The thing with dirty bombs is that they are more a weapon of fear than actual destruction. The conventional blast is the most dangerous thing about it. After that, the effectiveness is based on the fact that it will be costly and lengthy to clean up and will scare people a lot more than it should.
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...rty-bombs.html
Quote:
Basically, the principal type of dirty bomb, or Radiological Dispersal Device (RDD), combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. In most instances, the conventional explosive itself would have more immediate lethality than the radioactive material. At the levels created by most probable sources, not enough radiation would be present in a dirty bomb to kill people or cause severe illness. For example, most radioactive material employed in hospitals for diagnosis or treatment of cancer is sufficiently benign that about 100,000 patients a day are released with this material in their bodies.
However, certain other radioactive materials, dispersed in the air, could contaminate up to several city blocks, creating fear and possibly panic and requiring potentially costly cleanup. Prompt, accurate, non-emotional public information might prevent the panic sought by terrorists.
A second type of RDD might involve a powerful radioactive source hidden in a public place, such as a trash receptacle in a busy train or subway station, where people passing close to the source might get a significant dose of radiation.
|
At best they can cause long term illness or death to people close to it. Once it's released, people only need to stay away. There is no risk of people passing it on to others, like in a bio attack.
For similar reasons, I think we are way too paranoid about chemical and bio attacks.