Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Sunday
How Close Are Terrorists To Creating A Dirty Bomb?
Aired November 16, 2003 - 18:42 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: So what's the chance of terrorists actually creating a dirty bomb; very significant according to federal investigators. Congress released some new studies this week and found that more than 1,300 cases of radioactive material were lost, stolen or abandoned just in the last five years.
Harvard University's Jim Walsh researches and writes about nuclear terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and the Middle East. Thank you very much for being here, Jim.
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Good to see you, Carol.
LIN: Were you surprised by these reports?
WALSH: No, I'm not surprised by the reports. We've known for a long time that there are literally millions of radioactive sources here in the U.S. and more globally and the problem of securing them is a rather recent one.
We really haven't focused on that. The system wasn't designed to protect these radiological sources but it is something that the government is increasingly focusing on.
I think this is one of those rare cases where the critics are right and the people being criticized are right but I think they're both focusing on the wrong problem.
LIN: Well, what is the thing that they should be focusing on then?
WALSH: Well, rather than focusing on the security of the material itself, I think we really need to be focusing on the issue of how would we respond. Why do I say that?
The government is and the Department of Energy, in particular, is working hard to secure the most deadly materials that might be used in a radiological attack but the real deal here, the bottom line is that a dirty bomb will not kill many people from radiation.
Most of the deaths would occur from a conventional weapon and the real issue is psychological and social consequences and for that it doesn't matter whether the radioactive source is strong or weak or good or bad. You'll still get those psychological and social consequences and that's where we ought to be focusing.
LIN: All right. So, I mean frankly do you think that most of the 1,300 units that we were reporting on that were either abandoned or lost most of it has been found but there's still material out there that is unaccounted for, do you think that material has ended up in hands of terrorists and do you think enough material has ended up in the hands of terrorists that we are likely to see a dirty bomb event sometime soon here in the United States?
WALSH: Well, that's a good question, Carol, and I think the bottom line answer is this is that there's enough radioactive material in the United States and worldwide that a dedicated terrorist can acquire it and fashion a dirty bomb and can explode it.
Now, again, it may not be with the most deadly of the radioactive materials. It may be sort of junk material but they can do it and so and we're not going to have all that material secure for years and years.
LIN: Right.
WALSH: So it is possible and so we ought to be preparing for that because I think it's more likely than unlikely.
LIN: So, given that possible what you're saying is a likely scenario if more is not done, if that is a likely scenario and that were to happen tomorrow what is the likely response to be right now by the government?
WALSH: Well, clearly the Department of Homeland Security would be the lead agency. The FBI would be involved as well but what's missing in all this is there's going to be a fight within the government.
The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is going to say well this much radiation is safe and the Department of Energy is going to say no, this much radiation is safe and the states are going to say one thing and the international community is going to say another.
And when you have this bickering over something as emotional a topic as radiation and then you have other sort of agencies or industries or non-profit groups involved, pretty soon the public is going to be - they're not going to know who to believe and they're going to be more panicked than they ought to be.
LIN: Well, Jim Walsh you have painted a very scary scenario. Let us hope that it never comes to that, Jim Walsh, Harvard University.
WALSH: Thank you, Carol.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired November 16, 2003 - 18:42 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CAROL LIN, CNN ANCHOR: So what's the chance of terrorists actually creating a dirty bomb; very significant according to federal investigators. Congress released some new studies this week and found that more than 1,300 cases of radioactive material were lost, stolen or abandoned just in the last five years.
Harvard University's Jim Walsh researches and writes about nuclear terrorism, weapons of mass destruction and the Middle East. Thank you very much for being here, Jim.
JIM WALSH, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Good to see you, Carol.
LIN: Were you surprised by these reports?
WALSH: No, I'm not surprised by the reports. We've known for a long time that there are literally millions of radioactive sources here in the U.S. and more globally and the problem of securing them is a rather recent one.
We really haven't focused on that. The system wasn't designed to protect these radiological sources but it is something that the government is increasingly focusing on.
I think this is one of those rare cases where the critics are right and the people being criticized are right but I think they're both focusing on the wrong problem.
LIN: Well, what is the thing that they should be focusing on then?
WALSH: Well, rather than focusing on the security of the material itself, I think we really need to be focusing on the issue of how would we respond. Why do I say that?
The government is and the Department of Energy, in particular, is working hard to secure the most deadly materials that might be used in a radiological attack but the real deal here, the bottom line is that a dirty bomb will not kill many people from radiation.
Most of the deaths would occur from a conventional weapon and the real issue is psychological and social consequences and for that it doesn't matter whether the radioactive source is strong or weak or good or bad. You'll still get those psychological and social consequences and that's where we ought to be focusing.
LIN: All right. So, I mean frankly do you think that most of the 1,300 units that we were reporting on that were either abandoned or lost most of it has been found but there's still material out there that is unaccounted for, do you think that material has ended up in hands of terrorists and do you think enough material has ended up in the hands of terrorists that we are likely to see a dirty bomb event sometime soon here in the United States?
WALSH: Well, that's a good question, Carol, and I think the bottom line answer is this is that there's enough radioactive material in the United States and worldwide that a dedicated terrorist can acquire it and fashion a dirty bomb and can explode it.
Now, again, it may not be with the most deadly of the radioactive materials. It may be sort of junk material but they can do it and so and we're not going to have all that material secure for years and years.
LIN: Right.
WALSH: So it is possible and so we ought to be preparing for that because I think it's more likely than unlikely.
LIN: So, given that possible what you're saying is a likely scenario if more is not done, if that is a likely scenario and that were to happen tomorrow what is the likely response to be right now by the government?
WALSH: Well, clearly the Department of Homeland Security would be the lead agency. The FBI would be involved as well but what's missing in all this is there's going to be a fight within the government.
The EPA, the Environmental Protection Agency, is going to say well this much radiation is safe and the Department of Energy is going to say no, this much radiation is safe and the states are going to say one thing and the international community is going to say another.
And when you have this bickering over something as emotional a topic as radiation and then you have other sort of agencies or industries or non-profit groups involved, pretty soon the public is going to be - they're not going to know who to believe and they're going to be more panicked than they ought to be.
LIN: Well, Jim Walsh you have painted a very scary scenario. Let us hope that it never comes to that, Jim Walsh, Harvard University.
WALSH: Thank you, Carol.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
