[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Note the sensors, the 50 mile radius being searched, and the extra team.
Except for the use of sensors to detect radioactive material, how does the response differ from the reponse to a standard truck bomb alert? Oh, right. It doesn’t.
[/quote]
Reading.
Try it.
JeffR
The scare was triggered by something posted on some foreign website. The editor of the site’s own words were “The New York Police didn’t have to take my information seriously”.
It sure seems like a cheap and effective way to terrorize people, doesn’t it?
[quote]lixy wrote:
The scare was triggered by something posted on some foreign website. The editor of the site’s own words were “The New York Police didn’t have to take my information seriously”.
It sure seems like a cheap and effective way to terrorize people, doesn’t it?[/quote]
lixy,
Don’t get any ideas.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Reading.
Try it.
Note the sensors, the 50 mile radius being searched, and the extra team.
JeffR [/quote]
Making sense.
Try it.
I already noted the sensors; the 50 mile radius is what you do when you expect a truck bomb and don’t know where the truck might be. You search as much potential area as possible.
Same with the extra team. If you think time is of the essence, and with bombs, it always is, you get extra manpower to get the search done faster.
Must be annoying having those big clown shoes on, seeing as one foot or the other is always in your mouth.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Reading.
Try it.
Note the sensors, the 50 mile radius being searched, and the extra team.
JeffR
Making sense.
Try it.
I already noted the sensors; the 50 mile radius is what you do when you expect a truck bomb and don’t know where the truck might be. You search as much potential area as possible.
Same with the extra team. If you think time is of the essence, and with bombs, it always is, you get extra manpower to get the search done faster.
Must be annoying having those big clown shoes on, seeing as one foot or the other is always in your mouth.
[/quote]
He doesn’t get it. I pointed that out too. A bomb scare is a bomb scare. The only reason they use the sensors is because they had reason to believe it might be a dirty bomb. Cos, you know, I hear they help when you are looking for that kinda thing.
But hey, we should all be locking our doors and shitting our pants, even if you live in Seattle.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Must be annoying having those big clown shoes on, seeing as one foot or the other is always in your mouth.
[/quote]
Pardon a small tangential hijack:
How is this statement part of a debate? Is it not very similar to what you were saying denigrates the forum?
Not that I am against using sarcasm and insults. I fashion myself as quite the wordsmith when it comes to insults. But weren’t you whistling a different story in another thread just a few hours ago?
I’m just sayin’.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
pookie wrote:
Must be annoying having those big clown shoes on, seeing as one foot or the other is always in your mouth.
Pardon a small tangential hijack:
How is this statement part of a debate? Is it not very similar to what you were saying denigrates the forum?
Not that I am against using sarcasm and insults. I fashion myself as quite the wordsmith when it comes to insults. But weren’t you whistling a different story in another thread just a few hours ago?
I’m just sayin’.
[/quote]
I’d say the difference is mostly in the ratio between serious discussion and sarcastic insults.
While I did call Jeffro a clown at the end, note that I opened with an actual discussion of the topic at hand. The two paragraphs above the one you quoted.
(Being a smartass, I’d point out that calling Jeffro a clown is still factual conversation.)
It’s when that ratio drops to zero, or near it, I think, that most people get bored and/or annoyed with the threads.
My point is not to get all the color commentary out of every thread, it’s to keep the best of it while simultaneously discussing the various opinions. You can still have your fights, but they shouldn’t become the topic of the thread.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Reading.
Try it.
Note the sensors, the 50 mile radius being searched, and the extra team.
JeffR
Making sense.
Try it.
I already noted the sensors; the 50 mile radius is what you do when you expect a truck bomb and don’t know where the truck might be. You search as much potential area as possible.
Same with the extra team. If you think time is of the essence, and with bombs, it always is, you get extra manpower to get the search done faster.
Must be annoying having those big clown shoes on, seeing as one foot or the other is always in your mouth.
[/quote]
pookie,
This is something of which you know next to nothing.
The 50 mile radius is UNIQUE to the threat of nuclear materials.
In fact, this 50 mile radius was set up earlier this summer. It’s price tag was in the 75-100 million dollar range. It was helped along by a grant from the department of homeland security.
It was set up specifically for the nuclear threat.
The extra team and the search radius were absolutely unique.
If you knew anything about these events, you would know that a 50 mile radius is far too large a search radius for the threat of a conventional car bomb.
This 50 mile search radius was in place PRIOR to the recent scare.
Repeat: Prior.
They put their plan into motion specifically tailored to the threat.
Let me emphasize the your knowledge on most subjects is wikipedia deep. Sometimes (as in this case) it’s far less.
However, please write bloomberg and tell him it’s no big deal.
PM me the response so I can put it on the wall.
Thanks in advance.
JeffR
P.S. Your fellow “dirty bombs are no big deal” renny, has accepted my bet. Care to join in?
[quote]JeffR wrote:
This is something of which you know next to nothing.[/quote]
You now less than nothing about most everything and that doesn’t stop you from attempting to “correct” people all the time.
Unique in that it’s more useless theater? From your own article: even the best available detection equipment cannot reliably find highly enriched uranium - the ingredient of choice for a nuclear weapon- when it is shielded in metal.
Are you and your “expert” buddies expecting many cardboard nuclear devices?
Who cares if it’s wasted, right? It’s only taxpayer money.
If terrorists can acquire enough nuclear material to mount a credible threat, how hard really would it be to get steel to encase it in?
[quote]It was set up specifically for the nuclear threat.
The extra team and the search radius were absolutely unique.
If you knew anything about these events, you would know that a 50 mile radius is far too large a search radius for the threat of a conventional car bomb.[/quote]
[quote]This 50 mile search radius was in place PRIOR to the recent scare.
Repeat: Prior.
They put their plan into motion specifically tailored to the threat.[/quote]
Specifically tailored for a much too precise threat that depends on the terrorists being just as dumb as the authorities.
I think they’re just burning through their budget so that they can ask for more grant money from DHS next year. That either makes me a cynic or a realist, although I’m not sure there is much difference in this day and age.
The convenient thing when arguing with you is that someone with zero knowledge about anything can still run circles around you just by reading your own supporting articles and posting back the parts you missed or, more likely, couldn’t understand.
It makes your “try reading” comebacks all the more ironic.
I don’t care that much about elections I don’t get to participate in. My prediction is that Rudy is not going to make it, although I don’t know who, among the rest, will. You seem overdue for another Clinton as president.
[quote]pookie wrote:
Except for the use of sensors to detect radioactive material, how does the response differ from the reponse to a standard truck bomb alert? Oh, right. It doesn’t.
[/quote]
Care to amend?
That’s the prerequisite for continuation.
Again, I proved this statement wrong.
Before I spend more time with the rest of your claptrap, I expect you to acknowlege it.
If you wave off, kindly don’t accuse me of ducking any argument.
One at a time. That’s the rule.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Before I spend more time with the rest of your claptrap, I expect you to acknowlege it.
If you wave off, kindly don’t accuse me of ducking any argument.
One at a time. That’s the rule.[/quote]
That’s the rule? Oh, I guess we better settle the stuff from June first then:
Why did you go from crying about 2 tons of nuclear material to 50kg
How could anyone produce “a variety” of nuclear weaponry from 50kg. Science hasn’t figured it out, they’d probably be interested in your methods.
How can a country who had a nuclear reactor bombed 20 odd years ago be expected to be entirely free from nuclear material?
So, acknowledge these, don’t duck them, don’t miss any, there are 3 questions there.
I’d add: Where the hell has my “you a betting man, Jeffro?” post from yesterday vanished to, but you wouldn’t know about that, now would you?
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Before I spend more time with the rest of your claptrap, I expect you to acknowlege it.
If you wave off, kindly don’t accuse me of ducking any argument.
One at a time. That’s the rule.
That’s the rule? Oh, I guess we better settle the stuff from June first then:
Why did you go from crying about 2 tons of nuclear material to 50kg
How could anyone produce “a variety” of nuclear weaponry from 50kg. Science hasn’t figured it out, they’d probably be interested in your methods.
How can a country who had a nuclear reactor bombed 20 odd years ago be expected to be entirely free from nuclear material?
So, acknowledge these, don’t duck them, don’t miss any, there are 3 questions there.
I’d add: Where the hell has my “you a betting man, Jeffro?” post from yesterday vanished to, but you wouldn’t know about that, now would you?
[/quote]
pookie,
Please read carefully. I made a tactical error with you. Our posting relationship was going along well. You were throwing out factual errors, and I was correcting them one at a time. Example Roman army pay.
Then, I admit, your callous remarks about dirty bombs threw me for a loop. I strayed off target. I was so angry I didn’t continue correcting your arguments. Your M.O. is to throw handfuls of verbal faeces hoping something (anything) will stick. If left unchecked, the volume of verbal excrement that you produce, grows exponentially.
In this case, you felt empowered and justified. You were and are doing unjustified and unearned victory laps.
I’m reestablishing equilibrium.
Now, let’s meet halfway. If you agree to amend your earlier comment, then I’ll get back to the WMD issue.
Fair?
If you don’t, let’s agree that you forfeit both arguments.
Fair?
Great!!!
JeffR
From a first responder standpoint, a “dirty bomb” is different, but not that big of deal. Most big city fire departments do chemical and radiological monitoring as part of a response to an explosion. The fire/ems and police move towards the site conducting monitoring, and start removing victims immediately.
A hit on a radiological monitoring device wouldn’t stop the initial response of removing victims and searching for secondary devices. The monitoring would continue to establish a hot zone, warm zone, and cold zone. Any victims in the hot zone would be decontaminated. The first responders would be monitored and decontaminated (hopefully the firefighters and police would properly wear their masks, but that is a matter of procedure).
The dosage amounts the first responders recieve would be monitored and they would be cycled in and out of the site to keep thier dosages below the life-time maximum. Most response agencies accept a larger dose than what is usually accepted for civilians.
Monitoring would be established to ensure that if there is airborne contamination, the downwind side of the plume and anyone in it is included in the hot zone. A simple shelter-in-place protocol will protect most civilians from the plume.
The initial and subsequent decontamination, which is simply spraying the victims down to do a gross decon and then getting rid of the clothes and scrubbing them down to get a full decon, will remove the majority of the radioactive particles and the danger. Victims requiring hospitalization from the blast effects would be deconned again at the hospital, and treated.
The radiation effects from a dirty bomb are not like a nuclear weapon, you don’t get huge releases of the damaging gamma radiation except perhaps right at the site where the radiological material is located. You aren’t going to see radiation burns, blindness, or massive radiation sickness like you would from a nuke.
People freak out from any type of radiation, and that is what makes a dirty bomb effective. Seeing people getting decontaminated looks bad on the news, From a responsers view, it is easier than a chemical incident and quicly becomes a criminal investigation.
I’ve been off of the boards for a while, it is good to see things haven’t changed much.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
(See above)[/quote]
Now Jeffy, we can’t have that you know. One at a time, it’s the rule. It’s your rule in fact. Don’t you think you should abide by your own rules? Of course you do.
So, one at a time it is, right? Great. June stuff came first, so let’s get that out of the way. After 3 months of ducking away from those questions, wouldn’t you like to get rid of them? I’m sure you would. They’re right up there and in a few other threads too.
And please, spare us your melodramatic frolics about M.O.s, feces and throwing you for loops. You simply got caught doing what you’re always accusing others of doing: Arguing about stuff you know nothing about.
Throwing little tamper tantrums when you get caught with your pants down fools no one but you.
Man up Jeffry. You like making silly little rules? Follow them. You enjoy asking people to admit when they’re wrong? Do it when you’re wrong. Preach by example. Can you do that?
Sadly, I don’t think you’ve got the balls.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
From a first responder standpoint, a “dirty bomb” is different, but not that big of deal.[/quote]
Careful. That will make Jeffy so mad, you’ll throw him for a loop.
[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
(See above)
Now Jeffy, we can’t have that you know. One at a time, it’s the rule. It’s your rule in fact. Don’t you think you should abide by your own rules? Of course you do.
So, one at a time it is, right? Great. June stuff came first, so let’s get that out of the way. After 3 months of ducking away from those questions, wouldn’t you like to get rid of them? I’m sure you would. They’re right up there and in a few other threads too.
And please, spare us your melodramatic frolics about M.O.s, feces and throwing you for loops. You simply got caught doing what you’re always accusing others of doing: Arguing about stuff you know nothing about.
Throwing little tamper tantrums when you get caught with your pants down fools no one but you.
Man up Jeffry. You like making silly little rules? Follow them. You enjoy asking people to admit when they’re wrong? Do it when you’re wrong. Preach by example. Can you do that?
Sadly, I don’t think you’ve got the balls.
[/quote]
I’m doing a victory lap.
You won’t meet me halfway, therefore, you forfeit.
Rah, Rah, Rah, ME.
JeffR
[quote]BH6 wrote:
From a first responder standpoint, a “dirty bomb” is different, but not that big of deal. Most big city fire departments do chemical and radiological monitoring as part of a response to an explosion. The fire/ems and police move towards the site conducting monitoring, and start removing victims immediately.
A hit on a radiological monitoring device wouldn’t stop the initial response of removing victims and searching for secondary devices. The monitoring would continue to establish a hot zone, warm zone, and cold zone. Any victims in the hot zone would be decontaminated. The first responders would be monitored and decontaminated (hopefully the firefighters and police would properly wear their masks, but that is a matter of procedure).
The dosage amounts the first responders recieve would be monitored and they would be cycled in and out of the site to keep thier dosages below the life-time maximum. Most response agencies accept a larger dose than what is usually accepted for civilians.
Monitoring would be established to ensure that if there is airborne contamination, the downwind side of the plume and anyone in it is included in the hot zone. A simple shelter-in-place protocol will protect most civilians from the plume.
The initial and subsequent decontamination, which is simply spraying the victims down to do a gross decon and then getting rid of the clothes and scrubbing them down to get a full decon, will remove the majority of the radioactive particles and the danger. Victims requiring hospitalization from the blast effects would be deconned again at the hospital, and treated.
The radiation effects from a dirty bomb are not like a nuclear weapon, you don’t get huge releases of the damaging gamma radiation except perhaps right at the site where the radiological material is located. You aren’t going to see radiation burns, blindness, or massive radiation sickness like you would from a nuke.
People freak out from any type of radiation, and that is what makes a dirty bomb effective. Seeing people getting decontaminated looks bad on the news, From a responsers view, it is easier than a chemical incident and quicly becomes a criminal investigation.
I’ve been off of the boards for a while, it is good to see things haven’t changed much. [/quote]
DH6,
I’m surprised at at you downplaying this.
You are a first responder and you say it isn’t that much different?
I assume you mean that much different than a conventional weapon?
Please correct me if I misinterpreted your statement.
JeffR
Welcome back BH6.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m doing a victory lap.
You won’t meet me halfway, therefore, you forfeit.
Rah, Rah, Rah, ME.
JeffR[/quote]
Where did I say that I wouldn’t meet you halfway? Answer the questions and I’ll amend my statement from yesterday. First things first, and one thing at a time, right? Right.
Must be quite a speedy lap you’re doing, with no balls to create aerodynamic drag.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
I’m surprised at at you downplaying this.[/quote]
I’ll bet. Sort of kicks the snot out of your argument doesn’t it?
Anyhow, you are sort of proof concerning the part about “people freaking out about radiation”.