June 22, 2005
U.S. Borders Vulnerable, Witnesses Say
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, June 21 - The federal government's efforts to prevent
terrorists from smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States are
so poorly managed and reliant on ineffective equipment that the nation
remains extremely vulnerable to a catastrophic attack, scientists and
a government auditor warned a House committee on Tuesday.
The assessment, coming nearly four years after the September 2001
attacks and after the investment of about $800 million by the United
States government, prompted expressions of frustration and
disappointment from lawmakers.
"If we go ahead and spend the money and don't succeed, I don't
understand that," said Representative Steve Pearce, Republican of New
Mexico.
Four federal departments - Homeland Security, Defense, Energy and
State - are involved in a global campaign to try to prevent the
illicit acquisition, movement and use of radioactive materials, which
includes efforts to prevent theft of nuclear materials from former
Soviet stockpiles and inspecting cargo containers on arrival from
around the world.
Dirty bombs, crude devices that widely spread low levels of radiation,
are relatively easy to detect. But highly enriched uranium, a crucial
ingredient in a nuclear bomb, could easily be shielded with less than
a quarter-inch of lead, making it "very likely to escape detection by
passive radiation monitors" now installed at ports and border
stations, Benn Tannenbaum, a physicist and senior program associate at
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, testified at
Tuesday's hearing.
The monitors are unable to distinguish between naturally occurring
radiation from everyday items like ceramic tile and dangerous material
like enriched uranium.
"It has been, let me say, a bad few years," Dr. Tannenbaum said.
Customs officials also at times allow trucks to pass through the
monitors too quickly, said Gene Aloise, an official from the
Government Accountability Office. And because the devices sound so
many false alarms, Mr. Aloise said, their sensitivity has been turned
down, making them less effective still.
Nationally, less than a quarter of the radiation detection devices
needed to check all goods crossing the borders have been installed,
federal officials said. In New York, for example, none of the cargo
that moves through the largest ship terminal or goods leaving the port
by rail or barge are inspected for radiation, Bethann Rooney, manager
of security for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey,
testified.
The problems extend beyond the borders, witnesses said. About half of
the monitors given to one former Soviet state were never installed or
put into use. A monitor that the State Department gave to Bulgaria was
set up on an unused road. And sea spray and winds at some ports
overseas may have compromised the detection equipment, Mr. Aloise
said.
Richard L. Wagner Jr., a physicist at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and chairman of the Defense Department task force on
preventing a clandestine nuclear attack, agreed that the radiation
detection systems installed across the United States were "quite
limited in their capabilities and, in general, are insufficient to the
task." But the situation, Dr. Wagner said, is not surprising given the
rapid start up of the effort.
"There will be false starts and there will be money wasted," he said.
Representative Jim Langevin, Democrat of Rhode Island, asked how
Homeland Security should apportion $125 million in the coming fiscal
year between buying more of the same radiation monitor technology and
supporting research into better technology. Two witnesses called for
putting the detection equipment on ships, so threats could be
identified before reaching the United States.
Members of Congress have also recently questioned a proposal by the
Bush administration to spend $227 million in the coming year to create
a Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, skeptical that it will do more
than add a new layer of bureaucracy.
"I am not too hopeful about this situation," Representative Bill
Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said.
.
|
|
| User: "Woodswun" |
|
| Title: Re: U.S. Borders Vulnerable, Witnesses Say |
22 Jun 2005 04:31:12 PM |
|
|
wrote:
June 22, 2005
U.S. Borders Vulnerable, Witnesses Say
By ERIC LIPTON
WASHINGTON, June 21 - The federal government's efforts to prevent
terrorists from smuggling a nuclear weapon into the United States are
so poorly managed and reliant on ineffective equipment that the nation
remains extremely vulnerable to a catastrophic attack, scientists and
a government auditor warned a House committee on Tuesday.
The assessment, coming nearly four years after the September 2001
attacks and after the investment of about $800 million by the United
States government, prompted expressions of frustration and
disappointment from lawmakers.
"If we go ahead and spend the money and don't succeed, I don't
understand that," said Representative Steve Pearce, Republican of New
Mexico.
Four federal departments - Homeland Security, Defense, Energy and
State - are involved in a global campaign to try to prevent the
illicit acquisition, movement and use of radioactive materials, which
includes efforts to prevent theft of nuclear materials from former
Soviet stockpiles and inspecting cargo containers on arrival from
around the world.
Dirty bombs, crude devices that widely spread low levels of radiation,
are relatively easy to detect. But highly enriched uranium, a crucial
ingredient in a nuclear bomb, could easily be shielded with less than
a quarter-inch of lead, making it "very likely to escape detection by
passive radiation monitors" now installed at ports and border
stations, Benn Tannenbaum, a physicist and senior program associate at
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, testified at
Tuesday's hearing.
The monitors are unable to distinguish between naturally occurring
radiation from everyday items like ceramic tile and dangerous material
like enriched uranium.
"It has been, let me say, a bad few years," Dr. Tannenbaum said.
Customs officials also at times allow trucks to pass through the
monitors too quickly, said Gene Aloise, an official from the
Government Accountability Office. And because the devices sound so
many false alarms, Mr. Aloise said, their sensitivity has been turned
down, making them less effective still.
They seem to be missing something. This all assumes that people
carrying nuclear materials are going to follow the rules about going
through border checkpoints so they can be inspected. I'm not sure it's
a good idea to assume they'll use manned border crossings to get into
the US.
Woods
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
