http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/dirty-bombs.html

A “dirty bomb” is one type of a “radiological dispersal device” (RDD) that combines a conventional explosive, such as dynamite, with radioactive material. The terms dirty bomb and RDD are often used interchangeably in the media. Most RDDs would not release enough radiation to kill people or cause severe illness - the conventional explosive itself would be more harmful to individuals than the radioactive material. However, depending on the scenario, an RDD explosion could create fear and panic, contaminate property, and require potentially costly cleanup. Making prompt, accurate information available to the public could prevent the panic sought by terrorists.

A dirty bomb is in no way similar to a nuclear weapon or nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb creates an explosion that is millions of times more powerful than that of a dirty bomb. The cloud of radiation from a nuclear bomb could spread tens to hundreds of square miles, whereas a dirty bomb’s radiation could be dispersed within a few blocks or miles of the explosion. A dirty bomb is not a “Weapon of Mass Destruction” but a “Weapon of Mass Disruption,” where contamination and anxiety are the terrorists’ major objectives.

The comment on making the West Coast "share the pain" is on the spot; I'm sure there are several considerations that go into these.

Even with the example of the WTC in mind, I believe minimizing (or at least focussing) the property damage and body count is usually a consideration. After all, these are capitalists in charge, right?
As for the WTC, there was a story circulating last year that the Towers had structural problems that were noticed practically from the beginning, and were considered a horrific property insurance liability, that would have cost more to dismantle than to build. That may have played into the consideration to take them out "by other means"; to make their inevitable coming down serve a "greater purpose."
One of last year's predicted attacks included a ship in the Houston Ship Channel close to the BP Refinery in Texas City, which might have excused higher gas prices, plus it could have taken place in a somewhat controlled space that way.

Any further events will have their property damage serve some kind of strategic purpose, getting something out of the way that someone wanted removed anyway.

So who owns the insurance policies on port facilities, anyway? Seriously, I don't know how those things are handled. Now is the time for someone who knows, to speak up are share the info. What should we look for financially in the insurance field?

We've had the "China scare" with bad-quality Chinese imports -- maybe that's getting folks ready to not care if Chinese imports are restricted. The North American Union highway along the Trans-Texas Corridor is supposed to have its southern terminus on a Pacific port in southern Mexico. Wouldn't it be far-sighted of these folks to have expanded our West-Coast import options, if we had a Mexican port straight into Texas that didn't involve California?

The Dems, since 9-11, have made a big deal out of the lack of port freight security. I chalked it up to twisting the GWOTerror angle to their own advantage, since it's such a sly way to raise the cost of imports, which should play to domestic manufacturing and unions. But maybe it's time for this angle to go "live," from their angle. The potential complicity of the Dems should be considered here, too: think of our new regime as a bipartisan version of the Mexican PRI state: the incoming Mexican president always was allowed to blame everything on the outgoing president, but didn't prosecute him for anything. If a new attack on the Dems' ideological turf were to happen on the end of CheneyBush's watch, either wing could be set to win: if all heck breaks lose politically, CheneyBush declare a state of emergency and elections are suspended indefinitely. If things don't go to pot politically, Clinton44 gets to castigate CB43 for not following up on the obvious security breach, and is elected in a landslide to further ramp up the security on new fronts.

As an added benefit, if the Dems can make the "no impeachment, no new investigations" stick, that could give added reason for them to "let" the Repugs do all the "bad cop" moves on their watch, while the Dems (Clinton) get to do the "clean-up woman" routine. Sound familiar? Like Bush 41's economic hits, with Clinton 42 cleaning up the economy afterwards?

Keep in mind this about the financial environment: if China or the other Asian tigers were to dump their dollars, the West Coast ports might not have much business anyway. This may be timed to coincide with the collapse of the US dollar this fall, to mask its decline as due to another, more dramatic reason. (Similiar observations were made about Sep 11 as well).

The long-term planning document the CIA updates with academic input every five years (last done in 2005) "predicted" that we would probably be less engaged in the Indo-Pacific regions, and would be better off concentrating on the Latin American and African, "Atlantic" sphere. If maintaining influence over the Persian Gulf, countering Chinese expansion becomes more of a problem than it's worth, you might expect to see a refocussing on resources from the Atlantic basin: African oil (including Chad & Darfur via pipelines across Chad & Cameroon, to our new naval bases at/near Sao Tome), and ethanol from Brazil. California ports, which have been important as launch-points for US power in the Pacific Basin, would become less important over time. Might as well let 'em have their "Katrina moment" to change how people think about them.
There are other issues that could make LA less attractive as a US imperial base: lack of water, decliing oil supplies, Mexican immigrant unrest (which might be ramped up/invested in); they may see a "need" to prep the region to become the next "rust belt." What better excuse to dis-invest in the area, than to declare it to be, literally, "radio-active"?

Depending on the spread of actual radio-activity (which might be salted to clear specific neighborhoods -- who's gonna watch the hazmat Geiger-monitoring teams? ), it should be interesting to see which areas of SFBay and LA are declared unusable or even uninhabitable -- either short-term or long-term.
Do a Yahoo/Google map search of both areas now, look for other maps on-line ("image-search" for "map" "Los Angeles", you get the picture) to download industrial neighborhood distribution, property values, ethnic distribution, party votes by precinct or county -- too bad all those Dem refugees from the biggest state in the union will be too dispersed to vote in Jan primary, eh? -- think about in whose interest it would be to either temporarily or permanently see millions of blacks and Hispanics near port facilities moved "for their own safety", then see those neighborhoods slowly, liesurely rebuilt under contract, after they've been "sanitized" of their radio-activity.

Blacks could be resettled into refugee/FEMA camps, Hispanics could be returned to Mexico ("they're all illegal", especially when you're sure they're "guilty till proven innocent"... and end up having to prove their innocence either from Mexico, or behind camp-fences).

Aren't both areas pretty large centers for Iranian and Arabic/Muslim populations? You know, you're not persecuting them if you're moving them "for their own safety", right?

To wrap things up for now, keep one thing in mind about capitalism: unless you have lots of new resources to sell, destructive wars don't make much sense. In a world where Peak Oil looms, the "Neutron Bomb" style of warfare looks far more tempting -- get rid of the people, keep the valuable (and recyclable) property. Why shouldn't every major power see the wisdom of having wars that emphasive weapons that kill without blowing things up: biowar, chemwars, radio-activity without the big boom? And in a world with declining resources, why waste resources fighting real wars against foreign elites, when your real concern in dealing with the millions of "surplus" folks at home? Don't be surprised if Russia, China, etc find themselves fighting against similiar shadowy fiends, especially when they use property-conserving weapons to attacks neighborhoods of populations local elites consider more "diverse" than useful. The perfect victims to shed crocodile tears over.

Feel free to share this post, and improve upon.

U.S. Intel Chief: Tall Buildings and Mass Casualties Top AQ's Hit List

July 20, 2007 1:56 PM
Krista Kjellman Reports:

Chicago's Sears Tower and other iconic buildings in Seattle, Dallas and Los Angeles still top al Qaeda's target list in the U.S., according to the top U.S. intelligence official.

"Their intentions are mass casualties larger than 9/11 inside the United States," Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell said in an interview with the D.C. radio station WTOP. "A very large building. The Sears Tower, or some large building in Seattle or L.A. or Dallas."

McConnell also confirmed publicly what senior officials had told ABC News privately.

"In some cases they've got people positioned, more in Europe -- we suspect here in the United States, but we have no clear and compelling evidence they're in the United States," McConnell told WTOP.

ABCNews.com reported last week that senior law enforcement and intelligence officials had "multiple and credible" reports that an al Qaeda terror cell may be on its way to the United States or could already be in the country.

The Library Tower in Los Angeles has always been on al Qaeda's hit list.

In February 2006, ABC News reported that al Qaeda's original plan for 9/11 was to use a fifth jet to bring down the 73-story tower on the West Coast.

And as previously reported on the Blotter on ABCNews.com, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a written statement, admitted he was responsible for planning and financing a "second wave" of attacks targeting the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank in Washington state and the Empire State Building in New York.

Echoing the National Intelligence Estimate released earlier this week, McConnell said the safe haven al Qaeda enjoys in Pakistan has re-energized the terror group to pre-9/11 levels and said the group has stepped up its planning and training efforts for future attacks.

McConnell joins other officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, in voicing his concern of al Qaeda's threat against the U.S.

"We do worry about whether they are rebuilding their capabilities," Chertoff told the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune last week. "We strike at them; we degrade them; but they rebuild."