Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Shielding on nukes
Message-ID: <8482@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Jul 89 04:09:47 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 21
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: nak@cbnews.ATT.COM (Neil A. Kirby)
>ARF says: 
> 
>I often get burned when I confront experts but that is a  
>rather outrageous statement if taken at face value. 
> 
>If a warhead is not shielded, wouldn't it represent a  
>hazzard for personnel envolved in their handling, storage  
>training etc? 

	It's a question of how sensitive the instrument is compared to how
    much radioactive output is dangerous.  For some perspective on the
    matter: when eqipped with the right instruments, you can locate
    Fermilab (near Chicago) without knowing quite where it is.  Fermilab is
    not a dangerous place to work but sensitive instruments can find it.
    The same analogy works for nuke warheads.  

    Neil Kirby
    ...cbsck!nak