Scientists Say Dirty Bomb Would Be a Dud (Padilla)

[UpInArms]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=624&ncid=718&e=4&u=/ap/20040609/ap_on_sc/dirty_bomb_dud

NEW YORK - The "dirty bomb" allegedly planned by terror suspect Jose Padilla would have been a dud, not the radiological threat portrayed last week by federal authorities, scientists say.

At a June 1 news conference, the Justice Department (news - web sites) said the alleged al-Qaida associate hoped to attack Americans by detonating "uranium wrapped with explosives" in order to spread radioactivity.

But uranium's extremely low radioactivity is harmless compared with high-radiation materials — such as cesium and cobalt isotopes used in medicine and industry that experts see as potential dirty bomb fuels.

"I used a 20-pound brick of uranium as a doorstop in my office," American nuclear physicist Peter D. Zimmerman, of King's College in London, said to illustrate the point.

Zimmerman, co-author of an expert analysis of dirty bombs for the U.S. National Defense University, said last week's government announcement was "extremely disturbing — because you cannot make a radiological dispersal device with uranium. There is just no significant radiation hazard."

...more...

The Junk-Science Mal-Administration gets it wrong again.

[shoelace414]

1. In general

In General from what I know, Dirty bombs are mostly useless. most of the damage from them is the explosion.

:freak:

[UpInArms]

3. other great quotes from this article

Other specialists agreed. "It's the equivalent of blowing up lead," said physicist Ivan Oelrich of the Federation of American Scientists.

and

Padilla's lawyer, Donna Newman, said Wednesday of the dirty-bomb allegation that U.S. authorities "should have known that this was nonsense."

"When they frightened everybody, what were they trying to do, if they knew better? To show the administration is on top of things?" she asked.

She wants the government to attempt to indict and try her client. "Maybe the problem is the evidence is so weak, it's laughable," she said.

and welcome to DU shoelace414! :hi:

[Thor_MN]

21. Most of the damage is already done...

It's the fear of "radia-active partycules" all over the place. It has already worked in favor of *'s team of dullards.

[struggle4progress]

2. What morons!

[aquart]

4. Two years solitary confinement for a bad idea.

I could get behind this if, say, energy privatization was considered the same kind of bad idea. And attacking a sovereign nation without provocation. And tanking an economy to give money to the rich.

[MercutioATC]

5. Then why are we so concerned with the depleted uranium in spent rounds?

I'm no physicist, but I thought tha there was proof that depleted uranium from our armor-piercing shells was a long-term radioactive hazard. Is that not so?

[Canuckistanian]

6. It's the time exposed to it that's poisonous

If you spend your time surrounded by DU ammunition for 8 hrs./day 6 days a week, it's a problem.
If you have a DU round in your body that's not removed, it's going to cause cancer.
If you are exposed to it for a few minutes after a bomb, no big deal.

[MisterP]

8. pulverization is also a factor

if the uranium gets into the lungs, it can have a systemic effect

[Canuckistanian]

11. Yes, that's true. Americium and Cadmium are much worse,though

[truthisfreedom]

12. as i recall, americium is used in smoke detectors in minute quantities.

cadmium is used in ni-cad batteries but is not radioactive. cobalt and cesium have dangerous radioactive isotopes, and a very very bad one is radioactive iodine, which is collected and concentrated naturally in the thyroid gland (hence the existence of "radiation pills" which are concentrated potassium iodide/iodate which floods the thyroid and reduces the chance of absorbing unwanted radioactive iodine from the environment after a nuclear attack or accident.)

[NickB79]

7. DU is primarily a toxicological hazard, not a radioactive hazard

The amount of radiation emitted by DU, and unrefined uranium in general, is pretty insignificant. Just look at the quote by the professor in the article about how he had a 20-lb block of uranium in his office as a doorstop, presumably exposed daily for years without health problems. The main problem with DU munitions is that they vaporize on impact with armor, creating a cloud of airborne DU particles that can be inhaled or ingested. Once in the human body, they act like other heavy metals (ie mercury poisoning). The risk of dying or being made ill from the toxic effects of the material is much greater than being brought down by the relatively small amount of radiation emitted.

[HalfManHalfBiscuit]

9. Exactly. Basically Lead poisioning. The radioactivity is insignificant.

Although I would prefer some lead poisoning to projectile lead.

[MercutioATC]

16. So, in particulate form, uranium IS hazardous?

Wouldn't a dirty bomb create that particulate form?

I realize that it's nothing like nuclear fission, but wouldn't a dirty bomb do exactly what "terrorists" mean it to do - cause terror? There would be long-term health issues for those exposed and very costly cleanup measures would have to be taken.

I'm not arguing that it has the bang of a nuclear explosion, but I question a public official that downplays the danger of a dirty bomb by making uranium sound completely harmless.

[NickB79]

20. I'm sure there could be some health effects

But any area where a dirty bomb was detonated in would be quickly evacuated and blocked off to prevent as much future exposure as possible. Uranium, even in particulate form, usually settles out fairly rapidly. Exposure should be fairly short-term for anyone within range of the bomb, so health effects should be minimal.

What many people are concerned about regarding uranium poisoning is from depleted uranium used in Iraq. Here, there is no evacuation of people from areas contaminated with DU, nor any cleanup of affected areas. It mixes with the water, with the food, and is constantly being recycled into the air by the duststorms that frequently sweep the deserts. People are exposed for years to the uranium particulates, during which health effects could accumulate. Those conditions would be very difficult to duplicate here in the US.

But you're right that it would cause widespread panic in the area where it was detonated. It's unfortunate that many Americans would panic to escape from the explosion at the mere mention of the R-word when in reality they are in much less danger if they simply evacuate calmly.

[MercutioATC]

22. Imagine the consequences of evacuating a major population center.

...and keeping it evacuated. I'm in agreement that the death toll would be minimal, but it's irresponsible to present the effects of a dirty bomb as neglible.

[Voice_of_Europe]

27. if it gets INSIDE you...

The real danger of longtime radiation is always that you INHALE, EAT or DRINK tiny particles of radioactive material.
They stay in your body for a long time (example radioactive iodine!) and and radiate you from within possibly forever!

That's why you get fed (good) iodine in case of nuclear desaster in order to saturate your body with non radioactive iodine. Else you're prone to develope cancer in your thyroid gland where the iodine is deposited.

It's not much of a problem handling an low radiating Uranium block, then washing your hands and that's it.


Of course I wouldn't really want to fly around in a A-10 Tankkiller plane with a big box of uranium ammo exatly between your legs... ^_^.
But I'd want to live in an area where that ammo is scattered all over the place even less.


PLUS:
Many of those radioactive elements are simply toxic.
You need very very little Plutonium to die of it.
Remember that "scare" about some satelite starting with Plutonium aboard?
Had it exploded in the atmosphere...

[Xithras]

38. Yup, Inhalation = guranteed lung cancer

Personally, I disagree with the assessment that this bomb would be a "dud", because it would likely have blown uranium dust over a wide area (a few hundred feet or so), That doesn't sound like much, but imagine blowing uranium dust over a 100 foot diameter area in the middle of a crowded subway station, or at a major sporting event, or even on one of New Yorks busier street corners. How many people would inhale that dust?

Rather than killing a large number of people quickly, Padilla was willing to kill a large number of people slowly, over a number of years, as the side effects of lung cancer destroyed their bodies. Anybody who's known a lung cancer patient knows what a horrible way that is to die.

[struggle4progress]

31. I'm concerned because it's a toxic heavy metal.

[MercutioATC]

33. I meant why be concerned about that and not a dirty bomb?

Seems about the same to me. Irresponsible to call it a "dud".

[struggle4progress]

36. It would of course be possible to make a very nasty "dirty bomb."

But it seems that whatever the Bushistas now accuse Padilla of planning, it wasn't a credible "dirty bomb."

Re: depleted uranium munitions. Using thousands of shells can be expected to produce widespread contamination. I'd bet a rather large number of "bombs" (of the type Padilla allegedly planned) would be required to have the same effect.

[FlashHarry]

10. Doesn't matter.

If he was planning to build a bomb, dirty or otherwise, he's guilty. However, as an American citizen--especially one apprehended on US soil--he should be afforded his constitutional rights, which he has not.

The whole Padilla thing makes me sick. If he's accused of a crime, he should have his day in court. Due process. Right to an attorney. Etc. The fact that an American has been denied his rights is the most sickening, anti-democratic bullshit I've ever heard from this sorry excuse for an administration. I don't care if you're an accused rapist, pederast, serial killer or jaywalker; if you're an American accused of a crime, you have specific rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Just Me]

32. I believe this goes more the the exaggeration by US officials,...

,...than it does to the Padilla issue.

In other words, we have a group who are intentionally exaggerating stuff in order to manipulate the population with fear such that they can accomplish plans they know the population would disapprove.

In other words, they are manipulative, lying, treasonous, despotic, anti-democracy, anti-American butt-wipes *whew* in my humble view *grin*.

[Vitruvius]

13. The alleged design would HAVE to be a dud If the BFEE or gov't framed

Padilla as a convenient scapegoat to keep the American public good & scared. A workable design would teach real terrorists how to make a dirty bomb. As such, it would be highly classified nuclear info and impossible to release -- even as part of a frameup.

Historical parallel from the Rethug-McCarthyite hysteria of the 1950s: the "atomic bomb design" used to frame the Rosenbergs was a total joke -- bomb designs were far too secret to use in a cheesy frameup aimed at inciting public hysteria.

b/t/w, Julius Rosenberg wasn't remotely qualified to be an atomic spy -- he didn't know enough physics to know what atomic secrets looked like, let alone steal any. Similarly, Padilla -- a high-school dropout -- wasn't remotely qualified to even dream about building a dirty bomb. But -- the Rosenbergs were left-wing Jews, hence scary & suitable scapegoats in the McCarthyite '50s; Padilla has a dark skin, hence is a suitable scapegoat for the Bu$h gang today.

Finally, the Rosenbergs were framed because Hoover's FBI, Joe McCarthy, Richard Nixon and the like were too incompetent to catch any real atomic spies (the British caught Fuchs and the Canadians caught Nunn-May; Theodore Hall and others got away because the FBI was too stupid to catch them). So they grabbed two Jews, hyped them as a menace, and executed them. Similarly, today's FBI and the Bu$h gang haven't done well catching al Qaeda types -- but Padilla was handy & dark-skinned, so they arrested & hyped him...

Rethugs never change; incompetent & vicious yesterday, today, and tomorrow...

[Carolab]

14. The real reason

Was to set a precedent by which they could just round up dissidents as "enemy combatants" and lock them up without being heard for however long the "war on terror" lasts--that's the reason for the U.S. "detention camps" reported on by Alex Jones:

http://infowars.com/cc_archive.htm

[Zynx]

15. Detention Camps

are a bunch of tin-foil hat garbage. I've seen links on the "Coming American Holocaust" before. Utter illogical trash.

Re bomb:

The only way uranium is dangerous in an explosive is if you have a critical mass of it wrapped in precision high explosives with a Polonium pit...IE atomic bomb. It would actually be good if a bomb was half uranium and half TNT-would do much less damage than one that was all TNT.

[Carolab]

17. What about this?

Attorney general shows himself as a menace to liberty

LA Times 08/14/02: Jonathon Turley

Original Link: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-turley14aug14.story (removed)

Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft's announced desire for camps for U.S. citizens he deems to be "enemy combatants" has moved him from merely being a political embarrassment to being a constitutional menace.

Ashcroft's plan, disclosed last week but little publicized, would allow him to order the indefinite incarceration of U.S. citizens and summarily strip them of their constitutional rights and access to the courts by declaring them enemy combatants.

The proposed camp plan should trigger immediate congressional hearings and reconsideration of Ashcroft's fitness for this important office. Whereas Al Qaeda is a threat to the lives of our citizens, Ashcroft has become a clear and present threat to our liberties.

The camp plan was forged at an optimistic time for Ashcroft's small inner circle, which has been carefully watching two test cases to see whether this vision could become a reality. The cases of Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi will determine whether U.S. citizens can be held without charges and subject to the arbitrary and unchecked authority of the government.

[Zynx]

19. Wanting to be able to do that to people...

is several orders of magnitude different from the "Evacuation to the East" that the articles regarding camps imply. Saying that the US or UK would or could put millions of their own citizens behind barbed wire is one of the most rediculious things I've ever heard.

What's next? Decontamination showers?

[Carolab]

23. And yet there it is

in black and white.

[Invalence1]

24. Absolutely ridiculous...

just ask any of our older Japanese-American citizens. If such a construct weren't so completely ludicrous, one might be tempted to look at Phoenix AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio's "tent prison" in the AZ desert as a model for such a scheme. But of course, the notion that such a thing could happen in America is laughable. <sarcasm engine switched off>

[Zynx]

34. You have any concept of logistics?

Please explain how someone could evacuate the entire population of London to camps. Or a similar number of Americans. How would you feed them? Move them? Even maintain security? There's a major difference between a "tent prison" and accomedations to hold millions. Even the Germans never approached that as far as a number of detained population goes. The Soviets did, but over decades. And plans supposedly exist to do this to entire populations of cities in a matter of days or weeks? Not plausible.

If you want something scary, quote the existing "Nuclear War" executive orders as part of a conspiracy, there actually is some basis to be worried there. This stuff is just garbage, at least on the scale it is being hyped to. Law enforcement has always wanted to detain people without rights; they bloody hate Miranda.

Concentration camps in the middle of the US are also quite a bad idea for holding dissidents you don't like. Standard prisons and jails (and military brigs) are far superior and *much* harder to escape from. Gitmo works because it is in Cuba (nowhere to go) and essentially a maximum-security style prison anyway. The population housed there is also quite small and controllable.

None of this is true for putting tens or hundreds of thousands of people in a loosly fenced concentration camp. Especially considering the individuals in question are not in custody and most likely would not want to go. America is so laxly policed with such a small military force relative to the USSR or Nazi Germany that there is also effectively nothing the government could do to compell people to go, even if troops and police went along with it, which is not exactly a given to say the least. Not to mention that the civilian population in America is absurdly heavily armed.

There just isn't a plausible scenario for the mass deportation and concentration stuff that is being spewed regarding this idea.

As far as FEMA planning to have refugee centers, that's rather preferable to what would happen around NYC, Chicago, Detroit or any major city if survivors of an attack (which there would be millions of unless someone detonated multiple 20 megaton Soviet-era warheads) just fled in every which direction. Potential refugee plans do not equal death camps.

[Carolab]

37. Excuse me, but

HOW many Jews were shipped to concentration camps? And it seems to me that they "made room" by exterminating and/or starving them.

[Snazzy]

18. Here's the indictment

http://cryptome.org/padilla-sum.htm

According to al-Qaida (at least to my reading), THEY rejected the dirty bomb.

Padillia, again according to their own recently unsealed info (which may well be complete BS), was tasked to blow up apartment buildings via gas.

The whole dirty bomb thing is an DoJ Asscrack exaggeration, if you believe their quotes of their informers. Apparently Padillia brought up the dirty bomb idea, and even al-Qaida said it was a bad plan.

Asscrack seized on this to give his scary big-brother sermon from Red Square.

And, hey, whatever happened to the shoe-bomber? We're they pals or something? That level of terrorist sophistication (if there's anything to whole thing at all) is what we are dealing with here.

[Vitruvius]

25. Your BS detector is correct. A gas explosion in an ap't would NOT

bring down a properly constructed apartment building; it would wreck the apartment in question, blow out portions of a wall or two, perhaps damage a neighboring apartment or two.

Which is what you've seen in newspaper photos of the aftermath of gas explosions.

The people who write the building codes are not stupid -- they know that gas explosions and other accidents happen and wrote the codes accordingly.

Another dud. Which -- again -- is consistent with a frameup by a BFEE gov't that is out to scare us & steal our liberties but does not want disseminate info about how to bring down apartment buildings, build dirty bombs, etc.

b/t/w, Osama bin Laden is a trained civil engineer and knows how to bring down buildings (alas); I cannot imagine that someone with his expertise would approve a cockamamie plan like this one.

[Nile]

26. The biggest problem would be psychological.

People tend to freak out when they hear "radioactive". Whether or not there is enough radiation to cause any real harm does not matter. An easy way to panic a city.

[Snellius]

28. I remember when they put uranium in chemistry sets for kids

It was pretty cool. You put some special uranium power under a little magnifying glass and waited in a dark closet for ten minutes or so until you could see radioactive sparks shooting around under the lens. Course, those were the days when you could go to a shoe store and stick your foot in some radioactive peepbox and watch your toe bones wiggling about.

[treepig]

29. if we're going for a trip down memory lane, i remember when

they put uranium in dinner plates, false teeth, and 747's.

also, iirc, a lot less people got cancer back then (and also knew some grammar as well - in reference to my own posts, of course)

[struggle4progress]

30. kick

:kick:

[The_Casual_Observer]

35. Years from now historians will lament the hysteria caused by

9/11 created by unwise "leaders" and liken it to the Salem witch trials.

[struggle4progress]

39. kick

:kick: