Re: Have you read the story?
Yes.
It's vague about what instruments were being used for "monitoring"; BBC says "air monitoring". That would be looking for particulates that are radioactive; dust from sloppy handling? I suppose. Nothing in the article mentions (say) a scintillation counter (a photomultiplier amplifying light from a sensitive crystal). This for detecting leakage of primary radiation, from a not well-enough shielded repository - which I'd think would be used too.
So I don't get Matthew's ref to 'fluoroscope' .. as that would be a means for making X-rays visible, usually via your own X-ray source - - after passing through er, meat. It's hardly a 'particle, wavicle detector' of any low-level sensitivity. (Surely they aren't wandering about with some silly ZnS screen - in 2005, with all that free money for terrierism.)
I read no implication that any radiation has been found, so the debate remains about the ethics of even looking for radiation near mosques. Believe I've given my views on that.
(Including: if they are looking only around mosques - then they have their heads up arses, and -- I Would call that: some sort of -ism, but mostly, stupid-ism.)
Not that stupidism would be surprising in this matter; why spoil a perfect record in all areas to date by, aberrantly - doing this one right?
