Experts: Radiological Weapon Attack 'All But Certain'

[Kadie]

Experts: Radiological Weapon Attack 'All But Certain'
'Dirty Bombs' Appeal To Terrorists Since They're Tough To Track

POSTED: 6:42 pm EDT June 18, 2004

Terrorists are "all but certain" to set off a radiological weapon in the United States, since it will take authorities too many years to track and secure the radioactive materials of such "dirty bombs," a team of nuclear researchers has concluded.

The U.S. and other key governments took an important step on controls this month, agreeing at the G8 summit to tighten -- by the end of 2005 -- restraints on international trade in highly radioactive materials.

But thousands, possibly tens of thousands, of high-risk radioactive sources are already in use worldwide, with few accurate registries for tracing them, the scientists say. They cite Iraq, where an undetermined number of such sources have gone missing in the postwar chaos.

The findings are being published in a 300-page book, "The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism," the result of a two-year study by the authoritative Center for Nonproliferation Studies, or CNS, of California's Monterey Institute of International Studies.

more... http://www.thekcrachannel.com/news/3435813/detail.html

[Mnemosyne]

1. and several pounds of plutonium comes up missing in US

each year.

Should make it easy.

[disinfo_guy]

2. Bush's disinterest in nuclear material security is truly terrifying

the fact that oil fields in Iraq were heavily secured, while nuclear and hazardous material sites were allowed to be looted is beyond excuse.

[jeff5]

3. This Threat is Overblown

The devil is indeed "in the details".

Just like chemical weapons, the problem is getting your nasty-stuff dispersed. A 55-gallon drum of ANYTHING, rigged with explosives, will spread material over only a limited area, whether it's liquid, solid or gas. For efficient coverage of any substantial part of a city would require a large number of devices spaced out contaminating overlapping areas. With a chemical agent there is a "downwind vapor hazard area" but, once identified, it's easily avoided until the source is decontaminated.

Other than a nuclear detonation there is only one use of radiological material that promises to affect a large area, and that's the creation of a "pile". If bad guys get enough fissionable material to create a "critical mass" an uncontrolled reaction can be started anywhere that material is brought together. Assembled somewhere like an observation deck of a skyscraper it will burn through every floor, irradiating the entire building on the way, then burn through the foundation to the water table, causing a steam explosion and potentially a sort of radioactive volcano that would spew nastiness until it shed enough mass to drop below criticality.

Then you just have a world-class mess to figure out how to clean up...

[Warpy]

8. it isn't the dispersal or the immediate radiation

A few people right at the scene of the detonation may inhale significant amounts of radioactive dust, but very few. The problem is that the part of a city the bomb goes off in will be contaminated. Being in the area once won't do much harm, but being in the area on a daily basis to work or shop will. Radiation dosage is cumulative.

It will be very difficult and costly to clean up, and that is the real effect of a "dirty bomb."

[jeff5]

11. Like everything, it depends.

In your example it depends on the particle size of the radioactive material. Finely-powdered material is more likely to be inhaled by those close to the event, but the particles won't tend to travel far. Larger particles will be carried further by the blast, but aren't as likely to suspend in the air long enough to be inhaled, and would be easier to decontaminate.

Decontamination would be an expensive, disruptive process, but the use of such a weapon will take away it's greatest effect, fear.

[oneighty]

9. fissionable mass

will 'blow' itself apart before that happens I believe.

No?

180

[jeff5]

12. Never Having Assembled a "Pile"

in such a manner I dunno, but I don't know what mechanism would "blow" it apart. The reaction, once started, would produce intense radiation and heat, but IMO the best hope of stopping the reaction, once started, is if the mass sheds sufficient material on passage through successive floors to drop below criticality, avoiding the steam explosion but leaving you with a hideously radioactive mass still emitting.

It's worth noting that I am not a physicist, just an old NBC Operations NCO.

[oneighty]

14. Google

Fissionable mass. The fission once started must be contained or the mass will 'blow' itself apart. Many out there would have us believing all manner of terrible things. Nuclear devices cannot be made simple.

180

[jeff5]

19. Read Carefully

You are confusing criticality with super-criticality. To achieve a nuclear detonation the mass must be "contained" to hold it together just long enough to get MORE than one neutron from each fission, with the resulting exponential release of energy.

What I am talking about is what happens if your nuke "fizzles", or if you lose coolant to the pile in a power plant. There's no mechanism I know of that will "blow" a critical mass apart, until the steam explosion when it hits the water table.

[mulethree]

15. sounds like a melt down scenario at a reactor

I wonder if any of these elements burn? If they would spread via smoke it would seem to cover more downwind area than, say putting a drum of explosives under a drum of source material and blowing it.

[jeff5]

18. A Runaway Pile in a City

Would be orders of magnitude worse than any conceivable "dirty bomb". It's the exact same process as an out-of-control reaction in a power plant, with no containment. If ten people each carry 1/8th of a critical mass and meet up, there is no assembly required.

As for burning, everything around the reaction will burn, and the combustion product will be contaminated.

[tlcandie]

4. Yup will be in NY during the GOP, but the GOP won't show up and

all that will be affected are the NYers and TONS of dems protesting the GOP convention! :cry:

/sarcasm off

[found object]

5. NRC's Fact Sheet on Dirty Bombs

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

[jus_the_facts]

6. Didn't * just try to declare *Newkular* waste NON hazardous.....

.....f'n BASTARDS! :nuke:

[Citizen Daryl]

13. No, I think he declared it a vegetable.

[daleo]

7. All but certain

As long as the chimp's poll numbers stay low.

[DulceDecorum]

10. 77 temporary radiocative waste storage locations in 31 states

Who the heck needs outsiders when we have so much home-grown talent?

The current design for the potential repository calls for spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste to travel to Yucca Mountain by truck or rail in specially designed, shielded shipping containers.
Once these materials arrive at the repository, they would be removed from the shipping containers and placed in double-layered, corrosion-resistant packages for burying underground. Special rail cars would carry them underground, and remotely controlled equipment would place them on supports in an underground tunnel.
http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0026.shtml

Can you say "train-wreck?"

A Nevada congressman wants the Energy Department to detail how nuclear waste shipments to a planned national nuclear waste dump would be protected from sabotage or terrorist attack.
The DOE says it'll respond to Republican Jim Gibbons -- who's chairman of the House homeland security subcommittee on intelligence and counterterrorism. But the agency says it's been moving nuclear waste for years without any problems.
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=1821835
http://www.kvbc.com/Global/story.asp?S=749525

I don't know why that Nevada Congressman is so worried,
it's not like the Pentagon has ever been bombed
or the White House and Congress evacuated or anything.
And anyhow,
Saddam has been caught
and Osama has bin Forgotten
and it is not patriotic to question the DOE or Cheney.

Currently, civilian, Navy and research reactor waste destined for Yucca Mountain is being stored at 77 temporary locations in 31 states.
http://popularmechanics.com/science/technology_watch/2004/3/mountain/i...

The DOE plans to truck the radioactive waste to Yucca mountain.
From the 77 locations
in the 31 states
where it is presently lying in state.
So, how about them white moving vans?

"It's not just some local farmers who will be exposed to this radiation," says Frishman. "There are about 2500 acres of alfalfa planted in the basin. It is used as feed for cows that produce 32,000 gal. of milk every day. And, it's all shipped to Los Angeles." Suddenly, a deep hole in the middle of nowhere seems a lot closer to home.
http://popularmechanics.com/science/research/1999/1/yucca_mountain/ind...

Oh shucks, no wonder the cows are mad
at those radical Islamacists
who are plotting insurrection
from their hangout
in Abu Graib.
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/fruit/fruit_12.html

[DS1]

16. Don't forget, it was BUSH that CUT funding for this very program!

It was BUSH that cut the program that helped Russia secure its nuclear arsenal.

Any nuke-bomb attack has his fingerprints all over it.

[wroberts189]

17. They cite Iraq

Where the bush people secured the oil wells while letting the nuclear
reactors get looted.

It is so amazing to me that whole main reason we went over there: to get rid of WMD ... that once we get there we don't give a damn about the most dangerous WMD that exists.

Where is all that crap now? Iran? Syria? ... the US??????

[MasonJar]

20. Does that include the radioactive material that the Bushies were

trying to sneak into Iraq. No small wonder that they keep saying weapons will be found.

[Lori Price CLG]

21. Bush is poised to attack us (again?)...

Will Bush play the bioterror card? (January 22, 2004) --by Lori R. Price

http://www.legitgov.org/essay_price_will_bush_play_the_bioterror_card_012204.html