[20060126]RS21766_放射性扩散装置：选择后果管理中的问题.pdf

1 See, for example, John Mintz and Susan Schmidt, “Dirty Bomb Was Major New YearsWorry,” The Washington Post, January 7, 2004, p. A1.2 FEMA, Risk Management Series: Reference Manual to Mitigate Potential Terrorist AttacksAgainst Buildings, FEMA 426, December 2003, Appendix C, p. C-15.Congressional Research Service The Library of CongressCRS Report for CongressReceived through the CRS WebOrder Code RS21766Updated January 26, 2006Radiological Dispersal Devices: Select Issuesin Consequence ManagementDana A. SheaSpecialist in Science and Technology PolicyResources, Science, and Industry DivisionSummaryThe threat of terrorist detonation of a dirty bomb, one type of radiological dispersaldevice (RDD), has focused public attention on efforts to counter use of this weapon. AnRDD attack might cause casualties, economic damage, and, potentially, public panic,though experts disagree on the likely magnitude of each of these effects. The impact ofan RDD attack would depend on many variables, such as meteorological conditions,type and amount of radiological material, duration of exposure, and method of dispersal.Issues of potential congressional interest include the level of federal funding for