http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060104/ap_on_he_me/dirty_bomb Not that this is an extremely probable scenario or anything - but are these journalists correct in getting excited over this? They're contending that the DHS response plan to a radiological incident is ridiculously lax in exposure limits, specifically for long-term exposure to the general public. I haven't been able to find the actual DHS guidelines (can anyone help?), so I'm not sure what to think of this - is this a total effecive dose (TEDE) or something else? I looked up the NRC's annual exposure limit, which is half of this (5 rem/yr TEDE), but I'm not a physician and I don't know how these things scale (not linearly I assume). So is this another case of Katrina-like poor planning, or a case of overenthusiastic but confused journalism, or a bit of both? Maybe the wise Astronuc will clarify things? edit: Also, any links to the methodology of radiation exposure limits?