agent, like radioactivity, that are seen in the individual who receives the agent.

Genetic effects

Genetic effects are effects from some agent that are seen in the offspring of the individual who received that agent. The agent must be encountered before conception.

Teratogenic effects

Teratogenic effects are effects from some agent that are seen in the offspring of the individual who received the agent during pregnancy.

Stochastic effects

Stochastic effects are effects that occur on a random basis with its effect being independent of the size of dose. The effect typically has no threshold and is based on probabilities, with the chances of seeing the effect increasing with dose. Cancer is thought to be a stochastic effect.

Non-stochastic effect

Non-stochastic effects are effects that can be related directly to the dose received. The effect is more severe with a higher dose, i.e., the burn gets worse as dose increases. It typically has a threshold, below which the effect will not occur. A skin burn from ionized radiation is a non-stochastic effect.

Radiation Particles

The most common types of radiation include alpha particles, beta and positron particles, gamma and x-rays, and neutrons. We are protected from each in different ways.

Alpha particles are heavy and doubly-charged, which cause them to lose their energy very quickly in matter. They can be shielded by a simple sheet of paper, or merely the surface layer of our skin. Alpha particles are only considered hazardous to a person’s health if an alpha-emitting material is ingested or inhaled.

Beta and positron particles are much smaller and only have one charge, which cause them to interact more slowly with material. They are effectively shielded by thin layers of metal or plastic and are again only considered hazardous if a beta emitter is ingested or inhaled.

Gamma emitters tend to be associated with alpha, beta, and positron decay. X-Rays are produced either when electrons change orbits within an atom, or electrons from an external source are deflected around the nucleus of an atom. Both are forms of high energy electromagnetic radiation which interact lightly with matter. More dangerous than the previous particles, X-rays and gamma rays are best shielded by thick layers of lead or other dense material. In large doses they are even hazardous to people when they are external to the body.

Neutrons are neutral particles with approximately the same mass as a proton. Because they are neutral they react only weakly with material, but can release the worst radioactivity when a reaction does occur. They are an external hazard best shielded by thick layers of concrete.

Contamination

If you might be in an area of contamination, there are two exposure pathways of possible concern: external exposure, and the consumption of contaminated food. Unless you are seeking “wild” food, like mushrooms or game, you would be very unlikely to encounter contaminated food, so the main concern is external exposure. If you are concerned about areas within the contaminated region, you should have a Geiger Counter with you with a fine sensitivity.

The question of what radioactivity level is safe is however a more difficult and controversial question. In general, radiation is regulated under the assumption that there is no “safe” level, but that risk increases with the rate of dose. Most organizations follow the recommendations of the International Commission on Radiation Protection (ICRP) in that the effective dose to the public should be limited to no more than 1 mSv per year above background.

Of course, it is not normally likely that you would be in an exposed situation for an entire year.

The other provision of the ICRP regulatory posture is that exposure to radiation should be kept to a minimum unless there is some benefit of that exposure, a la chemotherapy, etc. Benefit is pretty much in the eye of the beholder.

Biological Effects

The effect depends on the amount (dose), ranging from no effect (low) to death (high). Again, radioactivity creates ions in our cells, and these ions cause problems in our cells. Damaged cells may lead to cancer.

The radiation may interact directly with biologically significant molecules, like DNA and proteins. Radiation may also interact indirectly to cause damage, by interacting with chemicals in our bodies, such as water, and form very active chemicals like free radicals that may cause damage to our DNA and proteins.

The damage can be fixed, or the cell may die, or it may actually effect the tissue/organ if there is enough damage.

It is felt that the damage to the DNA is of the most importance, and could lead to increased risk of cancer. The damage could be to a single base pair, could cause the DNA to bind to itself or cause an actual break of one of the two DNA strands, or more rarely, to both DNA strands. If the damage is not fixed or is fixed incorrectly and the cell escapes apotosis (programmed cell death) it may be one of the several needed steps that results in the cell becoming a tumor.

One of the reasons cancer is not more common is that every minute of every day, your body’s repair mechanisms are working to fix damage to your DNA. It is surprising how many times each hour, each cell’s DNA is damaged.

If the damage is in the sex cells, there would be some risk of a DNA change, or mutation, being passed on to the next generation. The physical effects of these radioactive-induced mutations have never been seen in humans, however.

Humans have about a one in ten chance of passing along a natural (non-radiation induced) mutation to their offspring. Many studies have looked for the physical manifestations of radioactive damage in the children, grandchildren and great- grandchildren of Japanese Atomic Bomb survivors, and have discovered no increase above this natural rate.

At higher than normal doses (up to 1 Sv), bombarded cells might not be able to repair the damage, and they may either be changed permanently or die. Most cells that die are of little consequence, since the body can just replace them. But cells changed permanently may go on to produce abnormal cells when they divide. In the right circumstance, these cells may become cancerous.

According to some experts, our greater exposure to radiation and radioactive substances in the modern era is the origin of our increased modern risk to cancer.

At even higher doses, the cells cannot be replaced fast enough and tissues fail to function. An example of this would be "radiation sickness." This is a condition that results after high acute doses to the whole body (>2 Gy), where the body’s immune system is damaged and cannot fight off infection and disease. Several hours after exposure nausea and vomiting occur. This leads to nausea, diarrhea and general weakness.

With higher whole body doses (>10 Gy), the intestinal lining is damaged to the point that it cannot perform its functions of intake of water and nutrients, and protecting the body against infection. At whole body doses near 7 Gy, if no medical attention is given, about 50% of the people are expected to die within 60 days of the exposure, due mostly from infections.

If someone receives a whole body dose higher than 20 Gy, they will suffer vascular damage of vital blood providing systems for nervous tissue, such as the brain. It is likely that at doses this high, 100% of the people will die from a combination of all the reasons associated with lower doses and the vascular damage.

There is a large difference between whole body dose, and doses to only part of the body. Most cases we are discussing concern doses to the whole body.

What needs to be remembered of course is that very few people have ever received doses more than 2 Gy. With the current safety measures in place, it is not expected that anyone will receive greater than 0.05 Gy in one year, whereas the above sicknesses consider only sudden doses delivered all at once.

Remedies (?)

In the event of a nuclear accident, there is currently no real, fully-recognized treatment or ‘home remedy’ for exposure to any resultant radiation exposure. People who know, or even suspect, they have been involved in a radiation (nuclear) accident should report the event to local authorities and seek the advice of their personal physician immediately.

There are, however, apparently a few things that might at least help prevent some radioactive-induced cancers from occurring.

The following italicized text is taken verbatim from a 1999 Congressional bill regarding the proposed value of potassium iodide tablets and the need to keep them in sufficient quantities for those who live or work around nuclear reactors, in case of an emergency:

Petitioner’s Basis for Requesting Potassium Iodide

The petitioner stated that potassium iodide (KI) protects the thyroid gland, which is highly sensitive to radiation from the radioactive iodine that would be released in extremely serious nuclear accidents.

By saturating the gland with iodine in a harmless form, KI prevents any inhaled or ingested radioactive iodine from lodging in the thyroid gland, where it could lead to thyroid cancer or other illnesses. The petitioner stated that the drug itself has a long shelf-life, at least 5 years, and causes negligible side effects.

The petitioner further stated that, in addition to preventing deaths from thyroid cancer, KI prevents radiation-caused illnesses. The petitioner notes that thyroid cancer generally means surgery, radiation treatment, and a lifetime of medication and monitoring. The petitioner asserted that the changes in medication that go with periodic scans put many patients on a physiological and psychological roller coaster. The petitioner stated that hypothyroidism can cause permanent retardation in children and, if undiagnosed, can condemn adults to a lifetime of fatigue, weakness, and chills.

The Petitioner's Discussion of the Three Mile Island Accident (TMI)

The petitioner noted that in December 1978, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced that it had determined that KI was safe and effective for thyroid protection in nuclear accidents.

The petitioner stated that the issue attracted little attention, that the NRC and the Federal Government as a whole took no public position on the drug, and that three months after the FDA announcement, on March 28, 1979, the TMI accident began to unfold.

The petitioner stated that Federal and State officials, searching for supplies of KI in case it should be needed, discovered that none was to be had and that a supply had to be manufactured, literally overnight. The petitioner indicated that at 3:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 31, 1979, an FDA official arranged with the Mallinckrodt Chemical Company for the immediate production of 250,000 doses of KI.

The petitioner also discussed the Report of the President’s Commission on the Accident at Three Mile Island (the Kemeny Commission report), issued in October 1979, and stated that the report was strongly critical of the failure to stockpile KI. The petitioner noted that among the Kemeny Commission’s major recommendations was that an adequate supply of the radiation protective agent, KI for human use, should be available regionally for distribution to the general population and workers affected by a radiological emergency.

And, as recently as November 2001 -- two scant months after the 9/11 attacks -- the FDA released a paper on the subject, concluding:

. . . FDA continues to recommend that radiation emergency response plans include provisions, in the event of a radiation emergency, for informing the public about . . . the manner of use of KI and its potential benefits and risks . . . FDA also emphasizes that emergency response plans and any systems for ensuring availability of KI to the public should recognize the critical importance of KI administration in advance of exposure to radioiodine.

Those who wish to read the entire FDA report regarding KI can click here.

The other possibility? Broccoli. That’s it -- that simple, ugly-tasting green stuff you always had to drown in melted cheese just to make it taste kind of decent. Even among several noted doctors and scientists, word has it there really is something in broccoli that helps the body combat nuclear ionization, or radioactivity and its biological effect, to cut to the quick.

If true, it would be an amazing breakthrough to say the least. If not . . . well, at least you’ll know you’re finally eating the way your parents always said was right for you. Pass the melted cheese . . .

’This Is The End . . .’

This is of course only a primer for the possibility of a terror strike involving radioactive substances and their possible effects on a public at large. Those wishing to know more should click here. It is, simply put, the best website S.O.S. has found regarding all forms of possible nuclear hazard, including terror attacks, and how one can protect oneself and one’s family from them. The site also sells potassium iodide (KI) pills, and Geiger Counters; it should be said however that S.O.S. is in no way affiliated with this site, so buy at your own risk.

If you’ve wondered why we haven’t discussed such things as fallout shelters, etc., that will be covered in our article on a nuclear explosion. Besides, we here at S.O.S. feel that’s hardly the best way to protect ourselves from those who wish us harm.

The very best way, of course, is to stop them in their tracks by either taking them ‘out of circulation’ one way or another, or by taking this insane war to them so that they no longer have time to plan and prepare for another massive strike. Any huge terror operation needs time and quiet on its side in order to succeed -- take that away, and it simply can’t be done, period.

Something to consider . . .